Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

I doubt anyone would actually be offended by the removal that doesn't already badly want to be offended by something.

We'd simply be giving them what they want.


More seriously, their offense wouldn't last long, because there's nothing legitimately damaged by the removal of the slogan other than their ego and belief they should always get what they want. The divisiveness of the current motto will never go away, because it's built in. We shouldn't worry about people being offended, we should worry about whats best for this country, and even though it's a minor thing the slogan is clearly bad for us. It's a blatant appeal to populism at the expense of the ideals that define us.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Shouldn't more credence be given to the feelings of the Christains, even if they would be short term in nature.

No.

[Nadaka]

Ouch broke out the Crylilic on me. I feel like devouted Christians would be just as offended in the immediate impact of the removal as a much smaller group of Atheists are when they actaully think about it. Shouldn't more credence be given to the feelings of the Christains, even if they would be short term in nature. I am sure Atheists would appalled when the phrase was put on money, and have rembered it for a long time, isn't it reasonable that Christians would be just as memorable and just as angry, if not more so? By Christians I mean the group of people among the American public who are as devouted to god as the Atheists are against the inclusion of this phrase on the dollar, not the lapsed Catholics or Protestants out there.

No.

More credence should be given to the founding principals of this nation. The separation of church and state is fundamental and vital to the continuation of this nation and the liberty of all its people. The presence of the endorsement of god on our  currency and in our pledge violates the religious liberties of all Americans, even Christians, not just atheists.

There were a lot of people offended when blacks were given the right to vote. But offending those people is irrelevant when not giving blacks the right to vote denies the American people of their rights.

Liberty is not a popularity contest.

[Sir Finkus]

Ouch broke out the Crylilic on me. I feel like devouted Christians would be just as offended in the immediate impact of the removal as a much smaller group of Atheists are when they actaully think about it. Shouldn't more credence be given to the feelings of the Christains, even if they would be short term in nature. I am sure Atheists would appalled when the phrase was put on money, and have rembered it for a long time, isn't it reasonable that Christians would be just as memorable and just as angry, if not more so? By Christians I mean the group of people among the American public who are as devouted to god as the Atheists are against the inclusion of this phrase on the dollar, not the lapsed Catholics or Protestants out there.

"In God We Trust" excludes those who do not believe in, or trust in a God and implies an endorsement by the government of that point of view.

"E pluribus unum" is an inclusive motto.  It doesn't really endorse anything except a general sense of unification.

I'm sure many racists had their feelings hurt when blacks were given equal rights.  Many people have had their feelings hurt when others said bad things about them.  It probably doesn't feel great to the victim of a crime when your tax dollars go to ensure that the accused is provided with an attorney and a speedy trial. 

[Mr. Palau]

(snipin my quote to save space)

No.

More credence should be given to the founding principles of this nation. The separation of church and state is fundamental and vital to the continuation of this nation and the liberty of all its people. The presence of the endorsement of god on our  currency and in our pledge violates the religious liberties of all Americans, even Christians, not just atheists.

There were a lot of people offended when blacks were given the right to vote. But offending those people is irrelevant when not giving blacks the right to vote denies the American people of their rights.

Liberty is not a popularity contest.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gymQ6vWfA3QC&pg=PA817&dq=Zorach+v.+Clauson+++In+God+We+Trust&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Zorach%20v.%20Clauson%20%20%20In%20God%20We%20Trust&f=false

Supreme Court ruled that it was in keeping with the Constitution, which embodies our founding principles, to address a supreme being with phrases far more religious than in god we trust, and that acknowledging a supreme being in a school prayer, by the state of NY, does not violate the constitution.

(same)

I'm sure many racists had their feelings hurt when blacks were given equal rights.  Many people have had their feelings hurt when others said bad things about them.  It probably doesn't feel great to the victim of a crime when your tax dollars go to ensure that the accused is provided with an attorney and a speedy trial. 

I'm not going to honor that gross exaggeration of the injustice committed by having "In God We Trust on money", and the exaggeration as to the relative size of the respective groups with a rebuttal. Same goes to Nadaka's comment.

[Nadaka]

The supreme court is wrong in its interpretation of the constitution. The endorsement of god is a violation of the first amendment.

[GlyphGryph]

And, again, it's also insulting to the Russians. There's a lot of Russians, and it was /directed/, /intended/ as an insult against them.

[Fenrir]

Supreme Court ruled that it was in keeping with the Constitution, which embodies our founding principles, to address a supreme being with phrases far more religious than in god we trust, and that acknowledging a supreme being in a school prayer, by the state of NY, does not violate the constitution.

Who is “we” in “In God we trust,” do you think? How is the supposition that the citizens are Judeo-Christians not in violation of the founding principals?

I'm not going to honor that gross exaggeration of the injustice committed by having "In God We Trust on money", and the exaggeration as to the relative size of the respective groups with a rebuttal. Same goes to Nadaka's comment.

No one is saying that this is as bad as racism. I can only suppose that you are willfully misinterpreting the message, as the point is “The public’s feelings do not matter, as they do not always reflect the public good.”

[Gotdamnmiracle]

Actually now isn't it still insulting to the communists, Ie. the people we want to improve relations with (China, North Korea, yaddi yadda)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Supreme Court ruled that it was in keeping with the Constitution, which embodies our founding principles, to address a supreme being with phrases far more religious than in god we trust, and that acknowledging a supreme being in a school prayer, by the state of NY, does not violate the constitution.

If you actually read your own link you would see that the ruling you are referring to was rendered by the New York Court of Appeals, and that said ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court 6-1, as is stated a page or two down from where your link starts. Engal et al v. Vitale was the case that established that schools could not endorse prayer under any circumstances, in keeping with the Seperation of Church and State in the US as declared by the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Emphasis mine. That is some of the single strongest language in the Constitution. No ambiguity, an outright ban.

[Sir Finkus]

No one is saying that this is as bad as racism. I can only suppose that you are willfully misinterpreting the message, as the point is “The public’s feelings do not matter, as they do not always reflect the public good.”

Thank you.  You can't bring up any historical example these days without being accused of making a direct comparison. 

That isn't to say that atheists aren't discriminated against, but it's nothing compared to level that blacks have experienced in American history.

[PTTG??]

Let's step back a bit here; can anyone make a convincing argument for why "in god we trust" should be present on our money and in the pledge?

[Gotdamnmiracle]

It brings a mediocre casus beli.

It Makes a group of people happy.

It may help in discussion with heavily monotheistic nations, showing that we have similar interests.

Uh let me think.

[Nadaka]

Because if we don't, those godless commies will win the cold war!

[Leafsnail]

Can't have those atheists/ Hindus/ Buddhists feeling like they're actually full members of society!