Enough already?

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Enough already?

Personally I don't give a shit about it being there but enough already. You aren't going to get rid of it while ignorant people still run this country. Added as a law in 1956 as the US motto, for the first time it was added to money the following year. Christians like to think that it has been around since the days of George Washington.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-god-we-trust-lawsuit_56994dbae4b0778f46f94b28?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Personally I don't give a shit about it being there but enough already. You aren't going to get rid of it while ignorant people still run this country. Added as a law in 1956 as the US motto, for the first time it was added to money the following year. Christians like to think that it has been around since the days of George Washington.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-god-we-trust-lawsuit_56994dbae4b0778f46f94b28?

 

One thing about history on this issue, people on all  sides falsely think the motto was born in the 50s, it had actually been arround on select coins as early as 1864. But no, it was not arround at all at the signing of the Constitution, and considering what many of the founders said about pulpit politics, many of them would have objected to what happened in the 50s regarding it being mandated on all currency.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

There is a very pragmatic reason even theists should not want God on the money too. It has nothing to do with atheists solely, and everything to do with government neutrality. The Trump voting Evangelical Baptist does not view God or the bible in the same way a liberal Obama voting Baptist.

It is a myth that O'hair for example, got prayer banned in schools. While she was part of the final SCOTUS case it was a Unitarian who started the lawsuit and she got added later in the appeals process. And the only thing that was banned was government sanctioned prayer. It is still legal to pray by oneself in the hallway or silently before a test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

And this separate case also bolsters the idea of separation of church and state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

And the same with the pledge, SCOTUS ruled that the pledge could not be forced on students. That suit was filed by JWs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_by_country

And even with the pledge, people falsely assume "under God" was always in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

"God" is a problematic term, even if there were no atheists in existence. It means something different to different sects and different religions. As soon as you interject that into icons, those icons are no longer neutral and people needlessly fight over those things. Keeping our symbols neutral prevents that needless division, so that isn't about creating a godless utopia, it is an act of pragmatic maintenance. If the motto on the currency said "In Allah We Trust" or the pledge said "One Nation Under Allah" Christians would rightfully bitch, and I would be with them in that bitching.

But it does piss me off when atheists say other atheists file suits just to get attention. Bullshit, if you are a legal citizen you have the same right to "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Why is it if a Unitarian or JW or a Jew files a lawsuit they are simply asking for protection to be free from religion, but if an atheist does it, they are just trying to get attention. Bullshit, if it is OUR law and OUR Constitution, we can and we should us it, that is what it is there for.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh and the Newdow Pledge

Oh and the Newdow Pledge suit did not mandate that "under God" stay in the pledge, the case was thrown out on technicality only because the SCOTUS said he simply did not have enough legal custody over his kid to start the suit in the first place. "under God" has not been settled. 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

But there is also a long term myth about any subject that SCOTUS may take on. It is a myth that any ruling made by the SCOTUS will stand for eternity. In our long term system of checks and balances because every President can appoint replacements for those judges who retire, a later SCOTUS court can overturn a prior SCOTUS court.

And even the Supreme Court can be override by a Constitutional Amendment.

I am sure most here are aware of our system, but this is for the general public.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Personally I don't give a shit about it being there but enough already. You aren't going to get rid of it while ignorant people still run this country. Added as a law in 1956 as the US motto, for the first time it was added to money the following year. Christians like to think that it has been around since the days of George Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-god-we-trust-lawsuit_56994dbae4b0778f46f94b28?

One thing about history on this issue, people on all  sides falsely think the motto was born in the 50s, it had actually been arround on select coins as early as 1864. But no, it was not arround at all at the signing of the Constitution, and considering what many of the founders said about pulpit politics, many of them would have objected to what happened in the 50s regarding it being mandated on all currency.

I don't know about that, I've never heard any one say the motto was born in the 50's. I stated it was made in to law in 1956 and then added to money the following year. It might have been on coins previously, but paper money it was 1957.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Personally I don't give a shit about it being there but enough already. You aren't going to get rid of it while ignorant people still run this country. Added as a law in 1956 as the US motto, for the first time it was added to money the following year. Christians like to think that it has been around since the days of George Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-god-we-trust-lawsuit_56994dbae4b0778f46f94b28?

One thing about history on this issue, people on all  sides falsely think the motto was born in the 50s, it had actually been arround on select coins as early as 1864. But no, it was not arround at all at the signing of the Constitution, and considering what many of the founders said about pulpit politics, many of them would have objected to what happened in the 50s regarding it being mandated on all currency.

I don't know about that, I've never heard any one say the motto was born in the 50's. I stated it was made in to law in 1956 and then added to money the following year. It might have been on coins previously, but paper money it was 1957.

I think you missunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you of not knowing your history, you even said in your OP people don't know their history, and I agree, "God" was not on any currancy at the signing of the Constitution. I was simply adding a contextual history to the word on anything,  including the pledge. I only take issue with other atheist trying to say "who is it hurting, I dont care". It would be nice if religion and god claims didn't cause divisions, but they do, and like I said, even if atheists didn't exist at all, it still should be important to believers to keep government including symbols neutral. I pointed out the suits were filed not by atheists, but minority believers who did not want the other sects beliefs forced on them through government. It is just as important for them.

The Middle East is a prime example of the extreem monopoly and infighting that can happen when you allow religion to infect politics to that level. It is simly more pragmatic to say "Yea, you can believe, and yes even run for office as a believer", but your religious beliefs cannot nor should not replace secular concepts. It reduces divisions and allows society to manage differences to a much more civil degree.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Personally I don't give a shit about it being there but enough already. You aren't going to get rid of it while ignorant people still run this country. Added as a law in 1956 as the US motto, for the first time it was added to money the following year. Christians like to think that it has been around since the days of George Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-god-we-trust-lawsuit_56994dbae4b0778f46f94b28?

One thing about history on this issue, people on all  sides falsely think the motto was born in the 50s, it had actually been arround on select coins as early as 1864. But no, it was not arround at all at the signing of the Constitution, and considering what many of the founders said about pulpit politics, many of them would have objected to what happened in the 50s regarding it being mandated on all currency.

I don't know about that, I've never heard any one say the motto was born in the 50's. I stated it was made in to law in 1956 and then added to money the following year. It might have been on coins previously, but paper money it was 1957.

I think you missunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you of not knowing your history, you even said in your OP people don't know their history, and I agree, "God" was not on any currancy at the signing of the Constitution. I was simply adding a contextual history to the word on anything,  including the pledge. I only take issue with other atheist trying to say "who is it hurting, I dont care".

It is fun to go after people who want it there because it is there more for advertisement purposes. It is really a gimmick and using gimmicks with their beloved creator is just hilarious to me.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Personally I don't give a shit about it being there but enough already. You aren't going to get rid of it while ignorant people still run this country. Added as a law in 1956 as the US motto, for the first time it was added to money the following year. Christians like to think that it has been around since the days of George Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-god-we-trust-lawsuit_56994dbae4b0778f46f94b28?

One thing about history on this issue, people on all  sides falsely think the motto was born in the 50s, it had actually been arround on select coins as early as 1864. But no, it was not arround at all at the signing of the Constitution, and considering what many of the founders said about pulpit politics, many of them would have objected to what happened in the 50s regarding it being mandated on all currency.

I don't know about that, I've never heard any one say the motto was born in the 50's. I stated it was made in to law in 1956 and then added to money the following year. It might have been on coins previously, but paper money it was 1957.

I think you missunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you of not knowing your history, you even said in your OP people don't know their history, and I agree, "God" was not on any currancy at the signing of the Constitution. I was simply adding a contextual history to the word on anything,  including the pledge. I only take issue with other atheist trying to say "who is it hurting, I dont care".

It is fun to go after people who want it there because it is there more for advertisement purposes. It is really a gimmick and using gimmicks with their beloved creator is just hilarious to me.

 

I wish you were right that by leaving it there it could be treated as a joke to poke fun of. But as long as humans make god claims to the point of being willing to kill over them, "God" is a very problematic word to have goverment act as it's billboard. It never should have been put on the money in the first place and it never should have been  added to the pledge. It was done by Christians whom have since tried to reviese the intent that it was an inclusive word. No, the intent was Christian graffitti like a lion marking it's territory. 

The 50s push for more god symbolism was a response to the cold war. It really had nothing to do with protecting religious pluralism. I don't think most believers understand how important neutrality is even for them.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I wish you

Brian37 wrote:

I wish you were right that by leaving it there it could be treated as a joke to poke fun of. But as long as humans make god claims to the point of being willing to kill over them, "God" is a very problematic word to have goverment act as it's billboard. It never should have been put on the money in the first place and it never should have been  added to the pledge. It was done by Christians whom have since tried to reviese the intent that it was an inclusive word. No, the intent was Christian graffitti like a lion marking it's territory. 

The 50s push for more god symbolism was a response to the cold war. It really had nothing to do with protecting religious pluralism. I don't think most believers understand how important neutrality is even for them.

The problem I have with the us government is how the christians try to hijack every thing in to making it about their fucking delusions.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I wish you were right that by leaving it there it could be treated as a joke to poke fun of. But as long as humans make god claims to the point of being willing to kill over them, "God" is a very problematic word to have goverment act as it's billboard. It never should have been put on the money in the first place and it never should have been  added to the pledge. It was done by Christians whom have since tried to reviese the intent that it was an inclusive word. No, the intent was Christian graffitti like a lion marking it's territory. 

The 50s push for more god symbolism was a response to the cold war. It really had nothing to do with protecting religious pluralism. I don't think most believers understand how important neutrality is even for them.

The problem I have with the us government is how the christians try to hijack every thing in to making it about their fucking delusions.

Doesn't matter which country in the world you live in or which religion is the majority, there is always going to be some lesser or greater degree of religion infecting politics. I know some here think the religions of Asia and the Orient seem to escape that problem, but no, they also look to their holy people and or have followers of something get appointed or ellected to public office.

China and Japan and Tibet are full of different sects of Buddhits and other religions like Janism and Taoism and Shintoism, but to think those religions don't at least try to influence politics at a national scale would be a mistake. It is just at this point in history they are lest pronounced in their divisons. 

I would only say what you are seeing in America is a backlash to Christian theocratic ideas because more and more people are leaving the pews in droves. Not god belief itself, just leaving the feeling of having to belong to a church. They are losing their fomer status as being the constant driver of the bus. The rise of the religious right started 40 years ago headed by Jerry Falwell, 9/11 was a shock and made people start to question the role of religion not only in global politics, but American politics as well.

But compaired to the Middle East, we are still better off, although I don't like the increasing desperation by our right trying to double down on selling fear. The only thing that prevents America from looking like the Middle East is our secular constitution, so far. But I have no doubt, if if it were suddenly discarded and we had a majority of right wingers in power, it would not take long for Christianity to look like the Middle East.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The only good thing about

 The only good thing about our right wing Christians right now, so far, is they are still half assed bigots who don't read the bible word for word. Islam has far more many Sunnis and Shiites  that do take the Koran word for word. I'd love it if they had none of that and a majority in power who thought like Malala or our Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12891
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian doesn't realise the

Brian doesn't realise the average muslim is NOT more well versed with his or her religion than the average christian. The only real difference is that muslims still have governmental authority in many nations, while christians were mostly shut out of that position. Muslims can legislate their religion, christians can't. If they could, things in the christian side would be much more violent and accurate to the teachings of the bible than they are now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i would like to break in


i would like to break in here and remind everyone that i have said, on numerous occasions, that the media's so-called "hindu fundamentalism" (south asia scholars prefer "synthetic hinduism," after romila thapar), in the form of movements like hindutva and political parties like bharatiya janata, is an enormous problem in indian politics. i would like to supplement that by saying here, for the record, that it is my informed opinion that synthetic hinduism is a greater threat to indian politics than christian fundamentalism is to american politics. i'll even point out the incidental fact that indira gandhi was well known for consulting hindu holy men (and women) during her presidency, and regrettably so.

so i don't know to whom brian is referring when he says "some here" think the "religions of asia and the orient" (gee, can you hear me back there in the victorian era?) can "escape" this problem, because it damn sure isn't me. i invite him to name those people. i also invite him to prove his bald-faced LIE from the record. this site never erases anything, so a quick google search should turn up, date and time, precisely who said or implied or inferred that the "religions of asia and the orient" are less prone to political manipulation than christianity. should turn up, that is, if it isn't a deliberate LIE.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The only real

Vastet wrote:
The only real difference is that muslims still have governmental authority in many nations, while christians were mostly shut out of that position. Muslims can legislate their religion, christians can't. If they could, things in the christian side would be much more violent and accurate to the teachings of the bible than they are now.

That's a very good observation. I'm going to point that out the next time a christian tells me that the islamic religion is violent and the christian religion isn't.