looks like we need a juicy thread, so here it goes...................

This is right from the Treasury departments web page.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fa...d-we-trust.html


Fact Sheets: Currency & Coins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of 'In God We Trust'
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

**************************************************
**********


I think this is proof that our Constitution was violated and that "In God We trust" was put on our money to Establish Christianity as the Country's Religeon.


I know, Troll bait, but anythread that educates readers on the Constitution is a good thread, regardless if you are for or against any particular issue.

As long as I have at least 50 in god we trusts in my wallet I dont give a shit.

I don't see how "In God We Trust" is uniquely Christian.

The evidence that the Founding Father's didn't see public recognition of Deity as a violation of the Constitution is quite abundant (I'd have to write a huge book to collect it all).

The thing that was not taken into consideration, is your unique position (it was much more unique back in those days) that illogically states that you "know there is no God" (i.e. atheism). The problem with this position, is that it creates a paradox with the "separation of Church and State" concept. Atheism is one choice in the spectrum of religious beliefs. To write (or interpret) laws that requires atheism to be the only allowed practice in public/government settings is a direct violation of the First Amendment "congress shall write no laws respecting the establishment of religion".

-pheirce

"I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."
- Benjamin Franklin (IIRC correctly, Franklin wasn't a Christian)
Post edited by pheirce at 8/10/2002 5:02:49 PM

could be any god, like that hindu thing.. allah or mabe thats muslum... anyway im sure all religions have 1 god or they cant read or afford to be in this country... dont mean to be racist!

I thought there were gonna be pics of good lookn girls in here... What a waist

I totally agree. Under the argument that "God" is a generic term, had it been "In a god we trust" that argument would be valid. "God" is the name given to the god that is worshiped by either Christians or Jews. To say that "God" doesn't specifically identify the Jewish/Christain god is like saying you aren't a religious person, but you are a child of God. However, since it would require the reprinting of many documents, it would be too costly to change.

On the Pledge of Alliegence decision that happened a short time ago. "under God" was placed in the Pledge of Alliegence for similar reasons. During the McCarthyism period, everyone was so obssessed with communism that the bill to put the phrase in there was the for express purpose of "showing our children that we a nation under a Christian God, and nothing like the godless communists". Hell, it's what Eisenhower (I think, I'm really rusty on my history) said as he was signing the bill.

the thing is, this was a Christian request, not Jewish or any other as is evidenced in the treasury historical pages. It wasnt intended to be generic, we assumed that because today many religions have Gods, but in the time that this was done, it was inteneded as The Christian God. read the whole treasury thread and tell me they meant it generic. I dont think so.


and it is not a Godless act to keep the Government seperate from church. Even Christians should be supporting the seperation of church and state as is dictated by the Constitution. most of the additions of religeous mottos in government were added after all the founding fathers were dead. "In God We Trust" came 70 years after the constitution. Most of the references were influenced by a very powerful christian lobby after the civil war.

until we start fixing all the constitutional violations our politicians perpetrated we will be in jeopardy of further abuse.

my stand is not an anti-religious one as most of you probably think. my stand is we need to get our Government back in alignment with the Constitution. that includes Income tax too.

Our Government is in direct violation of the constitution on many fronts. the more they pile up, the closer the constitution comes to being considered obsolete. Do you believe the Constitution is unimportant? should we allow it to continue to be violated? Am I the only one here who sees it as being in jeopardy?

furthermore, how can you defend Christmas and Easter being considered Federal Holidays? every Federal worker gets these days off unless in a critical area. Were these FEDERAL holidays meant as generic? Or is it possible a Christian Coalition established itself deep within our government and resents the seperation of church and state our founding fathers deemed absolutely critical to the future of our country.




Pheirce, i have to admit i love your well thought out and eye opening responses. i didnt know Ben had said that. But asking for prayer before a meeting before the constitution was ratified doesnt mean it was okay to violate it after.

Originally posted by: ThrillKillKulT

the thing is, this was a Christian request, not Jewish or any other as is evidenced in the treasury historical pages. It wasnt intended to be generic, we assumed that because today many religions have Gods, but in the time that this was done, it was inteneded as The Christian God.

The money could say "In Christ We Trust" and it would have been MORE accurate for Christian theology. I would not back these words (even though I believe in it) just as I wouldn't back a request to have the words "and Mohamed is His Prophet" added to the "In God We Trust". The fact that they keep it generic makes it acceptible to me.

It's a circular, dangerous argument that states that the request was by a Christian, therefore we can't do what he requests.

It's circular because only a religious person would make the request, so you could always say that their request is invalid because they belong to a specific religious sect.

It's dangerous, because it's close to being religious bigotry; violating the very thing that you are hoping to protect (i.e. the Constitution, esp. the First Amendment). What, essentially, you are saying is that the person's request should be categorically disregarded simply because the man is a Christian. In other words, the man does not deserve representation because of his religious beliefs. From my view, that's dangerous. Where does it end? When the same man asks his representative to define a fetus as a viable lifeform, worthy of protecting (thus making abortion illegal), you could easily say "This man's opinion doesn't count because he is a Christian and his view is tainted with his Christian theology". By this reasoning, the only people worthy of representation would be atheists or possibly deists who do not recognize a specific religious belief (i.e. they generically believe that God exists in some form but do not follow any specific religious sect.). This would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

As far as the Federal Holidays, I think you are making mountains out of molehills. The Christmas timeframe itself was directly related to the Roman festivals that would happen at the end of the year. These festivals were rooted in paganism, but were mainly secular and instituted by the Roman government. This timeframe does not correspond with the actual birth of Christ (since when did you see shepards tend their sheep in the fields in the winter?). As far as I'm concerned, as long as options exist during this time frame for all religions (and even the non-religious) to celebrate how they will, I don't think it a big deal that it's a federal holiday. Again, where is that going to end? We should maybe remove Martin Lurther King day off the list of federal holiday's because he was a preacher? For that matter, I've got to think that every day of the calendar year has got to have some religious significance to someone somewhere.

And yes, I'm keenly aware of the First Amendment and the Constitution in General. I have an extremely revered view of the Constitution because I happen to believe it was a divinely inspired document. I do believe, in principle, with the idea of the "separation of church and state" (I think it more accurately to say I believe in the idea of "no law respecting the establishment of religion"), but I'm worried about how some federal judges choose to implement the idea.

From my view, the main reason the First Amendment in regards to religion was put into the Constitution was to make sure the Government would not show favor to any religion over another (as was happening in England) and allow people to worship (or not worship) as they saw fit.

(BTW, did you know there was a time in post-Constitutional US History where laws were written and executed that allowed people to murder memebers of a specific religious sect solely because they professed belief in this sect? I bring the point up because it illustrates the kind of thing that the Founding Father's understood governments capable of and what exactly they were trying to prevent.)

And about Ben Franklin's comments on prayer, if you want I'll find other quotes and examples that showed his religious persuasion was not suddenly modifed after the Constitution was written. Congress, even today, opens each session with a prayer. It's a practice that was instituted by our Founding Fathers. They also instituted the appointed office of a Congressional chaplain.

-pheirce

EDIT: to add link.
Post edited by pheirce at 8/11/2002 3:12:34 AM

interesting, i will respond more later, i will say, we all know politicians praying before sessions is a hypocritical act. they are a mostly immoral bunch.

Originally posted by: ThrillKillKulT

they are a mostly immoral bunch.

This is probably true except the concept of Chaplains and prayer before sessions were instituted in our founding father's day. Many of those same founding father's were in the congress that voted on these ideas. While there was disagreement about the chaplain idea (mainly from Madison who was the sole author of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and history has proven that the chaplain idea might be worth a second look), there was no disagreement about prayer (once the first prayer was offered and it was shown that it could be non-denominational).

I only bring it up because the idea clearly shows the intent of the Founding Father's (i.e. they didn't see public expression of faith, even in the form of prayer, to be a violation of their own amendment and they certainly wouldn't see the simple recognition of Divine Being by using the word "God" to be one).

-pheirce

if it was a generic statement, maybe it should have been: "In zero to many Gods we trust". I'm not getting into the debate, but I, just like with the whole "under god" thing, believe it should not be there.
Stinkfist
---
Skeptics Annotated Bible

i think if you read the history of it on the treasurys web page, you will see it was put there to mean the Christian God. it was not intended to be interpretted as generic.

Originally posted by: ThrillKillKulT

i think if you read the history of it on the treasurys web page, you will see it was put there to mean the Christian God. it was not intended to be interpretted as generic.

that was what i was getting at. As I said, if it were meant to be generic, it would have said something similar to what i said.
Stinkfist
---
Skeptics Annotated Bible

The phrase "separation of church and state" is found no where in the Constitution.It was coined by the judiciary branch of our government.
In the First Amendment, the establishing clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...", refers SPECIFICALLY to the government endorsing a national religion; i.e, forcing it's citizens to adhere to the beliefs established by the governing body.
The monarchy of England is a perfect example; new king or queen, new state-sponsored religion (flipping from Catholisim to Protestantism);all those not conforming were persecuted and punished.
This DOES NOT happen in this country...ANYONE is free to worship as he/she see's fit.
If you want to talk about a violation of our Constitution, read up on The Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11.
It basically gives the Federal Government the power to;
1)illegal search and seizure
2)denies american citizens the right to due process/counsel upon arrest
3)violates the First Amendment regarding free speech
4)there's more....read up on it
Post edited by Ballixxe at 8/12/2002 8:54:01 AM



Ballixxe

I'm not Phat, I just haven't grown into my body yet.

please tell me you didnt just learn this????

Originally posted by: Ballixxe

The phrase "separation of church and state" is found no where in the Constitution.It was coined by the judiciary branch of our government.
In the First Amendment the establishing clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...", refers SPECIFICALLY to the government endorsing a national religion, i.e, forcing it's citizens to adhere to the beliefs established by the ruling body.
The monarchy of England is a perfect example; new king or queen, new state-sponsored religion (flipping from Catholisim to Protestantism);all those not conforming were persecuted and punished.
This DOES NOT happen in this country...ANYONE is free to worship as he/she see's fit.
If you want to talk about a violation of our Constitution, read up on The Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11.
It basically gives the Federal Government the power to;
1)illegal search and seizure
2)denies american citizens the right to counsel upon arrest
3)violates the First Amendment regarding free speech
4)there's more....read up on it

yes, i agree that that is of utmost concern also, anything that tampers with the constitution is bad.

ok, i am gonna end my input like this:

try to imagine if you live in this country, pay taxes, fight for it in the military, do evrything you can to keep it strong. Now imagine that you are not Christian. Can you possibly understand how it feels when you try to bring up your children as great Americans when they see that this country does in fact give Christians prefered treatment and special recognition. I.E. "In God we Trust", Christmas and easter recognized as federal holidays, sundays a federally recognized non workday. etc.

Why do Christians believe that these things should be left as is? It doesnt dillute the Christian faith at all. The only possible reason I can think of is it unvalidates all other beliefs. These things do in fact establish Christianity as the USA religion of choice, which is against our founding fathers intentions.

I would be okay with "In our Beliefs we trust" or "free to believe" or "in Freedom we Trust"

My belief is not intruding on yours, because removing God from the money doesnt invalidate Christ. but yours is intruding on mine, because leaving it on Validates Christ in the eyes of this Govt.

If it forces someone to become christian, then they are too stupid to have money or say the pleadge.

Its a peace of legall tender, its not printed on a bullet.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

If it forces someone to become christian, then they are too stupid to have money or say the pleadge.

Its a peace of legall tender, its not printed on a bullet.

wow, what an intelligent thing to say. I doubt you have the capacity to understand the importance of the Constitution. Notice How Pheirce and others can disagree with good points that may or may not be correct interpretations. as I may or may not be correct about my interpretations. If you think this thread is about money, then i guess you must be challenged. I am assuming you put stupid and then intentionally mispelled half your words to prove some kind of point.

god:
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.
----------------------------------------------------------

TKK arent you being a little too specific in what God means on your money? So what some christian asked for it. The person who wrote it, wrote it to recognize their is a God.

Just because a Christian made the request does not mean the person who wrote it meant the word God to be the Christian God. If it is the Christian God so what?

Clearly the government decided to recognize their is a God, but which one is unclear. We know a christian asked for this, but we dont know if the word "God" on the money and in the pledge is directed at a christian God. And if it is so what?

Does it impede your spending?
Does it offend you?
If it offends you dont use the money. This petty bickering over whether the word "God" should be printed on your money and in your pledge doesnt solve anything in any way. We have starving poor people in your country as well as many others. We are teetering on being at war with many nations, Biological and chemical warfare is possibly the next type of war we will fight, terrorism is at an all time high, and a 1 year anniversary of those who lived in this country and died in a national symbol is coming up.

And all you guys can do is bicker over the word God and whether it stands for christianity or some other religion. How it offends you and how it should be removed and more and more BS that, given the current situation of the world, is absolutely a waste of time and money and honestly a waste of space on this baord.

Give me a break and do something better with your time, this is pointless and useless. Their are bigger issues to deal with then some word on US money. Its debates like this that take time away from serious topics that affect our world and possibly our freedoms, but we are too busy arguing with each other over a word.
Post edited by [UGC]Lonestar at 8/12/2002 12:29:42 AM

------------------------------------

"My Schwartz is bigger then yours!"
The clan of the future
United Gamers Coalition
UGC's Planet Warfare
[UGC]Lonestar

Originally posted by: Juzfugen

please tell me you didnt just learn this????

Didn't just learn what?
The Patriot Act?
Hell no...I've known about it all along.
Just thought that I'd give a TRUE example of a blatant violation of the Constitution.


Ballixxe

I'm not Phat, I just haven't grown into my body yet.

As hard as this may be so swallow, this country was founded by men whose beliefs were Judeo-Christian.
As a matter of fact, most of our law has it's very foundation in these beliefs.
While I can see how the national holidays of Easter & Christmas could offend some, this is a small price to pay for the freedom of religion that we have in this counrty.
In most countries with state-sponsored religion (Israel and most Muslim counties), it is ILLEGAL to publically proclaim your religion.
In Israel you may practice your religion in private, but to do so in a public way that MAY offend Jews is forbidden.
In most conservative muslim countries, a public profession of ANY religion other that Islam could result in the "separation of your head from your shoulders".
In the United States of America, you may;
1)practice any religion you see fit
2)publically profess your religion without fear of perseution or death
3)present your opinions in forums like these

The best thing about this thread is that we have all "agreed to disagree" intelligently.
That's cool as hell, don't you think?



Ballixxe

I'm not Phat, I just haven't grown into my body yet.

Originally posted by: Ballixxe


The best thing about this thread is that we have all "agreed to disagree" intelligently.
That's cool as hell, don't you think?

yes, I 100% agree, that is why i come here to "general" where we are asked to bring whatever it is we want to discuss.

I love talking and debating about this great Countries Origins. If You (Lonestar and Others) don't, move on. I happen to believe the constitution is way more important than starving poor people. I am not saying that Hunger is unimportant, I am saying that our Countries foundation just happens to be more important.

Does it impede my spending? I wish it did, it doesnt.

Does it offend me? yes it does.

would it offend you if it was removed? if yes, why?

What if some other religion decided they wanted recognition on money? say buhdists or Native Americans? would you be okay with that? if not why? what if we put a commemorative legal tender out honoring Darwin?

Do you really think this country was populated by just Christians when it was founded? Not even close, However, the vast Majority of the Wealthy and Powerful in the mid 1800's who made these changes were, which is why these Constitutional Violations were able to happen. Yes "In God We Trust" as well as "Under God" were debated back then, but there was no voice in Govt listening then.

Originally posted by: ThrillKillKulT

Originally posted by: Coba|t

If it forces someone to become christian, then they are too stupid to have money or say the pleadge.

Its a peace of legall tender, its not printed on a bullet.

wow, what an intelligent thing to say. I doubt you have the capacity to understand the importance of the Constitution. Notice How Pheirce and others can disagree with good points that may or may not be correct interpretations. as I may or may not be correct about my interpretations. If you think this thread is about money, then i guess you must be challenged. I am assuming you put stupid and then intentionally mispelled half your words to prove some kind of point.

Yes im a bad speller, Yes I can argue these points if I gave a shit, but I dont.
Christianity is a crock of shit, so why should I care if it says in god we trust on a peace of cash? I dont.

If you want more, go talk to one of those pinkos or republicans, they seem to care more about what people tell them to think than what they themselfs think, and will argue you to death.

When people are sworn in in court or judges/political officials are sworn in for taking office don't they have to put their hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth? What if the person that is testifying/serving is an Atheist, Muslim, Native American, etc... does it make their testimony/oath less valid than the Christian sworn in on the bible or do they use a different deity book?

And yes there are much more important things to be concerned with... but I just wanted to add an observation on what a poor job our government has done in maintaining the separation of church and state.

As far as Darwin goes, I subscribe to the "Intelligent Design" theory.
I believe that God created all life, but that He did it through the evolutionary process.
As far as my being offended if "In God We Trust" were removed;it's not that important to me, really.
Christianity teaches us that we ourselves are responsible for leading a God fearing, moral life.
The above mentioned phrase on our legal tender in no way impacts my moral/religious standing, nor does it violate the First Amendment.
My personal problem is with the Judiciary.The Constitution should be STRICTLY interpreted in the context it was first written, using the essays and opinions that our Founding Fathers published (The Federalist Papers, etc.) as a referance.
When a judge or Supreme Court Justice uses his/her own opinions to legislate from the bench it cheapens our Constitution and makes a mockery of it.


Post edited by Ballixxe at 8/12/2002 7:06:43 PM



Ballixxe

I'm not Phat, I just haven't grown into my body yet.

i would love a link to the federalist papers. i hear they are very enlightning. i will look on my own, but if you have one handy, i would be in your debt.

found them http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html

interesting thing is, i havent found a single religious reference in them yet. maybe our founding fathers were not as inspired by religion as many think. these papers are afterall what our founding fathers used to grow support for the ratification of the constitution.

i just scanned the federalist papers. only one reference to God and it was a vague reference about Natures God and the pursuit of happiness. religion maybe mentioned 10 times, most of which was talking about the necessity of keeping it out of Government.

I think if you seek the truth of our founding fathers intentions, these papers are a must read. of course if you do not seek truth you do not want to hear, you might not want to read these.

i have not thouroughly read them, these will take a while , it is maybe 200 pages. mabe more.

I've read different portions of the Federalist Papaers for different reasons (I have a book that is annotated and indexed by various relevant issues such as abortion, impeachment, the right to bare arms, etc. I'll see what it says specifically about religion and God when I get back from vacation).

While I don't know what it specifically says about those issues yet, I doubt there will be anything revealing. The Federalist Papers were written by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay and published in a New York newspaper. They wrote them to convince people to support the ratification of the Constitution. Since there weren't many people at that time who needed convincing that recognition of God was acceptible, I doubt they had much to say on the subject. It also wouldn't surprise me if they do say anything about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, that it would lean toward arguments for the Government to stay out of religion as Madison was the chief architect of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and it was a unique concept, at the time, to keep Government out of Religion.

-pheirce

they had something that was relevant to the abortion issue? i would be interested to know which paper references it. not because i am for or against, but because i find it curious. I wasnt aware that abortion was an issue at all before the 20th century. BTW, i do firmly believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent child. I do understand the Pro-choice stance and can respect their opinions, just still think it is wrong.


oh, enjoy your vacation.
Post edited by ThrillKillKulT at 8/12/2002 9:30:01 PM

All,

I must say, that I have seen some valid points, but everyone seems to forget that as an athiest/disbeliever, you are a minority. The major percentage of Americans still believe in a Christian God. "In God We Trust" is generic enough to support any monothiestic religion, including athiesm. Pertaining to the latter, the God of athiesm is apathy and discontent. "Well it's a crock of shit, and I don't care."

The talk of removing the "slogan" off the money is of little consequence in the large scheme of things. However, it still comes down to what the majority of America wants.

My daughter started kindergarten today, and you know what her pledge of allegiance is?? Here goes:

"I pledge allegiance, to the Christian Flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation, under God, with Liberty, and Justice for all."

Now, some of you leftists and athiests could easily get aggravated and disappointed by that pledge, but in my neighborhood, we're all Christians. And to us, the flag does represent a Christian nation. One day, I imagine that some liberal claiming that the pledge is a violoation of their rights and some crap, but the fact remains that they are the minority here, and last I checked that in a democracy, the majority rules.

Let me ask you athiests this:
1)I believe in God. I believe that in all of us, is a good person that with the nurturing power of the Holy Spirit can and has made this world a better place. What do you believe?

2)I, as a God fearing christian, do not feel threatened by an athiest who likes to impose his "It's all bullshit" rants on my ears. Why is that you seem to think your rights are being violated when Christians congregate and vote on what they want?

3)Why do you celebrate Christmas?

4)Why do you use the money?

5)Are you willing to accept the consequences if you're wrong about God when you die? The price to pay for being wrong is far worse than the price one would pay if you had decided to believe.

I will close on this last note:

Can everyone agree that everything seems to be getting worse? The weather gets hotter/colder/more severe every year, the ozone layer becomes thinner every year, more and more heinous crimes are commited....

As a whole, the human race is disgusting. Children are raped, wars over oil, an earthly commodity, wreak havoc on countries all over the world. Sex is being brought into children's lives as soon as they can comprehend what is being said on the television. Minds are continually being warped to the absolute lowest common denominator.

-All of which has been prophesied in the Bible-

Get right or get left. Get on God's side or get french fried. Apathy and hatred will only bring about further demise.

But of course, it was also prophesied that eventually Christians will be hated. Now that you have a glimpse of the future, will you still follow the wrong path?

The choice is yours.

whew....I can't add ANYTHING to that, $paceGhost, except:

AMEN!!!!


Ballixxe

I'm not Phat, I just haven't grown into my body yet.

As to #5- We can only hope there is for ppl like Sadam, etc.

Why do I use $? Its not CHRISTIAN money is it? Its legall tender.

If god is so loveing, why doesnt he love those that dont go to a building every sunday morning when they could be with their family doing something together thats FUN? does it hurt his ego so much that he needs to take it out on people who dont believe that some magic force created everything around us?

As I have said many many many times before, show me proof.
My response: I dont need proof, I have blind faith.
Not a real response, as its I who want the proof.

well, i must say you do have a narrow view of things.

1. I have no problem with your daughers pledge, as long as it isnt forced on her by the learning institution and people of other religions can alter it to fit theirs. Does your neighborhood forbid non-christians from moving in? will they burn a cross on their lawns if they do?

2. This is not a democracy, Our fore fathers new democracies always failed in the past, that is why they went the Republic route. We are a Union of States with appointed and elected representatives. The reason was so a majority through passion wouldn't make bad decisions that went against the constitution.

3. "The talk of removing the "slogan" off the money is of little consequence in the large scheme of things. However, it still comes down to what the majority of America wants."

what if the Majority of America wanted Gun Control? What if the majority of america wanted our govt to start violating our inalienable rights to help stop terrorism? Is these violations of our constitution still of little consequence in the big scheme of things? These violations inspired by majority rule are the things our forefathers warned us against in the federalist papers (several references), including the establishment of a specific religion. Our founding fathers would of voted no to "In God we trust" , Christmas, easter and to the pledge of allegiance, because they did in fact vote against them when they wrote the constitution. Read the establishment clause and the federalist papers.

4. My View is not an Atheists or Christians, it is a Constitutionalists view. I believe deeply in the Constitution and have pledged to defend it with my life. (yes i am Military) and I vote Republican if you want to know.

5. "Why do I celebrate Christmas? Why do I use the money?" get real, like i have a choice. that is one of the stupidest arguments to use on this subject. why do enviromentalists drive Cars? why do christians work sundays for doubletime? blah blah blah.

that is almost as bad as "if you dont like it leave this country argument" I love this country, that is why I am passionate when its foundation is tampered with by politicians wanting re-election like in the 1860's when this violation occurred.



last note:

1. actually the weather is going through normal cycles on this planet. including the ozone layer. their is alot of misinformation about this.

2. Crimes were much worse in the 20's, things are more publicized now, so they seem worse. hell, the 70's were way worse than now. yes we have problems, but we always have. read some old newspapers if you dont believe me. BTW christians have killed many in the name of God, where do you think the vatican aquired all the land they own?

3. I agree, i don't like how much sex is shoved in our faces nowadays, but that too is cyclic and not new to this century. every hundred years those prophesies come true. not really hard prophecies to make up really.

4. fact is some things are better. racism is way down, global communication is way up, long term this will free the world. etc. not all is doom and gloom.

As far as Christians being hated, it is your policies of isolation and the demand of preferred treatment that further that cause. You see 100-150 years ago, christians in power changed alot of the government with no regard for the constitution because they could and didnt care that it went against our founding fathers warnings. until that injustice is righted, their will always be animosity.

what you said in your post in a nutshell is Your Christian views and rights are more important than everyone elses because you are Christian. You are saying this is a Christian Country.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

As to #5- We can only hope there is for ppl like Sadam, etc.

Why do I use $? Its not CHRISTIAN money is it? Its legall tender.

If god is so loveing, why doesnt he love those that dont go to a building every sunday morning when they could be with their family doing something together thats FUN? does it hurt his ego so much that he needs to take it out on people who dont believe that some magic force created everything around us?

As I have said many many many times before, show me proof.
My response: I dont need proof, I have blind faith.
Not a real response, as its I who want the proof.

You ask for something that you cannot get. You either have faith or dont. Your loss if you dont. Honestly, I wont try to convince someone who wont have a little faith in something greater then themselves. No im not christian or part of any organized BS religion. I just know we are a tiny speck in this universe and something bigger is out their. To see our universe and deny a greater being is pure and utter ignorance. It is of no consequence however, the truth is revealed to those at the proper time, being it death or a second coming, who knows? You will find out one day.

A mind is like a parachute, it works better when its open.
Post edited by [UGC]Lonestar at 8/13/2002 7:34:25 PM

------------------------------------

"My Schwartz is bigger then yours!"
The clan of the future
United Gamers Coalition
UGC's Planet Warfare
[UGC]Lonestar

"GOD IS DEAD AND NOONE CARES IF THERE IS A HELL I WILL SEE YOU THERE" - NIN (Heresy)

Listen to that song.
Post edited by Nelly Furtado at 8/13/2002 8:09:29 PM

Originally posted by: Nelly Furtado

"GOD IS DEAD AND NOONE CARES IF THERE IS A HELL I WILL SEE YOU THERE" - NIN (Heresy)

Listen to that song.

he sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see
he tries to tell me what i put inside of me
he got the answers to ease my curiosity
he dreamed a god up and called it christianity

god is dead and no one cares
if there is a hell i'll see you there

he flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
he made a virus that would kill off all the swine
his perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
demands devotion atrocities done in his name

god is dead and no one cares
if there is a hell i'll see you there
your god is dead and no one cares
if there is a hell i'll see you there

"will you die for this?
will you die for this?
will you die for this?
will you die for this?"

god is dead and no one cares
if there is a hell i'll see you there
(your god is dead)
god is dead (and no one cares)
and no one cares (drowning in his own hypocrisy)
if there is a hell (see you)
i'll see you there (you there)


i also like "Terrible lie"

Originally posted by: [UGC]Lonestar

A mind is like a parachute, it works better when its open.

if it is too open, your brain falls out.



actually, i somewhat agree, faith is not a choice, it is something you have no control over. I too believe we are a tiny speck, and am absoloutly convinced no man on this planet knows the truth of our existance. are we alone? i doubt it, it is an awefully big universe. is there a supreme being that made it all? I doubt it.