|
|
| Author |
Message |
omni
|
|
In God We Trust?
| 
Mar 22 04:37 UTC 1995 |
With the NEW government in town changing and or eliminating all the
precious symbols and icons that we hold dear (i.e Pictures of Jesus hanging
in a school, school prayer, etc.); I wonder how long it will be before
the brilliant (?) people in Washington discover that out money will
have to changed, as well as the Pledge of Alleigience (sp) and other
stuff that contains a reference to God.
The phrase "In God We Trust" clearly violates the separation of
church and state, as does the words "Under God" in the Pledge, as
well as the various references to God in the Constitution, and the
Declaration of Independence, as well as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
I don't know where you stand-- however I prefer this nation t
keep In God we Trust on the money, and Under God in the Pledge. It was
in my opinion a miracle that this fledgling democracy lasted so
long, and I firmly believe that we did have a little help from above.
What do you think?
|
| 176 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 1 of 176:
|
Mar 22 04:38 UTC 1995 |
The day they remove those words from the money, I'm moving to Saudi Arabia.
It may not have all the freedoms we enjoy, but at least they pray on a
regular basis.
|
raytlee
|
|
response 2 of 176:
|
Mar 22 04:50 UTC 1995 |
What happen when an atheist says the Pledge? Are you going to say he or she
is lying? What if he or she refuse to say 'under God'? As I don't believe
in God, is it implied that I cannot believe in the greenback?
|
anig
|
|
response 3 of 176:
|
Mar 22 06:43 UTC 1995 |
Our currency is just one of the many examples of the crooked wall that
seperates Church and State. It is almost impossible to keep them
totally seperated. When looking at the phrase 'In God We Trust,'
this obviously shows when Church interfers with the State, but there
are many times when the State interfers with the church such as
financial aid to private religiously affiliated schools. I go to a
private Methodist school (although I am Catholic) but I get money
from the State. I say teh crokked line of seperation should stay!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 176:
|
Mar 22 07:31 UTC 1995 |
Since you asked - I'd like to see all the religious references removed
from all public documents and usages. The early ones are there because
that is how people spoke regardless of their convictions, and the later
ones were added by busybodies. Of course, everyone should still be free
to believe whatever they like (while acting within the bounds of law),
but we'd be a more civilized country if one group wasn't always trying to
impose their beliefs on others groups. Omni, I predict that you would
not be happy in Saudi Arabia - you would not be allowed ham radio.
|
gregc
|
|
response 5 of 176:
|
Mar 22 09:31 UTC 1995 |
First off, I'm curious about all the things you say the NEW government
is doing. Separation of church and state was gaurenteed in the constitution
over 200 years ago. Prayer in school was banned many years ago. What is
so new about the things going on now?
Yes, I too believe it should be removed from those documents. As an example
I've always wondered what would happen if I was ever called to testify
in court. They swear you in with the oat: "Do you swear to tell the
truth, the.... So help you God?" How do I answer that? I don't believe in
a god. Does taking it make me a lier? Would it invalidate the oath?
|
nephi
|
|
response 6 of 176:
|
Mar 22 09:44 UTC 1995 |
Hmm. I wonder what the appropriate response to that is?
|
helmke
|
|
response 7 of 176:
|
Mar 22 12:08 UTC 1995 |
The NEW government is busy putting all the God and Jesus back *into* public
areas, documents, etc., or at least trying to.
|
zook
|
|
response 8 of 176:
|
Mar 22 14:16 UTC 1995 |
If I understood the In God We Trust on the sawbuck issue, this was actually
put on "recently" - 1950's? Personally, I'd rather see that kind of stuff
removed...
|
ajax
|
|
response 9 of 176:
|
Mar 22 15:23 UTC 1995 |
Another vote for removal. Historical documents like the declaration of
independence are set in stone, so there's no use quibbling about that, but
for new things, having "god" printed on them just doesn't fit with what I
think America is about.
I think making kindergarteners say the pledge of allegiance would be a
farce even if it did lack the word "God." It was probably years after I
had to say it daily before I learned what all the words actually were, and
what "allegiance" and "indivisibility" really meant. If the gov't wants to
brainwash 5-year-olds with patriotism, they ought to at least get a Barney
songwriter to come up with lyrics they can understand!
By the way, the pledge was first published in 1892; "indivisible" was
probably a jab at southern separatists. "Under God" didn't appear until
1954, by Congressional mandate. And since 1943, the gov't can no longer
force you to say the pledge to go to school; teachers can yell at you and
ostracize you, but you can claim a first ammendment "right of silence."
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 176:
|
Mar 22 16:35 UTC 1995 |
That's right -- the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was put
in by the Eisenhower administration.
I also would like to see religious references disappear from government-
issued items such as money.
|
matthew
|
|
response 11 of 176:
|
Mar 22 17:26 UTC 1995 |
I think that the courst no longer use, or at least require the use , of
"...so help you God" in the swearing in procedure.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 12 of 176:
|
Mar 22 17:38 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 176:
|
Mar 22 18:01 UTC 1995 |
Isn't the continuation of the quote, "Others pay cash"?
|
janc
|
|
response 14 of 176:
|
Mar 22 18:33 UTC 1995 |
I've always wondered who put they "under god" into the pledge, how and why.
Is the "In God We Trust" as recent? Did they put that on after moving off
the gold standard?
|
phreakus
|
|
response 15 of 176:
|
Mar 22 18:45 UTC 1995 |
What about those Americans who (myself included) are not Christian? Think
about it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 176:
|
Mar 22 20:54 UTC 1995 |
Those Americans that are not christians share the identical rights and
responsibilities of citizenship as all Americans. So, what am I supposed to
think about (it)?
|
omni
|
|
response 17 of 176:
|
Mar 22 21:02 UTC 1995 |
Explanation about the NEW government: Newt and his bunch
Rane, Ham radio is not the end all, be all of existence. I hardly operate
now, and I doubt if I would really miss it if I were to move to Saudi
Arabia.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 176:
|
Mar 22 21:13 UTC 1995 |
Then, how about being forbidden to display pictures of Jesus, or to pray to
any god but Allah, at the risk of losing your head?
|
cyberpnk
|
|
response 19 of 176:
|
Mar 22 22:19 UTC 1995 |
About the phrase 'In God we trust': it doesn't say WHOSE god, does it?
|
otterwmn
|
|
response 20 of 176:
|
Mar 22 22:33 UTC 1995 |
re #19: That was my point too, but some folks have no "god".
I believe that if you check the Constitution, you will find no language
regarding a separation of church and state. What the Constitution does is
prohibit the state's establishment of a church, which IMHO makes a lot of
recent court rulings seem silly and paranoid.
Bloomingdale (picture of Jesus debacle) is near my home town. My suggestion:
leave Jesus there, and add Buddah, John Wesley, Nostredamus, etc., and call it
"Prophets Throughout History". Who could bitch?
|
ajax
|
|
response 21 of 176:
|
Mar 22 23:12 UTC 1995 |
For accuracy's sake, the exact wording is "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof...."
It's certainly very open to interpretation, but it's a bit different
than your wording; I think "establishment" might be meant in the same
sense as an "eating establishment," but in this case a "religious
establishment." I don't think they were talking about congress
establishing The Church of The United States.
As for hanging Jesuses in schools, another factor to consider is how
Jesus is depicted. If it looks like a White Anglo-Saxon Jesus, it could
definitely draw some criticism from historians or non-Anglo-Saxons.
Jesus has been "marketed" in the US similarly to how we market the Mighty
Morphin' Power Rangers in other countries: make them appear to be local
natives of target market.
|
scratch
|
|
response 22 of 176:
|
Mar 22 23:22 UTC 1995 |
It's odd how our culture is changing so much...Those that are religious are
arguing with those that arenot religious, and vice versa over something that
unless you are inspecting the coin, one won't notice. My opinion, I think
people in general just want something to bitch about :>
|
ajax
|
|
response 23 of 176:
|
Mar 23 02:03 UTC 1995 |
True :). But folks here aren't violently fanatical about getting rid
of the slogan, they're just expressing that if it were up to them, they'd
want it one way or another. I think the reason it's not a big national
issue is that people just don't care all that much about it!
I was thinking some more about what was meant by "establishment" in
the first ammendment. The only thing clear about the sentence is that
it sure isn't clear!!
|
omni
|
|
response 24 of 176:
|
Mar 23 04:20 UTC 1995 |
re 18- When in Rome....
|
