Do you think 'In God We Trust' belongs on American currency?

1. 68

   rsmalloryposted 13 years ago

   Vote here on MSNBC poll:
   
   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

   replyreport
   1. 71

      IntimatEvolutionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      WOW!  I'm one of the 12% who feels that GOD should have nothing to do with money, nor represent America in that fashion.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         RKHenryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Do feel alone IE.  You're not the only one who thinks the way you do.  It doesn't have a place.  It shouldn't have a place.  It is flat out unconstitutional, plain and simple.

         replyreport
2. 68

   rsmalloryposted 13 years ago

   So far the results are amazingly one sided. I am surprised because IMO MSNBC is pretty far left and I would think most of their viewers are too. But still, God is winning!
   
   Go God!

   replyreport
   1. 74

      AEvansposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I believe " In God We Trust" should still be printed on all currency in the U.S. that is what our Country was built on.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      88% to keep "In God We Trust"
      
      12% against.
      
      Cool
      
      Sorry Mark.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      MSNBC is not very far left at all.  They simply report news that is more moderate than say Fox.

      replyreport
   4. 58

      truefreedomposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Most definately "In God We Trust".  Our country was founded on Christianity.  People seem to forget or have lack of knowledge of the founding fore-fathers.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No, our country was founded on God, not Christianity, although America is mostly Christian. I agree with you about "In God We Trust" though.

         replyreport
3. 62

   Mishaposted 13 years ago

   Interesting, do Iranians print "In Allah we trust!" on their notes?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      jiberishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No, Misha, they just print their money with pictures of the seven virgins.

      replyreport
4. 58

   Mark Knowlesposted 13 years ago

   lol
   
   I find it amazing how scared the christians are at the moment. I have had two emails asking me to vote for god. None of them seem to understand that if they really trusted in the invisible super being - they would not need money.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is the love of money that is the root of all evil
      
      'the love' not money as a trading tool geeze even Caesar had money

      replyreport
      1. 67

         SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, but...as the Creation we are to beleive we deserve an  abundant life and be grateful for our abundance...not misuse it and incorrectly "love it". You know, materialism and idolatry and all that

         replyreport
   2. 60

      atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      need and want are two different things. We as Christians do not "need" money. Money does not give us life, nor can it take it away. Money does not save us spiritually nor guide us morally. Money can not dry our thirst nor feed our hunger. It cannot itself cloth us or keep us warm at night.
      The things money buys do but then again, I have gone many times without a dime to my name and God has supplied my need for food, shelter, clothing etc.
      
      In the days of old, God performed miracles to supply the needs of His people. They had no money to speak of and were destitute. Jesus Himself performed miracles with the loaves and fishes to feed a multitude of people.
      
      And it is not as though God has changed and does not perform these miracles today. what usually happens is that God uses the richness of what the land here provides and instructs those who have, to feed the hungry, cloth the poor etc. Are those any less of a miracle? I think not.
      
      My husband was out of work for 6 months while caring for me when I was sick. We had no money whatsoever. I mean, NOTHING. I was in church one Sunday and a woman I did not even know came to me after service and gave me 2000.00 she said God had told her to give it me to pay our bills. She never even knew anything about us, first time coming to our church! How do you explain something like that?
      
      I cannot speak for ALL Christians, but I for one do not put my trust in some paper product. I put my trust in God, just as our founding fathers did.
      
      As far as the "need" goes, all I "need" is my God. He supplies all of my earthly "needs" not man and certainly not money. If I were lost in the desert I am confident my God would feed me, shelter me and supply me drink. Too, if I were lost in the desert, what good would it do me if I had a thousand dollars in my pocket?? No, I think in that case alone it would be much better to have faith and a need in God.
      
      Although, I really like what you had to say because ironically it is very true: If more people put their faith in God they would not have the desire to "need" money. But this goes for both the Christian believer who is not always as trusting as they should be in Him and non-believers who have no trust in Him.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Some well stated points, there !

         replyreport
   3. 0

      mikeq107posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      100% correct...In God we trust all other pay Cash :0)

      replyreport
   4. 60

      chukra Gposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      you are genuine

      replyreport
5. 76

   Eaglekiwiposted 13 years ago

   Like God cares where his face is ?
   
   I thought he wanted to be in peoples heart

   replyreport
   1. 54

      sonjposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      yes thank you, i could not agree more.

      replyreport
6. 0

   ryankettposted 13 years ago

   I am an athiest and can see no problem whatsoever with America having 'In god we trust' on its notes.
   
   Remember that all (I think?) official religions believe in 'God' as an entity, so the word 'God' should not be deemed offensive by any.
   
   Obviously I exclude scientology from that list, but hey.... they are quick to take their 10%, and if they dont like the word god on notes then they can enforce a rule that says all members of their cul... oh, errr, religion.... pay by bacs or paypal only

   replyreport
7. 60

   tantrumposted 13 years ago

   Maybe you trust God, But God... trusts you ?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe they should change the slogan to..... "Banks do not trust you"

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            or, "In banks we, the people, DON'T trust"

            replyreport
8. 61

   Colebabieposted 13 years ago

   Not sure what God has to do with $$$. Since $$ is the root of all evil.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The elusive Colebabie.... have you been on holiday or something?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Colebabieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Classes started on Monday
         
         Molecular Genetics, Organic Chemistry, Biomedical Research Seminar and two labs... oh boy!
         I'll be on as often as I can, but until December... it won't be very much.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            Sia Kritikosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hmm, interesting metaphor!  I believe the lack of it is the root of all-evil. I compare money to life, it pumps like a heart(in and out), and many good things can be done with it.
            #1 it helps feed you
            #2 keeps a roof over your head
            #3 pays the bills
            #4 it clothes you
            Same as what a parent would do for you.
            Now, having God printed on money, it all depends on the person. I personally am fine with it, but then again it does not bother me.
            Good luck with classes!

            replyreport
   2. 76

      Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not money $$$ itself
      
      "the love of money " that scripture is often misquoted is all.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         But I love money...... am I evil? I could love money but do very nice things with it
         
         Dont worry I know what your saying, greed and obsession with money can distort peoples morales and boundaries.... e.g. half of everybody that you meet!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That might be true "e.g. half of everybody that you meet.." but that doesn't negate the truth in that scripture.
            
            But the truth is MOST people like money and the security in financial freedom it brings. However, I do not believe that half of the people you meet are greedy or have less morals or boundaries/restraints because they enjoy having money.
            
            For example:
            If someone were to rob you on the street and demand all of the money you had in your pocket, your life would mean more to you than the money.
            
            If you were given the choice to be paid 1 million or more to commit a crime you are highly unlikely to do it as your freedom means more to you than money
            
            I would have to say however, that there have been cases where people have fought a mugger over what they had on them
            and too, we know for certain there have been a ton of cases where people have commited crimes for money.
            So, I would have conclude that there are some people who love money far more than anything else and that is where the evil lies.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               £1 million? I think that there are quite a few crimes that I would commit for £1million.... so maybe I am evil
               
               I wouldnt kill, or rape, or rob..... but crime has a scale.... and I would certainly enter the lower scale for a one off payment of £1m!

               replyreport
      2. 73

         dahoglundposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         true. I think in the Old testament and early Christianity there was suspicion of money. Symbolism then was "craven image" of Caesar. However, in practice it seems to have been ignored. By the same token, for good or bad, I don't think most of us pay too much atention to the motto. one side or the other.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No I agree ,its tokenism might as well be Mickey Mouse for all the trouble money has been.

            replyreport
9. 62

   Mishaposted 13 years ago

   And God is the root of all $$$

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Too true

      replyreport
10. 89

    SimeyCposted 13 years ago

    I often find humanity amazing! There are people starving, people out of work, people dying and yet some worry about some words on our currency - is it really more important than the rest of the world's problems!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It would sure cost a lot of money to call in and reprint every American bank note, just to get rid of a word that very few people find offensive....

       replyreport
    2. 60

       tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No irony? no sense of humor?  You must be a very saaaadddd person

       replyreport
       1. 89

          SimeyCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'm English - we're taught to hide our humour and irony at birth! (Ooh was that Irony and humor? or just the truth?

          replyreport
          1. 60

             tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I have a lot of English friends with great sense of humour. In fact English humour is the 1 I like best. Maybe you should practice it a lot more

             replyreport
             1. 0

                ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Im English.... I like to think that I have one at least some times

                replyreport
                1. 76

                   Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   You have an excelland command of dry wit Ryan that reminds me of faulty towers (least I get that )

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      If only us Brits still made comedy like that... we used to be the best. Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Carry On Films.....
                      
                      We have now descended into a world of political correctness, where any sort of intelligient humour is supressed by armies of miserable old bastards that seem to flood television stations with complaints at every given opportunity.....
                      
                      Shame!

                      replyreport
                      1. 89

                         SimeyCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Luckily there are a few Gems still out there - Red Dwarf just did a special and I hope there'll be more coming - The Office - not my favorite, but very popular in the US....plus you get all the reruns of Waiting for God etc.
                         
                         I wish they'd do a follow up to Fawlty towers though!

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            As a 24 year old, there are the odd gems that come along for the youngsters now and again..... The Office was pretty good, Nathan Barley was a cult classic on channel 4, Black Books was half decent, Peep Show was very good until they over ran it by about 2 series (making it boring).... but they fight off the heavily scripted, canned laughter crap that is normally spouted out of BBC and ITV....
                            
                            But yeah, Red Dwarf was good in its day.... Im not sure that it had the longevity that people at the time would have expected, Only Fool and Horses on the other hand did have that longevity....
                            
                            I suppose that were not all that bad, but none of those have come close to the first three that I mentioned for international fame and success..... the Americans even felt the need to rewrite The Office! god knows why!

                            replyreport
    3. 67

       SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       when you consider the power of the spoken Word, like in "...let there be light..." and the whole Creation ability...as we are co-creators with God, words have great power and meaning...think about it...

       replyreport
11. 76

    Eaglekiwiposted 13 years ago

    Best sign Ive seen n a restaurant
    
    In God we Trust
    Everyone else pay cash

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Hahaha, I like that.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          Sia Kritikosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          
          Ha-ha-ha-ha that is funny!

          replyreport
    2. 67

       Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Good one.

       replyreport
12. 83

    SweetiePieposted 13 years ago

    Up until 1956 our national moto was United We Stand, but Eisenhower and Congress moved to change it to In God We Trust.  Many people I know from the older generation liked United We Stand better because it symbolized the spirit of American co-operation.  These people were not anti-God, simply preferred the old slogan.  We also did not use to say "One Nation Under God" in the flag salute until 1954, and today many people are opposed to this saying.
    
    Personally it does not bother me that our money says in God we trust, but I know some people do not agree with it.  Every president says God bless at the end of many speeches, and Clinton used a Biblical analogy at the signing of the Oslo Accords between Yassser Arrafat and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993.  Many people have mentioned faith in God through out the years in public office, and they have a right to do that.  What I do disagree with is when church and state are becoming way too mixed, but the motto In God We Trust is not really that.  It is just a motto after all.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That's some interesting facts.
       
       *waiting for TK to debunk them*

       replyreport
       1. 83

          SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Well my facts are accurate and as of now tk has not debunked anything.  I guess you enjoy his berating people and did not listen to what Lita had to say on that one .

          replyreport
          1. 62

             Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I am not listening to Lita at all, I am just gazing at her pic, deaf and speechless

             replyreport
             1. 83

                SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Misha I guess I was wrong about you trying to be more peaceful when it came to discussions lol.

                replyreport
                1. 62

                   Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Congratulations on admitting to being wrong.

                   replyreport
                   1. 83

                      SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      However I was not wrong about the other thing with tk  .  Of course it was about that group thing of many against one, and at least I can stand on my own two feet.  I did not see you telling tk to admit he is wrong, which is interesting .

                      replyreport
                      1. 62

                         Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Actually i do sometimes.

                         replyreport
                      2. 60

                         tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Which one of the two things you admitted to being wrong about are you referring to?

                         replyreport
             2. 76

                Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Get a room

                replyreport
13. 76

    Eaglekiwiposted 13 years ago

    Whatever happened to commonsense?
    
    When I was working in Pre-school, we were sent a memo advising that placing crosses on hot cross easter buns was consdiered offensive to other religions!! So we were encouraged to keep the activity low profile ( baking with the kids etc)...
    
    Like ya gonna keep that quiet among 28 4 yr olds!
    
    The reality is the groups that were offended were guests in a country where the majority wanted these 'old traditions'
    
    Which voice should be the loudest?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       The majority that want the 'old traditions'

       replyreport
    2. 67

       nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       So much for celebrating diversity, eh?

       replyreport
       1. 76

          Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Oh we did ,but would it happen if I was in there country , no way!

          replyreport
          1. 67

             nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Some countries are held to a higher standard than others, I guess.

             replyreport
14. 59

    awsydneyposted 13 years ago

    The way the US$ is performing, it has little choice but to place its trust in God.

    replyreport
15. 0

    Louidam1posted 13 years ago

    My vote is for to keep "In God We Trust."

    replyreport
    1. 89

       SimeyCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       We could become a fishing nation and change it to 'In Cod we trust'

       replyreport
16. 60

    Valerie Fposted 13 years ago

    Even when I didn't believe in God, I didn't find the slogan offensive. I see nothing problematic in our money being printed with a small slogan that reminds us there are things in the universe more worthy of our trust than the not so almighty dollar.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       '...with a small slogan that reminds us there are things in the universe more worthy of our trust than the not so almighty dollar."
       
       
       I really like that perspective

       replyreport
17. 83

    SweetiePieposted 13 years ago

    No one should be the loudest and there is room for all perspectives.  Jehovah's Witnesses simply do not partake in saying the flag salute because it is against their principals, so if one group of people do not like hot crossed buns you could make other things for them to eat in a pre-school setting.  However, the motto in God we trust has been on money for so long now I do not see it changing.  Who looks at money anyway?  Only to see how much I have to spend, and I prefer my debit card .

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Sometimes that principle works ,but why should any Countries culture (or tradtions) be compromised?
       
       And if I was in China for example ,do you think they would quit their traditions for me?
       
       On the other hand I strongly suppport multi-culturalism ,but never should its voice be louder than the people of the land.
       
       My example is this , If you lived in my home ,and it offended you that I only ate carrots on Mondays, you would leave right , or would you insist I quit.
       (I know stupid example) but ya get my point.
       
       Bit off topic , I wish the USA currency(notes) was multi-coloured, I keep mixin up the values

       replyreport
       1. 83

          SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Well the culture of the host country should not be compromised.  I think the compromise would have been to allow the kids who were okay with the hot cross buns to have these, and allow the other kids to have something else.  This way no one is being the loudest and all cultures are being respected.  China does not allow many other traditions but their own, so that would be a given .

          replyreport
          1. 76

             Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             But when these decisions come via higher offices , there are gods (money0 that have to be obeyed .
             
             Im sure youll  all be aware of the jargon Politically sensitive and  Corporate Initatives  , its never about kids ,or baking, its an Agenda ,To keep the banks books balanced.
             
             I still think it is wrong.

             replyreport
             1. 83

                SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Believe me I do think it is wrong since it is a hot cross bun, and pretty silly they were that sensitive about it.  If it were a Christmas poster for school I would say keep the crosses off of it since Christmas is much more of a commercial holiday today.  However, there were some Christians at my school that were mad at the policy that would not allow them to put crosses on the class posters, so they refused to participate.

                replyreport
                1. 67

                   nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   So much for diversity.
                   
                   
                   
                   public or private school?

                   replyreport
                   1. 83

                      SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      This is a public school and that is the way it is.  To me it really does not matter because Christmas is a largely commercial holiday anyway.

                      replyreport
                      1. 67

                         nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Not my point. A private school has the legal right to celebrate or not celebrate any commercial or non commercial holiday as they see fit. A public school is shackled by the supposed "separation of church and state" obligations.

                         replyreport
                         1. 83

                            SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            I was just speaking in general, and was not aware of the point you had.  To me I do not have a problem with the separation of church and state because even in many public schools there is quite a bit of freedom to express our individual faiths, but this does depend on locality.  They had a Christian club on our middle and high school compass, and actually no other religious groups had meetings.  Some of the kids that went to the same churches as certain teachers did receive preferential treatment, which is never right in any case.  So not all public schools completely exclude religion, but we did live in a mountain community with a predominately Christian majority.  Some communities do not allow religious groups to meet at public schools at all.

                            replyreport
                            1. 67

                               nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               Perhaps they received preferential treatment because they were well-behaved kids who earned it.
                               
                               As you wrote earlier, the host country should not be compromised.

                               replyreport
                   2. 60

                      atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      But Christ-mas is and always will be a Christian holiday. Though it is true that some do not practice the tradition(s)in that way or believe in Christ does not negate what it (the holiday) in fact, is.
                      
                      I would also have to debate what you had wrote about it being "MORE of a commericial..." I do not think that is an accurate statement. Just because of the tree and gift giving came into pratice does not take away from the majority of people who celebrate this Christian holiday do in fact celebrate it as a day to remember the birth of Christ.
                      
                      I understand that not everyone who celebrates Christmas is a Christian or believer. But I think everyone can agree that even non believers know that Christmas is day provided to celebrate Christ's birth regardless of whether or not they personally choose to celebrate it that way or not.
                      
                      And in response to the public or private school issue from the last responder to you:
                      
                      Makes no difference! I am so tired of the "seperation of church and state issue being misconstrued I could just throw up!"
                      The truth is
                      that was adopted to stop the government from forcing one religion over another on it's people.
                      It was not intended in any way to exclude God or crosses or prayer from public schools or any other state funded, federally funded institutions!
                      Simply because a school lets say, offers a Bible study for example, does not mean the school is forcing ANYONE to attend that Bible Study!
                      Just because a school allows for a morning prayer does not mean, that school is forcing every child to pray!
                      and just because a school might allow for some children to put a cross on a piece of paper does not mean,
                      that school is forcing any and all other children to do the same!
                      
                      What gets me, is that in most cases where someone has complained about things like this it is usually one parent maybe two out of hundreds who because of their own prejudice regarding believers in God choose to make a big deal out of nothing!
                      
                      I say, if your child goes to a school where a Bible study is being taught, and you disagree with them attending it, then do not let them go to it. Simple.
                      If you have a child who takes an art class and other students draw a cross or other christian symbols and they are then displayed in the hall and you don't like to see it,
                      Don't Look At It! Simple.
                      
                      One could argue, oh but then I don't want my child exposed to that sort thing. Ok, then I don't want my child exposed to the teaching of evolution or sex education! I don't want my child to be handed condoms at school without my knowledge or exposed to non believers and their retoric. So are we to then segregate all of the different classes, races, denominations, atheists, Christians, Jews, etc. because schools are public?? this makes no sense to me. And it appears as though only the christian point of view, or belief(s) are the target.
                      
                      and what is the christian response to this:
                      "Blessed are those who are persecuted for my names sake.."

                      replyreport
                      1. 83

                         SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Actually many of the Christmas traditions are based on the old pagan religions of Europe, and was not even celebrated as a holiday until this was mandated by the Roman empire.  The incorporation of pagan traditions, such as the Christmas tree were intended to get people to convert to the religion.

                         replyreport
18. 82

    Tom Cornettposted 13 years ago

    How about "In Whatever the hell you want so it will shut you up we trust!" 

    replyreport
    1. 67

       nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       So much for diversity.

       replyreport
19. 83

    SweetiePieposted 13 years ago

    Actually that was not the case.  Even as a substitute teacher there was one girl that repeatedly broke rules, and got of the hook because one teacher favored her over others.  Another girl who did the same things would be put in detention because she did not have anyone to speak for her.  There is preferential treatment in many different situations, and I actually never agree with any type of it. 
    
    A host country should not be compromised in that people should still be allowed to practice their faith.  For instance I think kids should be allowed to read Bibles for silent reading, but they do not have the right to preach to other kids in class. The separation of church and state actually is a good thing in many cases.  Not everyone in the US is Christian though, and Native American religions are technically the host ones in a way.  If we are going to get real technical about it all.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       The cheerleaders have the 'right' to preach to fellow students to root for the home team. The Christians should have the right to preach to other kids in class as well.

       replyreport
       1. 83

          SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Rooting for the home team is not about religion because that is a secular thing, which unites an entire school. When it comes to religion a kid should not be preaching their religion because other kids will take offense, and yes this does tread upon church and state.  Kids can share their faith and state why they go to a certain church if other kids ask, but they do not get to hand out Biblical tracts to non-believers.  Would you like a Muslim child encouraging your kids to read the Koran with them?

          replyreport
          1. 67

             nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Kids don't have a right to not be offended. No one has a right to not be offended. Handing out tracts is freedom of speech and a public school is a public place. The Supreme Court ruled that left wing nutjobs can solicit visitors to national parks, thereby exercising their rights to free speech on public property. High school kids deserve the same courtesy.

             replyreport
20. 83

    SweetiePieposted 13 years ago

    Nutjobs is a very disparaging term when you think about it because most liberal thinking people are great, just like most conservative people are great.  There are weirdos on every side of the spectrum.  I never call people names, why is that so popular?  Some public school will not allow students to pass out Bible tracts, and that is just the way it is.  You can take it up in the courts, but why bother.  I say pick and choose your battles.  Put your kids in a private Christian school if the public school is not meeting your criteria.  There were some religious people passing out anti-abortion pamphlets off campus, and the school officials said they could do that because it was a public street.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Nutjobs is the most accurate description I could come up with. Birkenstock-wearing, unwashed, impolite, inconsiderate little beggars also comes to mind. Leave the poor families alone when they're on vacation. Stop hitting them up for donations and go get a job.
       
       I'm teasing.
       
       Your point about picking battles is a good one. Some things aren't worth getting lathered up over.

       replyreport
       1. 83

          SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          First off many people that wear Birkenstocks are not unwashed.  There are beggars everywhere, and if you do not like them asking for change just ignore them.  One of my teachers loved Birkentocks and continued to wear them after he inherited a lot of money.  He fought in Vietnam and was moderate in his view points.  You judge people on their attire?  There are also rude wealthy people who treat waiters in restaurants like servants because they feel they can.

          replyreport
          1. 67

             nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I was teasing. See above.

             replyreport
    2. 60

       atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Very true.
       LOL I have to laugh at the last two words you wrote, "public street" Soon they will ban that there too probably citing that a public street is formed with money given to the state by the feds and therefor is federally funded and should be included in seperation of church and state!
       I mean, I really fail to see what the difference is.
       A public school, a public street...whatever.
       
       I just think some people make too much out of things. Just get OVER yourselves I say.
       You don't believe? Fine. You don't like crosses? Fine. I do in both cases and that should be fine too.

       replyreport
       1. 83

          SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I do not see things changing that much.  I voted for Obama and have a lot of confidence in him.  I see our country moving in a positive direction, and many still feel this way.  As for the begging and passing out of religious pamphlets on public streets, it will always happen, I know.  People say all these bad things are going to happen, and none come to pass.  Yes there are a lot of inconsistencies when it comes to public school and religion, but if people are mad about it there are private schools.  What I take issue with is those who think liberals are ridiculous when there are just as many conservative weirdos out there.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I agree with some of what you said there but I think when you are talking about the ones who are angry it is not the christian there.
             
             Like I said earlier: most who oppose lets say a prayer in school or a drawing of Christ or a cross etc. are of a very very tiny minority. So why then should the masses who either are in favor of or the other masses who do not care either way be forced into paying for private schools?
             
             would it not be more prudent to have the few with opposing views submit to those conditions? In other words, if you don't like it, go somewhere else?

             replyreport
             1. 83

                SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Actually I have met a lot of angry Christian conservatives and fewer angry liberals. Jefferson was not a Christian, but a deist, and even the founding fathers who were Christian did not write the Constitution for only Christians.  The separation of church and state allows for people to observe their religion to some degree, but they cannot crush the rights of others.  I know many very happy non-Christians on this site and off, and to me I always look for the most tolerant voices.

                replyreport
                1. 67

                   SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   I do believe regardless of their "religion or philosophy", they were all recognizing they believed in the same God...the One God.

                   replyreport
                   1. 83

                      SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Actually yes they did and I never implied any differently.  If you read my posts a little bit more thoroughly you would have noticed I pointed out that Jefferson was a deist, and they do believe in a creator.  However, Jefferson and many of the other founding fathers never wanted religion to be a hindrance when it came to people seeking public office, or in other public arenas, hence the strong separation of church and state.  In the past twenty years there has been the rise of a small group of right wing conservatives that are becoming much more hostile about their brand of Christianity being promoted in politics, and some have even acted very disrespectful towards other faiths. 
                      
                      Once a Hindu chaplain was asked to officiate at a political event and several Republican Congressman started screaming in protest that his religion was against the true teachings of God.  Anyone who believes in the firm separation of church and state knows it was put in place so all people could worship or not worship as they please.  Some conservatives act very angry and hostile towards Americans who do not share their viewpoint, and push for more of their brand of religion in government, which is not what the founding fathers stood for.

                      replyreport
                      1. 67

                         nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Also, substitute Liberal and Moderate for conservative.

                         replyreport
                         1. 83

                            SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            Actually I would have to say on the most part it is right wing conservatives that have acted disruptive and disrespectful in public arenas when it comes to religion.  There are a few liberals that throw fits about the saying of one nation under God during the flag salute, but overall I have seen much more hostility from the conservative camp.  This really should not bother you by making this observation as you do not know these people personally, and they are not you.

                            replyreport
                            1. 67

                               nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               Thank you so much for telling me what I should be bothered by.

                               replyreport
                         2. 57

                            Sia Kritikosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            I believe the ones who are angry and hostile, are not the ones who are successful. Because, true success relies on emotional intelligence. I have to agree with one thing, some religions are based upon the controlling factor.

                            replyreport
21. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 13 years ago

    lol
    
    And it always gets here.
    
    The simple fact is that the founding fathers were geniuses. They persuaded the religionists that a separation of church and state was a good thing to prevent the gov from interfering in religion.
    
    None of the religionists were bright enough to realize that this would be a 2 way street and they should rightfully keep their irrational beliefs out of government.
    
    Geniuses. Got to admire them. Far as I can tell, all the founding fathers despised religion. Clever men.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You think because our founders created the seperation of church and state they despised religion?
       You do realize that the topic was started over the imprinted resounding words imprinted on our money "In God We Trust" right? But you think they were excluding themselves somehow from the We part of that then?
       
       Like I said, seperation of church and state was not implemented to control religious leaders, it was implemented to expressly prohibit the Congress from making LAWS "respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion", BUT LET US NOT FORGET ALSO: prohibiting the free exercise of religion!
       
       It was the supreme court who later interpreted it as applying to the executive branch as well as judicial. they then followed along to include the states and broaden the interpretation to include any exercise or practice of any religion in public schools etc. so you are mistaken with respect to what our founders believed and constituted.
       
       Also, it was and is very clear that our founders had a very strong belief in God. They expressed it in speaches, documents, etc.
       
       Have you ever read the Declaration of Independance? What is the very first line of that document?
       They believed our rights come from and are endowed by our Creator thank you very much. But then again, you do not believe in our creator so, I suppose these "geniuses" you speak of were really scared idiots to believe God like I do right?
       
       Here are some examples for you to better understand where these geniuses stood on their beliefs in God:
       
       President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 "It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible".
       
       Also, being that I love history I found this which you might find interesting if you believe that washington was a "deist" and only had a belief in a...What did you call Him (God)?.."an invisible super power or being or I forget.." but whatever:
       
       Washington was approached by Delaware Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in American schools. In Washington's response, he first told them that "Congress... will look on them as on their own children." That is, we would train their children as if they were our own. He then commended the chiefs for their decision:
       
       "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."
       
       Hmmm, seems to me Washington implied there that the children would be taught in schools ABOVE ALL the "religion" of Jesus Christ!
       I could be wrong in my interpretation of that, but it is clear just what is exactly ABOVE all else Washington thought to be important for them to learn.
       
       Also did you know it was he (Washington) who When taking the oath as first President of the United States on April 30, 1789, HE added this four-word prayer of his own: "So help me God."
       WHO?? GoD??? But I thought according to you God is just a figment of the imagination?
       Surely a GENIUS like Washington would recognize that!
       
       But lets examine further then our other founders:
       
       Ben Franklin:
       “My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [Revolution] to any superiority…If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!”
       —In a letter to William Strahan, August 19, 1784
       
       “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men.
       
       James Madison:
       Madison believed Christianity to be the foundation upon which a just government must be built. Writing on June 20, 1785, he stated:
       
       Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government.
       
       We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
       
       Ummm, of who??? oh yes, God, and the ten commandments hmmm, again I am puzzled by your conclusion that these "geniuses" as you called them were not as smart as you to figure out there is no God. But shall I go on?
       
       I don't think there is a need.
       So, as you have asked me in the past try if you must to educate me on the THEORY of evolution and I will try to educate you on the FACTS of history.
       

       replyreport
       1. 67

          nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          My condolences, you have been trolled. Don't expect the level of detail that you provided. Any response you might receive from the Master Troll will be devoid of sources or actual facts.

          replyreport
       2. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Dear oh dear,
          
          Calm down and accept the facts. Shouting your irrational beleifs will not help. Why do you think the founding fathers made sure religion and church were kept separate?
          
          Here are a few quotes from some of them to set your mind at ease:
          
          The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust - Thomas Jefferson
          
          To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say there are nothing, or that there is no soul, no angels, no god. I cannot reason otherwise...I am satisfied, sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which we have no evidence -Thomas Jefferson
          
          During fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolences in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution - James Madison
          
          Lighthouses are more useful than churches - Benjamin Franklin
          
          As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how it has happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed - John Adams
          
          Thank goodness they were smart enough to keep your ridiculous beliefs out of government. I shudder at the thought of your money grubbing, political god being in charge.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             The truth:
             The founders had a strong belief in God they spoke of Him, they wrote of Him and they most assuredly intended for our country to be founded on HIM.
             You twisting words/quotes to meet your blatently obvious belief to the contrary does not extract from that.
             
             Can you honestly say they wished for our country to be divided from God? If so,
             How can you possibly??
             The Declaration of Independance is clear on this:
             that our RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY are given and endowed by our CREATOR. It is the very foundation of this country.
             
             The seperation was not intended to seperate God from His people nor government from God. It was intended to keep CONGRESS from legalizing any national form of religion, and religion itself was to be protected by it when they added as if to distinguish with the words:
             "Nor Deny The Free Expression There of". They did not want for government to step in take the expressions of religions away from people whether in a government building, school or not they were to NOT DENY the expression of.. which is exactly what has happened. Unfortumately, there were those who came along later, "interpreted" the actual writing and drew up their own laws changing the definition as it is defined very clearly in the amendment.
             It was once again, The Supreme Court which ruled the way they did in the 20th century. Not the founders.
             
             and just so you know
             my GOD is not political in any sense of the word and I laugh really hard when you call him "money grubbing".
             Yes I am sure that God is really interested in our currency.

             replyreport
22. 0

    cathinfranceposted 13 years ago

    Nope. I think society should be secular, with people practising their religions away from business, money and politics and the public sphere generally. Look at the mess in the UK now. It's getting totally tangled up, grinding to a halt because every sect is offended by something or someone and every sect wants its own agenda catered for. So you have muslim shop assistants saying they won't serve alcohol in shops that sell alcohol, doctors and nurses who won't give contraception or abortion advice, police not allowed to go into religious venues unless they're dressed as the religion requires. Even 'pagan' convicts in prisons demanding special recognition. It's getting tot-ally out of hand.

    replyreport
23. 83

    SweetiePieposted 13 years ago

    Jefferson and a few of the other founding fathers were deists and believed in a higher power, but not organized religion so to speak.  Even the founding fathers that were a bit more religious firmly believed in the separation of church and state because in the past religious test for office has caused a great deal of debate.  The type of religiosity expressed by some politicians on the right today was not something that any of the founding fathers really agreed with.  They were more about building unity as opposed to creating divisions.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       And again, what does the seperation they wrote of detail???
       It was not the founding fathers that constituted the law of seperation and interpreted it into what it has become today. It was the supreme court which did that.
       
       It is written very plainly that CONGRESS was to not ESTABLISH a national religion but then they went on to add the words "NOR DENY THE FREE EXPRESSION THERE OF."
       
       And as far as "deists?" I think more people should read the writings of these men.
       when people speak of them being deists they fail to recognize that in all of their writngs pertaining to God they did not use the term "god'S" They used very clearly the name of God, The God. It is very clear when you read the first line of the Declaration of Independance what they believed.
       They believed in one creator, they adopted and used the term "Our" when speaking of Him.
       They believed man had A creator. Meaning one.
       
       One Nation Under who? oh yeah, GOD.
       
       I think its funny how some people try to twist historical writings to fit into the climate of today.
       
       It is most obvious or atleast it should be, that our founders had a strong belief in God. Our country was founded on Godly principles and system of belief. Whether you choose to personally believe that is up to you, but it is what it is. And History has told the tale.

       replyreport
       1. 83

          SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I was a history major in college so I have read all these things extensively.  Jefferson questioned much of the Christian faith as Mark Knowles shared with you and he was not what you would consider a devout Christian.  He was a deist, which means he believed the world was formed by a creator, but people were left very much to their own devices.  Jefferson had a great amount of respect for many world religions and studied widely, so he did not go to church and preach like some do.  Heck there is nothing wrong with that, but Jefferson himself would be the first one to defend your right to believe in whatever you like.  There was a distinct separation of church and state because in the past people were often denied citizenship because of their religion, which is why many people left certain parts of Europe.  With that being said the separation of church and state specifically created to protect and defend the rights of all citizens.

          replyreport
       2. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          LOL
          
          "Under god" was added in 1954 after political pressure was applied by religionists.
          
          Do you even have a history book? Have you ever read one?

          replyreport
          1. 60

             atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             First I never intended for that to be construed as something our founders wrote! I put it there as an example of how deeply rooted and woven into the fabric of our nation the belief in God was/is.
             
             Laugh if you must but I laugh too because you seem to be under the impression that our founders were something other than us "religionists" LOL
             
             Geniuses that they were, they did in fact BELIEVE IN GOD! You might not like having to admit that or anything but it is exactly what it is. Try hard now to refute it. I know how it must grind at your intellectually superior mindset to the contrary, especially after calling them geniuses yourself, but it's true.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                So - you prefer to ignore their distaste of religion?
                
                They were geniuses. They made certain your religion was kept well away from government. The only reason "under god" came into the equation was political pressure from scared religioniists.
                
                Or did you not notice that?
                
                As for money grubbing... LOL - and you want the word "god" added to your money?

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   In God we trust was already added so you asking me whether I want it or not is mute.
                   
                   The They you speak of did not make certain that MY religion which I don't claim "religion" anyway was kept well away from government is absurd. People with much the same limited perception as yourself did that. Again, Mr. Knowles get your facts straight:
                   It was THE SUPREME COURT who made those laws!
                   
                   Our founders made it clear that the expressions of religion were to be protected and not denied by the government!
                   
                   As far as what I prefer? Again, it is evident that they had a strong belief in God, whether they distasted "religion" does in no way validate your claims, nor refute my own.
                   
                   There are many forms of religion out there just as there was then. You cannot say, they distasted my beliefs any more than any others. What I can assert however is that unlike you, they. (these geniuses--atleast we agree on that) believed in a creator i.e. creation and they did believe in God. I am not going to debate this with you any longer as I feel just as in other discussions with you that I have had, we will not agree on much and just keep going round and round which frankle gets boring after a while.

                   replyreport
                   1. 58

                      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust - Thomas Jefferson
                      
                      In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it - Benjamin Franklin
                      
                      Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. - Thomas Paine
                      
                      Too bad. Not a lot of believing the stuff you do in there.
                      
                      Oh well - maybe if you shout a little louder? .......

                      replyreport
          2. 60

             atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             First I never intended for that to be construed as something our founders wrote! I put it there as an example of how deeply rooted and woven into the fabric of our nation the belief in God was/is.
             
             Laugh if you must but I laugh too because you seem to be under the impression that our founders were something other than us "religionists" LOL
             
             Geniuses that they were, they did in fact BELIEVE IN GOD! You might not like having to admit that or anything but it is exactly what it is. Try hard now to refute it. I know how it must grind at your intellectually superior mindset to the contrary, especially after calling them geniuses yourself, but it's true.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Shout all you want, their opinion of religion is there for you to read. Sure - they bowed to religionist pressure, but all of them - every one - made sure that religion was separated from state.
                
                Clever men. Geniuses to make sure of that. No god in state. Excellent. Very, very clever. Too bad for you. Maybe if you shout some more? Dunno - might help?

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   how can one "shout" on an online forum? please explain.
                   
                   You are debating this with me when you and everyone else can read it for themselves:
                   1st amendment to the constitution:
                   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
                   
                   Now you tell me oh brilliant one, where does it mention any state law(s)?
                   It specifies CONGRESS and I stress there lol, not shout, it specifies what they intended for congress not to do.
                   They would make no law establishing religion---in other words they were not to make it a law that people had to serve any God, and then they clearly respected religious freedom as they added right directly behind it
                   or prohibit the free exercise thereof.
                   Did yu happen to catch that?
                   Obviously the supreme court didn't
                   Congress could not prohibit the expression of religion. Period. No need to specify where that expression could take place,
                   Yet they (the supreme court). have done so in the class room and across the spectrum.
                   
                   If you read history, prior to that, (the supreme court ruling that is),
                   we had prayer in schools, we had Bibles in the classroom, No seperation there. Prior to the supreme court ruling we swore on Bibles in court rooms, and yes even in our own pledge of allegiance as late as the 1950's used the term One nation Under God. Certainly no seperation issue there still isn't. And yet everytime they, congress and the senate meet in session they say the pledge while standing to greet the flag and it is freely used regardless of the God comment in it. How do you explain all of that if what you are saying is true?
                   
                   But can you not see that if we are to believe from you that they intended as the supreme court did, then why and please answer this,
                   why was and is it that president's lay their hand on a Christian Bible to take the oath of office? Would that not have been a taboo and a direct offense to that whole seperation thing? I mean they raise one hand up and lay another on the Bible while saying the words "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
                   
                   
                   And too, why is it that all up until the supreme court got involved that is, was there prayer in schools? If the founders intended to make it law that the states were not to allow for it, it would make sense then the supreme court wouldn't of HAD to rule on anything since it would have already been implemented in schools and court houses a very long time before that ruling came down. But I suppose you will find a twisted way to argue my points here too.

                   replyreport
                   1. 58

                      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      ONE SHOUTS USING CAPITALS!
                      
                      Clever men - we both agree. They made sure there was a separation of CHURCH and STATE!
                      
                      Geniuses. Keep irrational beliefs out of government. Thank goodness.
                      
                      Sure - I agree - political pressure from religionists have slowly introduced irrational beliefs back into it, through political pressure, and Presidents who sign mass death warrants have sworn on your book.
                      
                      And your point is?..........

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         One also puts a stress on words through caps as well without shouting.
                         
                         But
                         Is that what you read in that amendment? (seperation of church and state) I mean?
                         Is that what is said there?
                         where? where does it mention a state, any state??
                         
                         I read it clearly, congress.
                         And it goes on to say what they (congress) shall not do.
                         You still have failed to answer my question(s)
                         
                         If they intended it to mean what you say,
                         why did they pray in schools?
                         why did they have Bibles in classrooms?
                         Why Did they and in some cases do we still swear to God in court rooms?
                         In speaking of court rooms, why was a Bible used in swearing to take an oath?
                         
                         And more importantly if it was so intended, Why then did the supreme court have to get involved in the first place?
                         If it was so obviously clear that they hated religion which is a lie but whatever, why then would they not have implemented their intentions by regulating it through schools and government buildings in their time?
                         
                         My points are clear here: If they (the founders) had intended what you say,
                         Why is it that they failed then to implement what they intended even in their own government buildings, court rooms and schools? That makes no sense.
                         Put another way:
                         If the intention was to seperate it, then it would have been in fact, seperated, but it wasn't!
                         
                         And yeah right, it is "my books" fault presidents
                         swear on it and then have to make decisions to go to war and the like. Ok.

                         replyreport
                         1. 58

                            Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            No - one uses italics or bold to make an emphasis. ONE SHOUTS USING CAPS.
                            
                            But - I agree with you. Although it was intended to separate church and state, the political pressure by religionists is still forcing the issue. Maybe the religionists should just be fed to the lions to get them to shut up about their irrational beliefs? What do you think?
                            
                            Like the good old days.......

                            replyreport
                            1. 60

                               atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               Um no we are not agreeing on this unfortunately. I simply asked where in the first amendment does it say anything about state law??
                               It doesn't Mark, if I may call you that.
                               They clearly defined it as congress to which they were speaking of and referring to. Again it was the supreme court which not until much later indoctrinated seperation of church and state.
                               
                               They (the founders) wanted and intended for us all to be free to practise our freedom of religion any way we saw fit and they feared if congress enacted law to enforce one specific religion on its people that would hinder or otherwise negate freedom of religion. Remember, the term "religion" is very broad, it does not inference one specific denomination, god or practice.
                               
                               So there too for you to say they intended for my God or any other god to be omitted from the state does not make sense either.
                               
                               And heres one for you
                               I do not consider myself to be religious.
                               I have what I consider a relationship with my God and to me there is a big difference. But I am now way too tired to exlain all of that. Another time perhaps.
                               
                               But too I again add, they even went so far as to guarantee our rights to the free expression there of. And they gave no further instruction as to where that expression could or could not take place.
                               
                               I reason that if they intended it to be that religion could not be expressed in a school, in a court room, in a federal or state government run or funded building,
                               I am sure they were wise enough to have written that in very clearly.
                               Being geniuses I am sure they knew how to express that if that were their intentions.

                               replyreport
                               1. 58

                                  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  Of course we are not agreeing. You are trying to force your ridiculous beliefs into the public domain, and there are laws against that. As was intended by the founding fathers. Sure - they could not come out and say that because the religionists of the day would not have been happy, but they bought the idea of religion/state separation. Too bad.
                                  
                                  Clever men. Geniuses even. Very, very clever - and sick of religionists even then. As we are now..........

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 60

                                     atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     LOL ok I am trying to "force" my beliefs in a public domain, so exercise the law which states I cannot and have me arrested or sued for it!
                                     please
                                     
                                     According to you then the free expression of religion part of the first amendment was only intended if that expression were to be expressed in a church then??
                                     again, please
                                     
                                     and in conclusion:
                                     I truly believe that if they had intended or "bought" any of what you just said they could have and would have easily expressed that in the document with the word "State" as opposed to the word "congress" and then could have easily omitted the guarantee of free expression of religion. I mean, that makes sense right? why not just omit that? If they in fact, hated religion why ensure the freedom to practise and express it?
                                     That really makes no sense to me.
                                     But
                                     You know what? You are always spouting off to us believers about how our "religion" is driven by fear, but I believe it is you who fear Mark. It is obvious with how you express your distain for what you call "religionist". why should it bother you so much? that you would spend so much time arguing with us about it? What drives you to do it?
                                     
                                     Could be you are afraid inside that all of us are right and that would mean,.... oh my goodness! The monkey-man of planet Big Boom was and is ...wrong!
                                     
                                     Wow what a concept right? lol

                                     replyreport
24. 60

    tantrumposted 13 years ago

    I think the 'In god we trust' in dolar bills is the 'utmost irony'. American governors don't believe in God, they believe in themselves

    replyreport
25. 66

    mcbeanposted 13 years ago

    I am all for the separation of church and state.
    
    I think this would be acceptable if 100% of Americans were Christian. They are not.
    
    This is the type of thing Americans would point out about Saudi Arabia or Iran as a negative thing - a sign of fundamentalism.
    
    In many ways America is right up there with them.
    
    USA, USA!

    replyreport
26. 61

    David Bowmanposted 13 years ago

    "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson
    
    This is my favorite quote by Jefferson. He clearly didn't find Christianity very compelling.

    replyreport
27. 76

    Eaglekiwiposted 13 years ago

    I dont follow the beliefs of men (even past great leaders),we all have our minds to decide what we think is right or not dont ya think?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, but ya think dinos were around when we were. Just exactly how much do ya think ya opinion is worth?

       replyreport
       1. 76

          Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Says a man who believes he descended from a monkey ??
          
          OOOOOOOk

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Demonstrating ya ignorance of science is not really helping the discussion. Sorry

             replyreport
          2. 60

             atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             exactly! LOL

             replyreport
    2. 60

       atomswifeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       yes I do
       but he is debating with me on law concerning religious freedom and what the founders "intended" which that in it of itself nobody can really answer except by reading it for what it says.
       
       They obviously intended for congress to not get involved in creating law to force specific religions on anyone. They wished for people here to be free to express their religious views in whatever manner they wanted without fear from being punished for it through any law.
       
       Plain and simple english. Not the twisted view point that some atheist believe that they intended for God to be removed from any state or even the federal government.
       
       All I ask is that he answer my question, that if that was the intention of the founders to remove God or religion from the state why then was it not implemented prior to the supreme court ruling?

       replyreport
28. 60

    atomswifeyposted 13 years ago

    Ok its been fun as usual and Mark, although we disagree and I mean alot! lol I do like engaging with you in conversation/debates from time to time on here.
    
    Bye all

    replyreport
29. 59

    James S. Thorntonposted 13 years ago

    What does god have to do with the exchange of money?
    
    Is god also involved if somebody uses a wad of dough to pay for a kilo of coke?
    
    I like the ninja turtles. Don't see any of them on the side of our coin.

    replyreport
30. 59

    My Friend Shiylohposted 13 years ago

    It would seem that the people in charge of the money have a say over what is put on the money, what color it is, what words, what fonts, and what picture of a man or likeness of buildings or birds or statues.
    They have changed it whenever they wanted all throughout history and perhaps the people have no real power to change that.
    I think the most important thing is what we do with money.

    replyreport
31. 83

    SweetiePieposted 13 years ago

    Personally having money to spend is not always a bad thing.  I turned in a few bottles for recycling and was happy to get a dollar thirty for those.  Usually my sister just throws the bottles away, but I am going to make more of an effort to recycle these as the extra change is not bad.  One craft I always enjoyed with coins was putting a sheet of paper on top and using colored pencils to render the impression on paper.  It is a fun craft to teach kids about money values and learning how to make proper change.  Even some teenagers have a hard time keeping track of whether they get proper change at the store, so it never hurts to start early.

    replyreport
32. 0

    Leta Sposted 13 years ago

    Yep, SP.  Waaaaay too much Us Vs. Them for sport and no actual REASONS (indicative of reasoning) all about recently.

    replyreport
33. 83

    SweetiePieposted 13 years ago

    The need to command people on this forum is way over the top.  Also, I find it odd anyone would tell someone else how they should conduct themselves.  I would be concerned for any students that disagree with their viewpoints because they are probably graded unfairly.  It happens all the time, and that is why it is good to point it out now.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       So true, I am reminded of someone on this forum who is happy to tell people what they should be bothered by.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Imagination is fun!

       replyreport
       1. 83

          SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I guess we were all imagining when you told people what types of pets they should have, or told others they should say things a certain way.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Imagination is fun, but paranoia is not.

             replyreport
34. 68

    rsmalloryposted 13 years ago

    I was surpised at some of the responses in this post. I hope all of you-whether one way or the other, at least voted in the poll. Peace to all of you. Thanks!

    replyreport
35. 84

    earnestshubposted 13 years ago

    A little Kosher shop where I used to live still has a sign saying that!

    replyreport
36. 76

    Eaglekiwiposted 13 years ago

    I like animals ,but I prefer them to survive and sometimes living with humans doesnt offer them the best chance.
    
    Just what is

    replyreport
    1. 83

       SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I understand your viewpoint Kiwi.  However, TK has very little respect for some though, and basically many of my posts are followed up by him with a retort.  Not once have I sought him out on certain threads where he posts and told him not to like certain things, and I do not see others doing that to him.  He does this to others too, and I am not the only one growing tired of it.  He really should allow people to have their own opinions once and awhile.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          JonTutorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Gotta ignore him.... dude asks too many questions.

          replyreport
          1. 83

             SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I should have just ignored him, but he basically waited the entire day to respond to a post from last night.  Sometimes it really is just too silly .

             replyreport
             1. 61

                JonTutorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                If you're having fun... cool.

                replyreport
                1. 83

                   SweetiePieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Well I am enjoying this thread more now that you are back posting .

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      JonTutorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Thanks... Bye gotta go... movie night... GF's waiting.

                      replyreport
             2. 76

                Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I totally understand where youre coming from ! Dont know why some people have the need to be controlling or defensive.
                
                Sorry original post ..currency whats the majority think on that?

                replyreport
          2. 60

             tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I do?

             replyreport
             1. 61

                JonTutorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                IMO yes you do.... and they're either picking few words from whole paragraphs or taking things out of context.... but then I maybe wrong.... just my observation.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   *ahem* That was a question. Get it? Hello?

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      JonTutorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Fine.... I get it..... gotta sleep now.

                      replyreport
             2. 61

                Shaul Steinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                "He really should allow people to have their own opinions once and awhile."
                
                Nobody "allows"...people to have their own opinion.
                You have it or you do not, unless you are "co~dependent."
                They cannot take it from you even if they kill you for it.
                You still have it.

                replyreport
             3. 80

                manlypoetrymanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                
                
                Juz' What...Is your Major Malfunction !?!
                
                
                Yes...I think we should keep "In God We Trust" on da' $ !
                (Keeping with da' topic.)

                replyreport
       2. 60

          tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          You're really, really smart.

          replyreport
37. 84

    earnestshubposted 13 years ago

    If the economy does not recover it will probably be replaced by a Coca Cola ad!

    replyreport
38. 60

    tksenseiposted 13 years ago

    ...tough room...

    replyreport
39. 84

    earnestshubposted 13 years ago

    What about photo of a farmer lookin guy on an old red tractor?

    replyreport
    1. 80

       manlypoetrymanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Hey Earnest...It was past his bed time...so he quietly slipped upstairs to the ol' farmhouse...but he did say: "Ga-Night...and he wished ev'ryone da' bez' "! He also said to tell that Aussie feller' on Hub Pages...to hold the fort down while he was away...
       
       

       replyreport
40. 61

    Pete Maidaposted 13 years ago

    I don't mind religious slogans as long as they don't single out a particular religion.  It makes people feel comfortable to have them and a true non-believer wouldn't care one way or another.  What is more important is that we do not let any religion hold sway over our law making and enforcement.
    All people should feel free to worship as they see fit no matter what others think of their religion, and not workship as they see fit.
    I have no problem with "in God we trust" or "one nation under God'.  If it makes people feel good to have the words there then it is fine with me.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       WOW! That's excellent.

       replyreport
41. 58

    EdG.posted 13 years ago

    A better question would be: "Why is it on our currency in the first place?"
    
    For that majority of Christians in America, who are doubtlessly the architects of the slogan, this seems like less of an homage than a desecration unto god. Why would you want to invoke his name on the ultimate symbol of greed and corruption? I'm not sure Jesus would appreciate such an association.
    
    Then there are the atheists and agnostics who don't think there is a god up there to place trust in in the first place.
    
    And how can we forget that Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest of the country's founding fathers, was also the staunchest advocate for keeping religion a private matter and out of the business of the government and the public. Since the government issues currency, there is absolutely no reason for it to place such slogans on said currency.
    
    In short, nobody should want, much less need, these words to appear on their money.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Shaul Steinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I do not care what they print on it. The god they speak of is a god of their own making, just like all the other symbolic stuff they write on it.

       replyreport
    2. 94

       rmcrayneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Good post. 
       
       Is that your hand x-ray?  Little subluxation of thumb MC on trapezium c/w OA.

       replyreport
42. 0

    ftgfmomposted 13 years ago

    I believe God should be on and in every aspect of our lives.

    replyreport
43. 60

    gandalfthegreyposted 13 years ago

    Certain things should not be changed. We should respect the past and our Ancestors contributions, if we do not, we will have NO History.
    Most people respect their own heritage, from whatever country we originated. That history is important for future generations to know and understand us, as we live today.

    replyreport