...and this is a problem why? IMHO - It would be a problem if it were a result of governments closing down churches and banning people from observing their religions. But that is not the case here. Overall, people in the world today enjoy much more religious freedom than they have in recent generations. Just look at what's happened in the past 100 years in Russia, China, Germany and Japan. The countries where people don't enjoy religious freedom today, primarily Islamic countries, would only benefit the statistics in the article you cited, since I assume most people in those countries would say they are religious people. As long as this change we're seeing is a result of the choices that individuals are making, why is it a problem? Assuming you can articulate why it is a problem that I should be concerned about, what should be done about it?
I think this question is drifting off topic but honestly, the change is access to new information, evidence, facts, etc over what is only taught through indoctrination by the parents. A child is not born religious, they're taught to be religious. Just like a person isn't born to be a racist, they're taught to be racist.
He was a huge supporter of Separation of Church and State and understood that it benefited the religious more than the non-religious actually, which sadly most religious don't quite understand that it benefits them more than any other.
My guess is that it would be a problem to the person's family. If a family unit grew together going to church and being religious and all of a sudden one of that family's member became a non-believer then that in itself may cause friction. Maybe the family at one point was perfectly functional and now maybe it's dysfunctional. Food for thought, nothing more.
I'm not the one that's worried. It's the religious that are worried that people like me are out to destroy the world with my non-belief. I'm not out to destroy the world, nor do I demand that you not believe. If you want to live your life by some set of religious laws, so be it. Should I have to live my life that way? Absolutely not. No religious institution should want, or have, any influence on any government. Oh, BTW, I don't care one way or another about IGWT on our money. IGWT has absolutely no bearing on its value. Even money that bears the phrase IGWT easily buys sin, but it will never buy salvation.
Well I hate to tell you this but this coin forum is not a non-profit, so neither am I. The owners tries his best to make money with this forum. So copyrighted images posted here violate the fair use clause. And that is not the only reason either. There are 4 basic guidelines that are used by the courts to determine if fair use is being violated. One of those is the amount of the content being used. And as I said before, a photo stands on it's on and represents the entire content of a copyright protected item. If you think differently then you ask your wife this. Ask her if she can take a photo out of another magazine and then use that photo in one pf her publications without getting written permission from the copyright owner of that photo. And by the way, I used to be an editor too so I also had to know and understand the copyright laws. Do you really think that I would just say something like that if I had not researched it thoroughly ? In the past I have publications like Coin World for permission to post just 1 photo from their magazine here on the forum. In every single case permission to post that photo was refused based on the copyright laws. Why do you think publications like newspapers and magazines all have their own photographers ? If they could use another paper's/magazine's pictures under the fair use clause they would, but they cannot because copyright law does not permit it.
Unfortunately there is no such clause in the Constitution that requires a separation of church and state. The clause simply says - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof In article 6 it further says - No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Now that's pretty plain language, nice and clear. And nowhere does it say that there must be a separation of church and state. It says what I have just quoted above and that is it. It is people who wish to interpret those clauses to mean that there must be a separation of church and state because they want a such a separation. But the Constitution most definitely does not state that there must be. And by the way, the courts agree. And that is why In God We Trust is still on our coinage and currency. You have every right to disagree if you want to. But until the courts agree with you, it will likely stay just as it is.
It seems to me that Jesus was doing fine, until He tossed the moneyers out of the Temple. I suppose the Lord would not like His name on these devices. Just my opine.
I personally would avoid using graphics that where the owner prohibits it even though you probably are ok under the fair use clause. I am not an attorney specializing in intellectual property rights, I just took courses in e-commerce and internet marketing and don't know why I mentioned that. Someone else in another thread brought up a political science course they took in regards to post content and the Bill of Rights. I do understand though the purpose of building community to encourage users to return to the site frequently and you would want to restrict posts that may cause users to leave the site.
Let me trade anyone who dosent like money with in god we trust written on dollar for dollar my pretty colored parker brothers notes that hasnt gotton much of anything on them. Iam sure you will agree that the value of each is about the same. Its strange and funny at the same time that our money has had that wording as long as any here were born. Why does it seem to be a problem in the last few years for it to be on the money we handle today. I feel some want attention and find this is a sure way they will get it. Nothing said on this form will change anyones mind so its a wasted thread. Back to real money silver coins please.
All i can tell you is to read the fair use act. and did you not see me say " you cant use an image to promote or for monetary gain. using a photo IN HER MAGAZINE would be exactly that. this is an internet fourm and falls under COMMENTARY. COMMENTARY is protected in the fair use act. i made no mention of any site policies, i am only stating the protections granted under the act. and this is one of those protected circumstances. your question about my wifes magazines is not relevant to this situation. apples and oranges.
and so you know, this act protects a "for-profit" site or publication from being held responsible for what is posted in COMMENTARY.
Riff, all I can tell you is that there is a whole lot more to it than you seem to think. For one thing the rules and the application of the rules to the use of photographs is entirely different than they are for the use of text. Now here are several links that help explain how fair use works. It is most important to understand that there are never, repeat never, any hard guidelines. Each and every individual case must be examined completely on its own. http://rising.blackstar.com/understanding-fair-use.html http://libguides.hiu.edu/content.php?pid=53746&sid=393861 http://tep.uoregon.edu/technology/onlinelearning/fairuse.html http://www.writing-world.com/rights/fair.shtml Now read what you find at the links. I have, all of them and lot more besides. Meanwhile, when you get to make the decisions about what is and what is not permitted on this web site in regard to copyright law, then you can change things if you wish. But until then, I will, or the site owner will. And and I both tend to prefer to err on the side of caution. If you have ever been through a lawsuit, you should understand that thinking. You see it's one thing to sit there and claim that this or that is allowed - when you are not the one who stands to pay the piper. When you are the one who is called to pay the piper, things look a bit differently.
sorry, but i have more faith in my wife, a senior editor of both a national and international publication, college educated JOURNALIST, than your links.
and again, i am only speaking of the protection of COMMENTARY. not the use of a pic for an avatar(promotion, not protected), not the posting of material by a website OWNER, nor the posting of uncredited literature.
Bottom line guys is its NOT your butt on the line. Even if a person is technically correct on a point, they can get sued into bankruptcy on a dime in this country. SO, until its YOUR BUTT in the sling here, until its YOUR potential well being on the line, Peter is the man who will set the terms and conditions under which HE is willing to risk his financial future. End of story. My opinion anyway.
