In God do you trust?

Because by definition F_I_D, if you aren't an atheist, then you do believe in God. Seems pretty obvious to me.

If you are referring to agnosticism, they are unsure of the matter, so they wouldn't believe such.

Equating fairy tales with God is only done by those who don't believe in Him.

Why would a person who is not an atheist or agnostic and whot truly believes in God equate fairy tales with God in their minds? Sure, there can be doubt in a person's mind, but I wouldn't think that a person who believes in God would equate God with Santa Claus, even with a crisis of faith.

On your other point: Obviously, atheists do not share the same values as I or any other Christian or Jew.

 

Reference: DM = Darth Mischevious

Because by definition F_I_D, if you aren't an atheist, then you do believe in God. Seems pretty obvious to me.

How is that? I know of people and faiths that believe in no God, but they still believe. Atheism is a belief itself, but in the belief that God does not exist. Take into consideration Confuscism. No God, but they are a faith, nor are they atheist. Just like everyone who isn't Christian is a pagan, right? *smirk*


If you are referring to agnosticism, they are unsure of the matter, so they wouldn't believe such.

Um, no? They are not unsure on the matter, look up the definition of what an agnostic is.


Equating fairy tales with God is only done by those who don't believe in Him.

Again, incorrect. God is a belief, not a fact. Sorry to break it to you, but there is no hard factual evidence to support either way. Much like a fairy tale or urban legend in some cases. Just because someone disagrees with your belief doesn't make them wrong, DM.


Why would a person who is not an atheist or agnostic and whot[sic] truly believes in God equate fairy tales with God in their minds? Sure, there can be doubt in a person's mind, but I wouldn't think that a person who believes in God would equate God with Santa Claus, even with a crisis of faith.

How do you define belief? If you talk to God its considered prayer, but if He talks to you, its considered insanity. It's easy to compare something that is intangible to something such as God, for He is intangible. I can't go get scoops of God on my ice-cream cone, nor can I with fairy tales. Seems like a decent analogy to me.


On your other point: Obviously, atheists do not share the same values as I or any other Christian or Jew.

Hardly. I know some atheists who have the same values as a Christian or a Jew. I know a few who's integrity, moral code, and foundation is stronger than most Christians and Jews too.

Merely because you are a Christian, it does not make you a good person, or holy, or even right. Remember, DM, just because someone doesn't see things the same way as you, doesn't make them wrong.

---

However, getting onto the original point of this...

The printing of the phrase "In God we trust" is not a violation of the constitution. It does not promote any single one religion, nor does it discourage any other. You are free to believe what you want, by handling a one dollar bill it does not enforce anything onto you. Being -forced- to say the pledge, however, would violate your civil rights.

This is just another example of abusing the constitution to bend to your personal will. If you don't like it, don't deal in paper or coin currency. There is plenty of ways to electronically use money in this day of ours. But just remember, that dollar bill isn't forcing you to do anything but keep or spend it.

-GAT

 

Because by definition F_I_D, if you aren't an atheist, then you do believe in God. Seems pretty obvious to me.

*rolls his eyes* Not all theists believe in God.

Theism is the practice of believing in a god, or gods (get a dictionary if you doubt me). There is more than one God, and many religions that have several gods.

So, the opposite to atheism is not belief in a Judeo-Christian/Islamic God.

Equating fairy tales with God is only done by those who don't believe in Him.

Well, that's obvious.

On your other point: Obviously, atheists do not share the same values as I or any other Christian or Jew.

What values do you have, as a Christian, that I don't?

I disagree. I know many atheists and agnostics who have better, or at least the same, values and morals than yourself, as theirs are based upon conscious choice and decisions, not dictum's handed down from a higher authority; religious text or Church.

- Scarlet.

 

Because by definition F_I_D, if you aren't an atheist, then you do believe in God. Seems pretty obvious to me.


Most. Close-minded. Comment. Ever. I?m a nothing. I believe in being myself and being a good person. Yet I do not believe in your god.


If you are referring to agnosticism, they are unsure of the matter, so they wouldn't believe such.

They?re unsure on the matter? Really you can?t expect me to believe such drivel do you?


Equating fairy tales with God is only done by those who don't believe in Him.


Your god is not a fact and until there?s proven that such a being exists until then he is equal to Santa Claus or myths.


Why would a person who is not an atheist or agnostic and who truly believes in God equate fairy tales with God in their minds?


Probably because god is like Santa Claus or the bogey man.


Sure, there can be doubt in a person's mind, but I wouldn't think that a person who believes in God would equate God with Santa Claus, even with a crisis of faith.

Of course not, they?d be close-minded like yourself and label all who don?t believe as atheists.


On your other point: Obviously, atheists do not share the same values as I or any other Christian or Jew.


Sure they do. They just don?t believe in the make-believe like god. And I consider atheists to be far more reasonable as opposed to Christians or Catholics. See ?non-believers? have never had inquisitions or burnt anyone at the stake.

 

I cannot understand your postitions here, FID.

If you don't believe in God then what are you?

An atheist.

Duh.

I don't get the "close minded statement" thing. Go look in a dictionary.

 

I cannot understand your postitions here, FID.

If you don't believe in God then what are you?

An atheist.

Duh.

I don't get the "close minded statement" thing. Go look in a dictionary.


No I'm not, to be an atheist I'd have to believe in a 'higher power' which I don't. I believe in who I'am and not what controls me.



Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 : archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Doctrine. Though I'm sure you use the first definition


Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1571
: one who denies the existence of God
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe.is.ti.cal adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Again it doesn't mention not having a religion, just the belief that god doesn't exist. I'am neither of these. As I said before, being an athest is having no god, it doesn't say it's not a religion.

 

If you believe in only yourself, and not God, then you're an atheist and a humanist.

 

Humanism you have me on. Atheism I'm not. I do believe those people have churches? Yeah, not an atheist, humanist I'am.

 

If you don't believe in God then what are you?
An atheist.

Didn't someone already go over this with you? Not believing in your god does not make one an atheist be default. There are other religions, other gods who are not referred to as "God", and religions who do not worship a god(s) at all. Not following Christianity does not solely make one an atheist. To say as much would be to suggest that agnosticism and pagan religions are considered atheism. This is an untrue statement.

 

Theists believe in the existence of at least one god (monotheism - 1 god, polytheism - multiple gods). Most eastern religions would still be theistic because if you are Taoist, you believe that there is a "Way" (which, though is not a deity is still a supreme power); if you are Buddhist, you would believe that every person can be a god (polytheistic); to me, belief in a supreme power (whether you call it God or not) denotes a theistic belief system.

Confucianism is a philosophy, not a religion, so it doesn't qualify for this theism discussion.

After reading DarthYama's post, I have to wonder where the line would be drawn. If everything we do or have in our country is influenced at some point by religion (most likely Judeo-Christian), where does it stop? Federal holidays that are also religious holidays? Christmas? The Gregorian calendar? Could someone tell me? If we take "In God We Trust" off of our currency, where does it stop?

I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong, I'm just curious.

One last point: war and violence existed long before the presence of civilization and religion. Evolution should tell you that much, that early man was still a violent race, correct? If religions didn't exist to provide power- and war- mongers from killing innocents, they would have used science (just like Hitler did to some degree): "We have proof that people who are not white, blonde haired, and blue eyed are inferior. We must eliminate them!" example, not direct quote Also, in case you didn't know, Hitler also exterminated, along with the Jews, any handicapped persons (deaf, blind, dumb, downs syndrome, etc). So he was operating using the guises of science AND religion, because they were both tools.

 

I was quoting someone else, actually. The only thing I said was about us using Indian numerals.

The science Hitler used to prove the existence of a master race was about as scientific as Armageddon (the movie)

 

Equating fairy tales with God is only done by those who don't believe in Him.

Prove that a belief in God is different than belief in fairy tales.

The Ancient Greek gods created the universe out of chaos. Prove that wrong.

 

This article "A matter of belief" from MSNBC.com is a fairly good read.

IMHO, this statement is an accurate one:

To ask God to give me free choice between x and y and to see to it that I chose x instead of y is to ask him to do the logically impossible.

 

The slight trouble is, you can't ask God and get a straight response. Only interpretations of what He MIGHT want.

Unless of course, God talks to you...the men in the nice white coats can help relieve you of that...


This is not about believing in God, this is about the first amendment and if putting "In God We Trust" on our currency or anything affilated with religion on anything offical pertaining to the USA.

It states we have a freedom to worship whatever we choose, it does not say however, that the government can not suggest religious worship. It can not oppress, deny, force, ect. religion upon anyone, however, printing this on legal tender, is within the constitution.

-GAT

 

Ok, let's get back on point, people. The point of this thread, I believe, was to debate whether or not religious references should be removed from government-supported, for the lack of a better word, "things".

Now, I believe they should be removed, for two reasons:

1. It's unconstitutional in that it's government's endorsement (or, at least, recognition) of religion.

2. It's insulting to those who don't trust God.

3. It's putting words in people's mouths and actions.

 

While I don't agree with printing Religious propaganda on things (and shut up, you know that's what it is), I can understand why:

The whole frickin' country was founded by a boatload of English and French Puritans who were so anal retentive about "The Almighty" even the English-- traditionally the most anal retentive country in the world --kicked them out. It's bad when the English think you should tone it down. It really is.

 

As an Englishman, I'd like to express my dislike that you consider us the most anal retentive people in the world.

- Scarlet.

 

LOL. Riiight, anal retentive. They aren't anal retentive. They're bratty sometimes, but they kicked out the purtians for a good reason. I don't blame the Brits one 'bloody' bit.


Sides, British women have sexy accents

-GAT

 

The whole frickin' country was founded by a boatload of English and French Puritans who were so anal retentive about "The Almighty" even the English-- traditionally the most anal retentive country in the world --kicked them out. It's bad when the English think you should tone it down. It really is.

Wrong. Most of the founding fathers were not Puritans.

Now, I believe they should be removed, for two reasons:

1. It's unconstitutional in that it's government's endorsement (or, at least, recognition) of religion.

2. It's insulting to those who don't trust God.

3. It's putting words in people's mouths and actions.

I agree.

 

Some exellent points being made here...though I am ot sure if we may be getting off topic a little, by our athsist comments...but so far so good...

 

Now, I believe they should be removed, for two reasons:

Not to nitpick, but didn't you give three (3) reasons? Now on to debating your reasons.

It's unconstitutional in that it's government's endorsement (or, at least, recognition) of religion.

As Bubba has pointed out extensively, it is not unconstitutional. If you look at the word usage of the time and the clear intent of the First Congress (as shown by their other actions), the recognition of God is not unconstitutional. It actually requires a lot of revisionism to claim that it is unconstitutional.

If it were otherwise, why hasn't anyone been able to discredit Bubba's examples of actions by the First Congress? The closest anyone has come is claiming that they were trying to win over public opinion, but that is trying to impose today's political actions on or forefathers. Back then, politicians were elected and then did not focus on public opinion or polls like they do today. Newspapers did not measure approval ratings nor did most congressmen return home all that often. They were left in Washington (or New York or Philadelphia) to do the best job they could according to their own judgment.

It's insulting to those who don't trust God.

It is no more insulting than imposing tax increases on those who do not wish them or imposing educational standards on groups who do not want them.

It's putting words in people's mouths and actions.

Again, no more so than any other government action. I, personally, am opposed to the Bern Convention on Copyrights because I feel that it extended copyrights far beyond what the Constitution allows or intended, yet the US Government ratified that treaty and it is binding on me. By ratifying that treaty, the US stated that the People were agreed to it. How is that not putting words in my mouth?

The Government is authorized to speak for the people as a whole, but is under no obligation nor has any permission to speak for any citizen individually. The Government can say, "We the People believe this," but it cannot say, "Kimball Kinnison believes this," without my specific authorization.

"In God We Trust" is speaking on a collective basis, not an individual one, just like the Bern Convention ratification speaks for the nation as a whole, not for me as a citizen.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If it were otherwise, why hasn't anyone been able to discredit Bubba's examples of actions by the First Congress? The closest anyone has come is claiming that they were trying to win over public opinion

I guess the one explanation I find most feasible is: our definition of "religion" has changed.

Isn't that possible?

And should we still try to use a definition of "religion" that assumes all religions are some form of Judeo-Christianity, or should we recognize that our country is a little more diverse than that?

 

Kimball:
Not to nitpick, but didn't you give three (3) reasons?

As Sy Snootles put it, "Whoops!"

As Bubba has pointed out extensively, it is not unconstitutional.

I've read through Bubba's arguments for the first 3 pages of this thread, so apologies if my knowledge is less-than-complete here.

If you look at the word usage of the time and the clear intent of the First Congress (as shown by their other actions), the recognition of God is not unconstitutional. It actually requires a lot of revisionism to claim that it is unconstitutional.

It is of my opinion that whoever used religious references were using them, as Bubba put it, "as semantic sugar".

Sprinkling religious references in the Constitution and the DoI does NOT imply that Christianity is to have free reign in the country, no more than having the name "George Washington" on the document implies that this nation will worship Washington as a deity.

Why should Christians receive special treatment in a country based on equality of opportunity?

If it were otherwise, why hasn't anyone been able to discredit Bubba's examples of actions by the First Congress? The closest anyone has come is claiming that they were trying to win over public opinion, but that is trying to impose today's political actions on or forefathers. Back then, politicians were elected and then did not focus on public opinion or polls like they do today.

Actually, the election of 1800, between President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson, was heavily laden with mudslinging. Moreover, one of the anti-Jefferson accusations was that Jefferson was an atheist. Hence, the "public opinion argument" is, by all means, valid.

Any words or inscriptions made that were religious, or the custom of praying, etc., were special customs that the lawmakers chose to make and, in the process, either consciously or unconsciously foregoing Constitutional principles. After all, such things like the IGWT are really hair-splitting, and it's unlikely that anyone really cared about something so trivial.

Besides, IGWT wasn't placed on currency until almost 100 years after the Founding Fathers' time.

I ask you, must we pay for the misdeeds of a group of men that, distinguished as they are, have no weight on the current state of the nation, and are as antiquated in their customs as their beliefs? Those who revere the Founding Fathers so much would probably want slavery, something that the Fathers tolerated, reinstated.

It is no more insulting than imposing tax increases on those who do not wish them or imposing educational standards on groups who do not want them.

Mayhaps, but the Constitution specifically forbids religion-state intermixing.

That said, this is not so much a Constitution-based argument as one of more practical dimensions. We're not a Christian country. Are you willing to sacrifice the rights and beliefs of those who are proud Americans but not proud Christians? I don't care if no one cares - assume that the whole country is as picky about this as I am.

This is a matter of principle. And I don't want to hear any "this is so stupid and trivial" comments. Those kind of comments actually work in my favor.

Again, no more so than any other government action. I, personally, am opposed to the Bern Convention on Copyrights because I feel that it extended copyrights far beyond what the Constitution allows or intended, yet the US Government ratified that treaty and it is binding on me. By ratifying that treaty, the US stated that the People were agreed to it. How is that not putting words in my mouth?

The Government is authorized to speak for the people as a whole, but is under no obligation nor has any permission to speak for any citizen individually. The Government can say, "We the People believe this," but it cannot say, "Kimball Kinnison believes this," without my specific authorization.

"In God We Trust" is speaking on a collective basis, not an individual one, just like the Bern Conventi

 

Darth_Guy:

The pilgrams that came over on the mayflower were puritans. That was what I was referring to.

And to the rest of you, lighten up. It was a point laced with humour.

 

Any words or inscriptions made that were religious, or the custom of praying, etc., were special customs that the lawmakers chose to make and, in the process, either consciously or unconsciously foregoing Constitutional principles. After all, such things like the IGWT are really hair-splitting, and it's unlikely that anyone really cared about something so trivial.

You overlook the importance of the proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving (NDT) passed the same day as the acceptance of the Bill of Rights. Obviously, if their intent was to keep something of a religious nature out of government, they would not have done both practically at the same time. The NDT had the express purpose of having the country give thanks to "God Almighty". That is far more of a religious endorsement than "In God We Trust", and yet they passed it amlost simultaneous with the First Amendment.

I'd call that a very clear indication of both intent and meaning.

Mayhaps, but the Constitution specifically forbids religion-state intermixing.

No, it does not. The Constitution only prohibits two things: laws concerning an establishment of religion (i.e. a religious organization like a church) and laws interfering with the free exercise of religion. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of the Constitution, and is left to Congress or the states to decide.

That is why Congress is allowed to have a chaplain and begin with prayer. That is why the government and churches are allowed to work together (even with government funding). That is why we can have a national day of Thanksgiving. That is why In God We Trust is constitutional.

It is highly erroneous to claim that the Constitution specifically prohibits church and state intermixing, or requires a "wall of separation" between the two. That is found nowhere in the document and has as much legal force as the Declaration of Independence.

That said, this is not so much a Constitution-based argument as one of more practical dimensions. We're not a Christian country. Are you willing to sacrifice the rights and beliefs of those who are proud Americans but not proud Christians? I don't care if no one cares - assume that the whole country is as picky about this as I am.

The term "God" is in no way limited to Christianity. Even if it were limited to the Christian God, He is the same God as in Judaism and Islam. The statement itself has nothing to do with us being a Christian nation or not. (Note that it doesn't state that "In Christ We Trust". Not all Christians accept the doctrine of the Trinity and believe that God the Father (God) and Christ are the same being. My church doesn't, but I am most definitely a Christian.)

However, since we both seem to be decided that this is not really a constitutional issue, nor is it illegal, then the debate should be finished. The purpose of this thread was to discuss the lawsuit relating to "In God We Trust". If it is not unconstitutional and Congress legally passed the law implementing it, there is no basis to have it struck down by a lawsuit. The proper procedure is to lobby Congress to have the relevant law repealed or modified.

This is a matter of principle. And I don't want to hear any "this is so stupid and trivial" comments. Those kind of comments actually work in my favor.

I made no such comment. I simply pointed out that it was no more insulting than any other constitutional act of Congress that a person might disagree with. I never called anything "stupid" or "trivial", did I? You are the only person I've seen use the term "trivial" so far.

You have me on that one. Nonetheless, there are times when majority rule can't pass anything it wants. Remember, our country was established to protect individuals against majority and minority tyranny.

And it does that through the legal structure known as the Constitution. However, as we already seemed to agree, this is not a constitutional issue. It requires either a constitutional amendment (which I doubt would ever get pa