Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

"I want the buddhists and the scientologist, and the new agers all to feel that they are represented as well, not merely tolerated as bobbeth suggested."

Mike: With all due respect, I didn't say "tolerated" and didn't mean "tolerated" either. If you got that impression, I appologize for not being clear. If you used that word to exagerate my position, then shame on you

I celebrate the fact that we have freedom of religion in the country. I celebrate the fact that everyone can believe differently and that we can all get along. I don't think people believing differently should merely be "tolerated," but the diversity they bring because of their different opinions should be embraced.

However, being a realist, I don't see how everyone can be "represented," as many of the beliefs are opposite. And, as you know already, I believe in continuing the traditions and general belief in God that our country has had for 200+ years.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You know, Bobbeth, you just gave me this perspective:

It is a fact that our government believes in God. I never really thought of it that way before.

That said, it might be better phrased to say that I think that the government shouldn't believe in God. The people can, and any way that they wish, but the government should not believe in God.

 

i must say you are the new find for the forum

where were you allt hese years?

 

Uncle if you had listene to me you would have known that God is not religion specific here it includes all religions.

 

OK, we've come this far. The next question is then, Why shouldn't it believe in God? It is not forcing anyone else to believe (and in fact has laws guaranteeing that everyone can worship as they may or not at all) so what is the harm of it?

 

I want people to separate their religious beliefs from their professional life as legislators.

It's simply understanding what you believe vs. what you can legislate legally. It's not that subtle. They do it all of the time.

Judges are also very good at it. They judge cases based on the law rather than what they personally believe. They are all still people, Doug. Haven't you ever had to separate your personal life from your business life?

 

During high-speed pursuits, many police feel an adrenaline rush. Upon finally reaching the subject, it is very common for the adrenaline to make police want to be very physical with the subjects that they pursue, but the law requires them to back off.

Their bodies tell them to do something, the law another. They follow the law, it's their job.

 

I think freedom from religion is directly implied in freedom of religion. If you are free to practice any religion you want, how can you turn around and then say that those same religions can turn around and freely badger you? How does that make any sense? Who would ever conceive of freedom in that context? The people that argue from that standpoint clearly are no friends of the concept of logic.

 

How about we start again off the top of my head and begin with prayer in schools.

The US Supreme Court case of Lemon v. Kurtzman[1971] established the so-called "Lemon test" which states that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment any practice sponsored within state run schools (or other public, state sponsored activities) must:

Have a secular purpose;
Must neither advance nor inhibit religion as its primary effect, and;
Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.


From this case alone, I see no secular purpose of IGWT. I believe that it advances "God based religions" and shows a preference toward them.

I'd like to know the secular purpose to swearing in an atheist witness, or why if a president should be an atheist, should he still say "so help me God" in his oath of office?

where's the line? when are we crossing it?

 

I and many others feel that you are wrong. We came to escape persecution and to practice freely.

two words:
Jehovah's Witness

Evangelists of all kinds are present in the US. They do tend to promote their beliefs to non-believers and can be thought of as a less pervasive example of people who "badger" you about their religious beliefs.

 

Some came here for that reason, some came because they were on slave ships and still others came because of political persecution back home, some people were already here, and a whole host of other reasons. We can not all be defined by those that had differing religious views than their home countries

I don't really care if someone wants to knock on my door and tell me about their beliefs. I can always close the door. It is only when they take their beliefs and try to influence social policy that I draw the line.

 

Funny how differently you and I think about the same thing eh? If I'm not mistaken the Constitution starts out "WE THE PEOPLE" NOT "WE THE SUPREME COURT". How quickly you abdicate your inalienable rights to a government institution for the sake of political expediency. If there is a “dispute” regarding one person’s rights verses another person’s right, we do have a court that decides based on the Constitution or at least as much as can be interpreted by taking a stab at the founders original intentions. The document itself can’t possibly encompass all instances that may arise so we get elected leaders appointing partisan judges making decisions based of their political allegiances when the Constitution doesn’t spell out the answer clearly and one bench will overturn previous benches rulings. You speak of it as if it were black and white so you fail to see the dynamic forces at play in all judicial decisions. It s not what I think that matters. It is what the powerful elite want that has really shaped this country more than anything. Sad really.

 

If that were even remotely true, we'd also see Allah, Satan, Zeus, Buddha, and any number of other deities on our coins but we don't. We see the Christian version. Certainly the term God can represent different things to different people but why does that fact make it more acceptable than putting IN ALIENS WE TRUST on our money? I read a study that said 80% of people believe that the US government is hiding proof of aliens. I bet 80% of people in this country do not believe in God. Is what a majority of people believe really a good rationalization for keeping IN GOD WE TRUST on our money?

 

Here is your study. You are correct. it is not 80% of people who believe, but 92%;

See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

 

Well, if it comes from FOX News it must be reliable lol
Guy~