Remove 'in god we trust'

[Richard81]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

[East of Eden]

No doubt the slaveowners said the same of the Dred Scott decision.

The FACT is, that we have moved on from our earlier errors, we have learned, become more sane, and have let go of many of our superstitions. Slavery proponents used the bible to support their position.

The ending of the slave trade and the abolition movement was largely instigated by Christians motivated by their faith such as Wm. Wilberforce, not secular humanists. Do you know of an anti-slavery movement outside of the Christian West?

That is no longer the case and It no longer is part of our laws.

According to your reasoning, it was once law and not to be trifled with.

[PhiloKGB]

Your religious beliefs require that students in majority-Christian districts be forced to recite Christian prayers?

Never said that, I said non-sectarian prayer.

Your religious beliefs require students to recite non-sectarian prayers? The heck?

By the by, you mentioned Bible reading, too. So, there's that.

A better example would be if a majority-Muslim district wanted to observe Ramadan or whatever the Muslim equivalent of Christmas carols would be, I have no objection.

It's really odd that you wouldn't object to non-Muslims being forced to do Muslim things. That seems like a no-brainer. It really does nothing to deflect my accusation that you're just camouflaging your privilege.

Heck, there have been liberal school districts who have forced kids to engage in such Muslim practices, all in the name of diversity.

May I see a citation that students have been forced to do such things?

That's funny, my privileges are the result of being a child of God, with a glorious eternity in store. As the song goes, the futures so bright I gotta wear shades.

You know that song's about nuclear war, right? It's an easy mistake to make considering it was in every other 80s teen comedy.

That status has nothing to do with any judge, and would be intact if I were in a jail cell at the hands of a crazed atheist government such as Cuba or China. As it says in Ps. 37, "The Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming." Today's God-haters frighten me about as much.

It makes debating a real chore when your opponent is so uncharitable that xe can't seem to acknowledge a hypothetical atheistic government that's not associated with totalitarian regimes. Have you seen Scandinavia lately? Switzerland?

[micatala]

East of Eden wrote:

You are consistent, as I have long held, there is no basis for a moral judgement if you are an atheist. Makes me wonder by what standard you declare school prayer, or anything else, to be 'wrong'?

You sound a little irrational and even offensive here. Are you saying that religion is the only basis for morality? That is a little frightening, considering the murderous and bloodthirsty history of both Christianity and Islam. The 9-11 terrorist attack was most certainly based on religious morality. Or are you saying that only your own little bit of religion is the only moral and right one, and all others are wrong?

Hmmm. Why don't you lie down and relax for awhile?

Moderator Comment

There is really no reason to make these types of recommendations to another forum member.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[East of Eden]

Your religious beliefs require that students in majority-Christian districts be forced to recite Christian prayers?

Never said that, I said non-sectarian prayer.

Your religious beliefs require students to recite non-sectarian prayers? The heck?

My beliefs and what people in a given district want are two different things.

By the by, you mentioned Bible reading, too. So, there's that.

Yes, did you see my previous post about the Bible being important in early American education. When Jefferson was superintendent of DC schools the Bible was a textbook. I thought kids were supposed to be exposed to books in school? At least parts of it are believed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I wouldn't make it mandatory for all districts, but I wouldn't stop those that wanted to do it.

It's really odd that you wouldn't object to non-Muslims being forced to do Muslim things.

If they really object to it they can be excused. Most would probably daydream about something else if they object, like I did during evolutionary propaganda.

That seems like a no-brainer. It really does nothing to deflect my accusation that you're just camouflaging your privilege.

What privilege? I don't go to school.

May I see a citation that students have been forced to do such things?

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1937

It makes debating a real chore when your opponent is so uncharitable that xe can't seem to acknowledge a hypothetical atheistic government that's not associated with totalitarian regimes. Have you seen Scandinavia lately?

Yes, Denmark and Norway have state churches, something catastrophic in your book, isn't it? The suffering the atheists must endure there. /Sarcasm off

Switzerland?

All Swiss cantons give official recognition to both the Roman Catholic Church and the Swiss Reformed Church, except Geneva and Neuchâtel.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

JohnPaul wrote:
Hmmm. Why don't you lie down and relax for awhile?

East of Eden wrote:
Gratuitous insult noted. That's your idea of debate?

It was only a mild insult, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you would recover after a short rest. Hardly in the same class as your insult to atheists by claiming they have no moral standards and thereby implying they are immoral.

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

JohnPaul wrote:
Hmmm. Why don't you lie down and relax for awhile?

East of Eden wrote:
Gratuitous insult noted. That's your idea of debate?

It was only a mild insult, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you would recover after a short rest. Hardly in the same class as your insult to atheists by claiming they have no moral standards and thereby implying they are immoral.

Completely wrong, obviously you didn't even read my link on the last page:

"Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, "The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?"4

[McCulloch]

We have separation of church and state, not separation of faith and state.

If the wording of the first amendment is anything to go by, you have a separation of religion and state. The Supreme Court, in their constitutionally defined role as interpreters of the Constitution, seem to agree.

Then why do they start their day with a benediction, and why are there six depictions of Moses the lawgiver on the Supreme Court building?

You miss the point. The wording of the first amendment says religion not church. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. No mention of church, sect or denomination here. The word is religion.

Right, just like ML King didn't get the memo that segregation was the law of the land.

Martin Luther King ignored the passages of the New Testament which teach Christians to obey the laws of the land and to submit themselves to injustice willingly, in the same way that the revolutionaries ignored the passages which teach about honoring the king and paying taxes.

Perhaps even some atheists. They might think that removing the religious propaganda from your money might be too much of a fuss; we have bigger and more important fights to win. That still does not change the fact that it is a state supported and funded expression of religious belief, excluded by the First Amendment.

I think it is a violation of the 1A, impeding freedom of religion and free speech.

I really do not understand. How does removing an expression of religious faith from your money impede free speech or religion? On the contrary, the fact that your money published by your government expresses a religious belief contrary to a growing segment of your population (the Nones) seems contrary to the non-establishment of religion.

What religion is being established, Methodist? Baptist? The sole intent was to prevent a state church as in England. Modern revisionist history to the contrary, the attitude at the founding was quite different. This is from Jospeh Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, 'The Father of the Constitution":

"§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."

It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in other presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in other, quakers; in others again, there was close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it has not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

Justice Story, in other words, believed, along with Madison, Jefferson, and many others, that the Constitution gave no power to the federal government over religion at all. Even though he did not foresee individual States withdrawal from religion. East of Eden quotes him out of context by avoiding his specific claim that the federal government has no authority over religion.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

JohnPaul wrote:
Hmmm. Why don't you lie down and relax for awhile?

East of Eden wrote:
Gratuitous insult noted. That's your idea of debate?

It was only a mild insult, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you would recover after a short rest. Hardly in the same class as your insult to atheists by claiming they have no moral standards and thereby implying they are immoral.

Completely wrong, obviously you didn't even read my link on the last page:

"Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, "The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?"4

I did read at least most of Dr. Craig's essay, although I admit I lost all confidence in him when I came on the word "ontological." He seems to be saying that God provides an objective standard for morality. To me, the use of the word "objective" in connection with a belief in a god is sort of an oxymoron, self-contradictory. Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word "objective."

I still believe your Christian standards of morality are no more objective or better than mine. Perhaps less so, because you depend on an imaginary Being watching over your shoulder and threatening you with eternal punishment if you disobey any of his arbitrary rules, while I voluntarily obey the rules I have derived over a lifetime from a sense of my own personal honor and conscience.

Anyway, I apologize for any insult to you and I follow most of your comments here with some interest.

[PhiloKGB]

My beliefs and what people in a given district want are two different things.

If your beliefs are not at issue, why did you mention them in the first place?

Yes, did you see my previous post about the Bible being important in early American education. When Jefferson was superintendent of DC schools the Bible was a textbook. I thought kids were supposed to be exposed to books in school? At least parts of it are believed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I wouldn't make it mandatory for all districts, but I wouldn't stop those that wanted to do it.

In fact I'm not opposed to Bible-as-textbook in principle. Unfortunately, as a recent study in Texas showed, teachers tend to turn Bible history classes into sermons.

It's really odd that you wouldn't object to non-Muslims being forced to do Muslim things.

If they really object to it they can be excused. Most would probably daydream about something else if they object, like I did during evolutionary propaganda.

Because what schools really need are easier ways for students to ostracize the outsiders.

That seems like a no-brainer. It really does nothing to deflect my accusation that you're just camouflaging your privilege.

What privilege? I don't go to school.

It's the privilege that comes with knowing you're in the majority and that policies like school prayer are likely to benefit your interests disproportionately.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1937

Would you be terribly offended if I expressed skepticism that a site called Militant Islam Monitor, which reprints WorldNet Daily articles, is representing the facts accurately?

Yes, Denmark and Norway have state churches, something catastrophic in your book, tisn't it? The suffering the atheists must endure there. /Sarcasm off

It is an odd quirk. Figurehead state church aside, those nations are extremely secular in their governance and report high levels of individual atheism. Somewhat different from your totalitarian fear-mongering.

[McCulloch]

I said non-sectarian prayer.

What is a non-sectarian prayer? One that is acceptable to all Christians, yet excludes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahá'í and Wicca?