While I, personally, would never send someone to MSNBC.com, I received an email today where MSNBC.com has a Live Vote currently that asked the following question:
"
from newsvine.com where you can comment about the Live Vote
Link
So what do you think? Should it be removed or is this argument stupid as some on the newsvine.com site say?
I figured one visit to this particular artticle of the site would not hurt much and instead could yield some interesting results. I recommend you try it just to see what people have voted so far.
Then I recommend you check out a link at the bottom
Let me clarify this post before I state my opinion. I am an agnostic, and while I don't disbelieve in God, I don't pray or go to church. (At least, anymore.)
That being said, I think that "In God We Trust" needs to be left alone. It doesn't say Jesus, it doesn't Mother Nature, it doesn't Allah, or Buddha, or Zeus, or Lamborghini, or any other variation of person, place, or thing, that someone could consider their own personal god.
My god may not be your god, and vice-versa.
The kind of people that want this removed are the most base kinds of people, in my opinion, because they lack the ability to think outside of the box. To them, everything is taken literally, and that can be dangerous in any sense.
That's usually what I think as well. I don't see how these words could affect anyone in anyways except if they allow it to. It's just words, very general ones. I mean some people even hold singers and TV actors as Gods (if you know what I mean) so this is a very generalized word. Not to mention what it would cost to replace every bill out there. The idea alone is ludicris and ignorant.
I think that the solution to that, were it to happen, is to just have the new bills/coins come out lacking the term, versus literally replacing the currently circulating currency
What if you don't trust in any god whatsoever? You're implying that everyone believes in something. It's also very clearly Christian. It doesn't say "In a god" it says "God" with a capital G. Only Christians say/write that in English. Jews usually don't spell out the name of God...so you'd get G-d instead.
As for the issue at hand...I don't give a damn what's on the money as long as I can buy things with it. It can be Satan sodomizing a moose and I'd still put it in my wallet.
~Zoo
To be fair, I'll admit my leaninsg: I'm agnostic, leaning toward the likelyhood that there is no God like being.
That being said, the phrase was brought about only because of the increased religious sentiment during the Civil War, against better judgement in my opinion. Then during the goold ol' communist scare during the 50's, it became law. he very concept of it being our national motto, is a joke, it makes me sick. A motto is supposed to stand for what our country is, and I'm sorry but not everyone trusts in God. I would love to see us go back to E Plurubus Unum, "Out of many, one."
That's really what we stand for, it's what we are.
~Alderic
Those are some good point Zoo. I had planned on editing my comment ot say that, but you beat me to it.
Probably about the same as it does when they come up with new artwork for the bills like they've been doing recently. You just print the new ones and dispose of the old ones..you phase in new bills.
This is taking it literally. And even if there are people that don't believe in anything, they usually believe in themselves. If they had any imagination, they could regard it as a trust in themselves.
To take offense at something like this is like taking offense because someone's neighbor has a garden gnome in their front yard. Sure, it may be obnoxious in their mind, but trying to force their neighbors to remove it so that they don't feel offended reaches the "petty" level, and any sympathy I may have turns into "grow up and get over it".
We are all too easily offended.
"God" can literally be anything any one person wants it to be.
For some reason it didn't add the quote.
That's what I was responding to.
That may be, but the intentions when it was first used during the Civil War, and when it was made law during the mess known as McCarthyism leaves no doubt as to what God it means. It is pretty much saying that we as a nation, and/or as a government trust in God. That's just not true, and that, in my opinion, is too damn close to favoring a specific religion.
I've got nothing against the religious; I just disagree with them a lot, and find their concepts to be a joke. I would really prefer to not be announced to the world as something I'm not; I don't have trust in God. I also don't really care for a government that may have been founded by religious people, but was intended to be separated from religion - to be usurped for a religion. Our government is supposed to be secular, keep it that way.
~Alderic.
I think it should stay. And I think newer dollar notes should claim a belief in all Hindu gods, witches, and smurfs until all religions have been propagated by the currency except the Jedi myth. I hate the Jedis and want my government to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion.
Hey now, the Jedi have it right. LOL
While I agree with this, it's not logical. Laws are based on morality, and the majority of our morals come from either religion directly, or are otherwise indirectly influenced by them. Laws about marriage, percentage of alcohol in beverages that can be sold in stores, etc. aren't laws that are based upon common sense, (for example, murder, or rape), they are based on the morals of the lawmakers/voters.
Religion and politics mixing is a messy thing to begin to argue, but how can you have a completely secular country, when the majority of the country allines themself with a religion, and doesn't see why their morals can't be accepted by everyone. Yes, this is the perfect arguement for secularism, however it isn't logical that a religious people would have a secular country.
Would the average American know this? No. People want it, or dont' want it, because to them it screams "religion." This is exactly what I mean... a lack of ability to think out of the box.
This is representitive of our history, McCarthyism, and all.
I honestly don't think there's anything metaphorical about it. It was based upon Christian ideals and that's what we're stuck with. I don't see how anyone should have to conjur up some other meaning using their imagination. Dollars are measurements of currency, not philosophical debates on the nature of God.
I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal. Your neighbor has a piece of crap in his yard, it's not suggested that you trust in the gnome because your government believes that gnomes have a vested interest in our wellbeing.
I'm not, personally. I have a horrible sense of humor sometimes. As far as society is concerned, I'd say you're right. People get offended over things that don't really matter...I think it's because they're bored and like attention.
The average American? It would depend on how educated they are, as well as how intelligent they are. If they're not educated well, or don't have the capacity to understand it - then no. I feel that most are both, but there are those who choose to ignore such things.
Perhaps...but morals, marriage, et al. are not exclusively a religious thing. They can be and are secular. A society or culture can come up with a set of morals (or code of conduct) without the religious pretext. So, morals are not exclusive to Christianity, or Judaism. To say that our law system is set up due to Christianity, is...well, not quite accurate. You can reasonably come to a conclusion that certain things should be law, without religion; I do. Do you come to conclusions on what is right and wrong from a religion?
Not a secular country, but a secular government. The secular government was designed that way as to, in the end, uphold its citizens religious and other liberties/rights. If you have a Christian government, then that would be a bit of a damper for other religions.
Actually, more and more people are not calling themself religous. So, to a point, our so called Christian nation is getting less so. Additionally, back during the colonial era, most people were Deist, not theist. (Or so the stats said in my term paper during the winter term)
our government was never supposed to be secular. Where in the world did you get that from? Have you not been to DC and seen all the scripture plasted all over the monuments and government buildings? It's only a matter of time before that gets etched away as well.
The Christians came here to get away from religious persecution and start a new world based on Christian priniciples and there's not one piece of evidence to the contrary. I've got a library filled with evidence and words that back this up even from the most non-religious of our founders like Ben Franklin and Jefferson.
I don't think it really matters anymore to be honest. The secularization of America is in full swing anyhow. What's a few words on our money going to mean?
Doesn't matter one way or the other sad to say.
One day we're going to realize as a nation what we've done, and it's going to be a very very sad day indeed and too late to turn back.
The writing on monuments do not mean that we're Christian. Tell me, if we were meant to have a Christian/religious government, then tell me...please, why do we have the freedom of/from religion/first amendment? Maybe it was just a typographical mistake in the Constitution. Oops, guess we'd better fix that. It would be reasonable to assume that because of that, our government was intended to not endorse any religion.
The fact that the majority of people in the country are christian is irrelevent to our government, and to how our nation is governed, or lack thereof.
it's freedom of religion....not freedom from. Big difference.
wellllllll.......what does it mean then? Enlighten me.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QIVd7YT0oWA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/QIVd7YT0oWA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/christian_nation/index1.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
Yes it is, it is implied. Just as you have the right to practice your religion, I have the right to not practice any religion.
Here it is in ful:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion(1), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof(2); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
1 - It implies pretty darn well that any law that respects any religion - is unconstitutional. To me, that also implies that any official claim of a religion is the same.
2 - It states the right to free excersize of any religion, which logically would imply the right to not practice.
I could easily put "All hail Satan," on any piece of art I do. Does that mean that I'm a Satanist? No. It means that I put it there because, say, i felt like it.
I had a nice post all written up, and then JU kept giving me error messages, and erased it. I had responses for both Zoo and Alderic.
Let's see if this one is deleted.
Okay, so I can't seem to actually post if there are quotes involved, for some reason.
Zoo, my point about the yard trolls was that taking offense at these kinds of things is petty.
Alderic, the majority of America has morals influenced by religion. You and I may not, but we are in the minority, for the time being.
Also, in regards to the part about a secular government being neccessary for the protection of rights, etc: A democratic government is supposed to be representitive of it's citizens. If voters want the money taken off, so be it. But if presented today, the movement would probably not go through.
That being said, I do agree that a secular government would be best, however it is not an easy thing to implement when neither side (ultra-religious, and ultra-non-religious), respects the other.
Want the term taken off the money.*
"Oops, guess we better fix that."
Actually, since everything is taken so literally, it probably should be changed.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
