In God we trust debate AGAIN!

It's impossible because the government is made up of people, who each have their own beliefs.

 

Which is all the more reason why the government should try to remain neutral.

Latre!

 

You cant do that.

The only way the government is going to remain neutral is if every person who works for or in the government has to be an athiest.

You would end up stepping on peoples toes if you attempt to try it. It would become discrimination, against people who believe.

No, a better way is to have the government balanced. Have both religious and non-religious people in the government.

 

And who is going to vote for an athiest besides another athiest?

An athiest will never become President, or hold an important position in government.

How balanced is that?

Accepting that fact, I don't see it too unreasonable for those voted into office to also respect the rights of athiests. Or do we as citizens of the United States of America all of a sudden not matter anymore? Or did we ever matter?

Latre!

 

Why include God in government in the first place?

My thought is presumably so God can be attached to a power structure... such moves are designed to divide and conquer, and have been the oldest trick in the book of politics. If you introduce religion into government, you have a match to ignite the fires of division amongst people... they're too busy then squabbling amongst themselves to know when the government is robbing them blind.

 

Which is all the more reason why the government should try to remain neutral.

No matter how much people try to remain neutral, you're not going to change the fact that each person has their own beliefs, including people who make up the government. People can try all they want, but they all have their beliefs.

And who is going to vote for an athiest besides another athiest?

An athiest will never become President, or hold an important position in government.


You don't sound very neutral yourself. If people truly are neutral, it won't matter if they believe in God (or are atheist). All that will matter is their abilities. I see no reason why a qualified atheist cannot or will not be president at some point. I would vote for a highly qualified atheist.

 

In the words of Tarkin. "This bickering is pointless."

Look having the word "under God" "In God we trust" represents a LARGE number of people in this country. From those who are Christian to those who also use the word "God" as their creator. From those who could care less if it was their or not by far out weighs those who want to "Whine". I like that word that Mr44 said.

Until someone is putting a gun to your head, or your going to be forced to be a second class citizen or pay a fine for not standing for the POA then there is no harm. That is about as "NEUTRAL" as you can get.

 

KnightWriter

I was just responding to CmdrMitthrawnuruodo's statement:

"No, a better way is to have the government balanced. Have both religious and non-religious people in the government:


That is something that will not happen.

Your statement:

"All that will matter is their abilities. I see no reason why a qualified atheist cannot or will not be president at some point. I would vote for a highly qualified atheist."

I could not agree with you more. It shouldn't matter what the person's beliefs are. If the person is qualified to do the job, they should be elected.

But, we all know that is not the way it works. Religion becomes a factor. JFK anyone?

Latre!

 

JFK was the first Catholic President because it was feared in this country that if we elected a Catholic then he would answer to the Pope and not the American people.

 

Exactly Pigfeet.

And don't people fear that if an athiest ran the country that they will want to eliminate religion all together?

Irrational thinking. The same can be said for both sides of this debate I suppose.

Take God out of this or that, and the next thing you know athiests will want it out of society for good.

Leave God in, and you are trying to push your beliefs onto me.

All of this is just plain silly.

But, and I just have to say this to keep the debate going , what is the cause for all this silliness? Religion.


Latre!

 

The silliness is this. You have people like me who could care less if stays or it goes. However I would care if it was hurting someone or keeping someone from getting a job or a salary increase, or just being treated equal. However having the words "under God" or "in God we trust" doesn't keep a person from becoming all they can be in this country and it isn't being forced upon you. Therefore that is why I say leave it in. If you take it out that means the small minority win and then the majority which cares or could care less if it goes or stays lose, because a small group decided for them. That isn't right and therefore will not endorse any sort of change because it is silly.

Heck if you want an Atheist president I don't care. Just as long as he stays out of my pocket book and out of my way and doesn't make any drastic stupid decisions with the country which will have ripple effects just like what we are experiencing now from Clinton being in office for 8 years. The true legacy of a president isn't what he does in the 4 or 8 years he's in, but rather what the country is like 4 or 5 years after he has left office, because it takes time for those policies and the economy to catch up.

 

I'm just curious Pigfeet, say you were alive back when these references were put into effect. Would you have endorsed it? The original wasn't harming anyone before the change was it? What was the need to change it in the first place?

Nobody probably even cared that God was not referenced before, until christian lobbyists came along. (I'm not to sure about the money part. Please feel free to add how In God We Trust got put on our money if you know)

Back then, did the majority even want it in the POA or on the money? They probably didn't even think about it, and just went along with it when the President signed it into action. (Is that the right terminology?)

So, as I've asked, would you have gone along with it too, or would you have thought that it was silly to change it back then as well.

Latre!

 

Well since I didn't live back then and I doubt that this issue was on the front page of the newspaper I would honestly say okay fine, big deal. It's not an issue I'm going to lose sleep or money over so why should I care or not. Oh and I am a Christian so that would be cool, and the Communists don't believe in God so yes put it in. That is exactly what most Americans thought back then to my knowledge.

Well my best guess for "In God we trust" being put on money would have to do with Capitalism vs. Socialism. So really it wouldn't have been a big deal back then I would have gone along with it, because what the hell do I care if they put " your greedy for having this dollar bill" just as long as I could still use it to buy what I needed with it. You see I'm a simple person who doesn't like whining, nick picking, and people who want to just complain about little things like this which make no sense to me. Why not expend that energy by feeding the poor or build a house or create a garden but I don't let little things which don't effect me or 90% of the rest of the population get me all bent out of shape and demanding that some sort of injustice has been done when it hasn't.

Frankly I don't care, but I do care when people want to start problems and complain. It's a pet peeve for me. I don't like complainers. My whole life if I heard someone complain I would really just get angry. When I worked a movie theatre a few years back customers would complain about the most petty stuff and I would just say "Oh well". I simply don't care.

 

Great philosophy Pigfeet! I love it! (I must ask, do you mind if you're called Pigfeet, or would you prefer Darthpigfeet or DP?)

As to why not spend my energy dealing with other, perhaps more important issues? I guess I'm like you, I just don't care.

The powerful are going to do what they want. We may have a say in who those powerful people are, but in the end, they do whatever they want to, or whatever other powerful people want them to do.

Like you said, you're not going to please everyone.

As for complainers. Sometimes they have a good reason to complain, but I too hate those people that complain about every little problem, and expect it to get fixed.

Latre!

 

This is quite a controversial issue, and I don't know why anyone hasn't picked up on it now. To me, it's not a big deal, but then again that could offend some people.

 

In truth, the idea of the phrase "In God We Trust" being removed from the currency does not bother me. Christian ideals of poverty and all that notwithstanding.

However, on basis of principle, this disturbs me a great deal, for what it does is set a trend that could easily have a snowball effect. America may call itself a democracy, but in today's national community of the media juggernaut, it's less about the "silent majority" than it is who can holler the loudest and longest. The courts should be mindful about who they listen to. Or at least, who they choose to.

 

If your in a rush DP will do just fine

Otherwise just Pigfeet. It doesn't matter.


The way I see it is we elect these people to represent us, and if they are doing things behind our backs and are not doing their job then they need to be voted out of office. However this often doesn't happen, because many people don't care about politics until it hits their pocket book and by then it's too late.

If it was so offensive back in the 50's to include "under God" in the POA then someone should have spoken up. They didn't and so why change it now????? Especially since it's not hurting anyone and nobody is being forced to say "under God". That is why I say it's silly to change it now.

 

Gottcha Pigfeet!

Latre!

 

Though you people are right, you are fogetting the reason why we put it on the first place. As we know, God is our creator. (though I belive in evoltion) But, America is a free country, so they belive God gave us more grace than any other. So we put him on the bill, ect. And people do noticed it.

 

Whoops, i put this in the POA thread by mistake.

Well, if the money said Gods, then people would complain since too many believe in only one god.

I dont buy the whole "In GOD we trust" supporting monotheism. It is like just saying 'he' instead of saying 'he or she or it or them.' To me, that is how I would take all the refrences to God I have heard here. It is to be taken in a general sense.

 

Do any of you believe in God? I must say I do and I think it should stay. Not just beacuse I'm Christian, but because those words were placed on there by founding fathers. When it was placed on money basically everyone was Christian. If not leave it on out of common beliefs, leave it on beacuse it's a part of history and in a way a trademake of the USA.

 

I agree with leaving it in for History's sake, and yes the majority of Americans are Christian and yes the majoriry were Christians back in the 18th and 19th and 20th centuries. The words "In God We Trust" was added in 1935 and has been there ever since. I have a book on currency and I have a collection of Confederate money as well that was handed down to me. The Confederate money is interesting because they have lots of symbols of Gods and Godesses which was used because the print makers in the south didn't have much of a choice as far as designs were concerned like they did in the North. Other items on currency during the late 19th century is Louis and Clark, animals like Bison and Eagles, Pictures of Columbus and of course presidents. So over the years currency has changed many times in size, shape and color.

 

Darthpigfeet: So, in essence what you're saying is this should be a Christ-ocracy... because who gives a crap about the remainder who don't believe in Christ, right?

Democracy, rights and freedoms for the majority... to hell with the rest?

Essentially, what you're telling me is you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. It would appear that those who share your opinion are only cared for because it ultimately serves your interests... which isn't democracy, it isn't altruism... it's selfishness.

 

"How many of you had really paid attention to that phrase before it was brought to your attention?"

Actually I did.

"Why change? Why do I ask this question when I already know your answer?"

Because the phrase(both in the pledge and currency) originated from a time period when this country was extreamly paranoid and a time period which many consider to be a black mark in our history. We ought to go back to the way it was originally. And I'm not anti-religion.

"Until someone is putting a gun to your head, or your going to be forced to be a second class citizen or pay a fine for not standing for the POA then there is no harm."

My friend was threatened with detention for not standing for the pledge.

"If it was so offensive back in the 50's to include "under God" in the POA then someone should have spoken up. They didn't and so why change it now?????"

They didn't speak up because if they did they would have been called a communist, regardless of whether or not they really were, and thus blacklisted and unable to find work or anything.

"Not just beacuse I'm Christian, but because those words were placed on there by founding fathers."

Actually they weren't. They weren't placed there untill later.

 

Personally, I love the fact that, "In God We Trust" being printed on "the root of all evil."

C'mon, fellow Athiests: You have to at least get a chuckle out of that irony.