In God we trust

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1723122' date='Mar 17 2009, 21.48']Yes and if not having "Under God" was good enough for the Baptist minister why is it necessary now? I actually think your line about keeping the Godless Commies in their place has more truth than you believe since it was passed during the McCarthy era.[/quote]
It is necessary now for at present religion is attacked to a far greater extent. And I'm well aware about McCarthy, that was my point.

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723340' date='Mar 18 2009, 00.28']It is necessary now for at present religion is attacked to a far greater extent. And I'm well aware about McCarthy, that was my point.[/quote]

What? Plenty of concepts/people/things have been and are being "attacked". Should we make room for more references on our currency?

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723340' date='Mar 17 2009, 21.28']It is necessary now for at present religion is attacked to a far greater extent. And I'm well aware about McCarthy, that was my point.[/quote]
What does your religion have to do with my country? Fuck your religion as far as I'm concerned.

[Adelle Tully]

[quote name='tzanth' post='1723180' date='Mar 18 2009, 12.29']Ya, be it on money or in the pledge, the use of religion by the US government is unconstitutional. Hopefully one day we will have a supreme court that will be receptive to upholding such an interpretation. The inclusion of god was actually one of the main reasons why I started to refuse to say the pledge in school back when I was a kid.[/quote]

Which was your right by the constitution. Growing up, my teachers always advised that it was not a requirement to say the pledge but it was polite to stand of the country's flag.

[quote name='SpaceChampion' post='1723215' date='Mar 18 2009, 13.05']Athiests, agnostics and non-religious are 15% of the U.S. population.  [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article5907453.ece%20"]In Massachusetts that rises to 54%.  The nonreligious are now the third biggest grouping in the US, after Catholics and Baptists.[/url]

If the symbology of a nation is not representative of everyone in it, then yes it is an infringement and perhaps even a disenfranchisement.  Every citizen has a right to be represented by his/her nation's symbols, mottos and insignia.  Anything less is unjust.[/quote]

So in saying that if something doesn't encompass the opinions of EVERYONE, minority and majority, then you're saying that a vote on anything representative of that country should have to be passed unanimously. There goes the whole system of government! Not everyone voted for Obama (I did if you must know, although all the way from AU) and yet, even though he doesn't necessarily encompass all the views of the minority that didn't vote for him, he shouldn't be representing the country.

Anyways, I feel this is all BS. I find it historical and really not all the serious. No one will die because they have to use money with the word "God" on it. Honestly, who the hell really gives a damn about what the money says so long as it's a valid substance to aid in commerce....

Oh wait, I forgot, this is the US we're talking about. Someone is ALWAYS whining about something not being "politically correct". While I love my home country for various reasons, I don't miss this aspect of it in the slightest.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Adelle Tully' post='1723373' date='Mar 17 2009, 22.10']Oh wait, I forgot, this is the US we're talking about. Someone is ALWAYS whining about something not being "politically correct". While I love my home country for various reasons, I don't miss this aspect of it in the slightest.[/quote]
The question was posed; people are responding. I'm not sure who you think is whining.

[Prince Lotor]

[i]But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[/i]
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[i]I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. [/i]
-George H.W. Bush, interview, 1987

[i]Let the baby have its bottle.[/i]
- Homer J. Simpson, to his son, 1991 or thereabouts

While I generally side with Misters Jefferson and Simpson on this issue, the idea raised by both Mr. Bush and the link in the OP is disturbing to me as an atheist, namely that believing in God is somehow patriotic. It seems obvious to me that this is flat-out wrong and I don't like having that connection flaunted on my currency. But I'm not going to go to the mat over it, either.

For those US'ians who say it ought to be there, would you feel disenfranchised as an American if it were removed?

[Adelle Tully]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1723375' date='Mar 18 2009, 15.13']The question was posed; people are responding. I'm not sure who you think is whining.[/quote]

Honestly only the people actively campaigning to change a historical feature.

Besides, as a coworker of mine brought up, people DO have the right not to use it if they think it's really all that harmful to them.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='Prince Lotor' post='1723376' date='Mar 18 2009, 01.14']For those US'ians who say it ought to be there, would you feel disenfranchised as an American if it were removed?[/quote]
If it was removed against the wishes of the religious majority, yes.

[Adelle Tully]

I would have to agree with El in some regards.

If this were removed against the wishes of the majority, I would be offended. Not because I'm so hell bent on it being there but because in the US, majority rules. As sucky as that can be for the minority, it's true. It's how the US elects a president and other officials and it's the way laws are passed and the original constitution was set into play.

I think if it's such a huge issue it could go to vote in the US, although if the "I don't give a damn" option was given, I'm sure that would be the majority of votes right there. Although I find a majority of the "minority" would probably be people who don't vote in the first place.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Adelle Tully' post='1723398' date='Mar 17 2009, 22.45']Although I find a majority of the "minority" would probably be people who don't vote in the first place.[/quote]
You think that the non-theistic minority in our country are eligible voters that don't vote?

[ldygrffn]

[quote]Honestly only the people actively campaigning to change a historical feature.[/quote]

a lot of things have been historical features, and thank everything that a few people actively campaigned to change them. the only examples i can think of right now are much too serious to be reasonably equated with a few words on a piece of paper, so i will not use them here. my point stands however, the argument that because something is historic fact we should sit down and shut up is utterly ridiculous.

[Adelle Tully]

I was more going for the "honestly who gives a damn" stand point, not really trying to say that because it's historical it shouldn't be touched. I honestly feel that people caring so much about this that they'll actively campaigne about it is really silly and as I mentioned before, they DO have the right not to use it.

I think the Native Americans have a wonderful bank that deals purely in gold...there was a thread about it on here a while ago!

As for people not voting, I can honestly say that in my experience the people whining about things in the minority or people who claim to be in this minority often answer "no" when asked if they vote or would vote in a coming ballot. It could be different, I'll admit, but those are my findings.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Adelle Tully' post='1723413' date='Mar 17 2009, 23.10']As for people not voting, I can honestly say that in my experience the people whining about things in the minority or people who claim to be in this minority often answer "no" when asked if they vote or would vote in a coming ballot. It could be different, I'll admit, but those are my findings.[/quote]
Are you a pollster?

[Adelle Tully]

I did help poll people for various things when I first turned 18 in California. I also volunteered to help for the campaigning when Dole ran for president (school project) and also when Bush ran the first time (Nobody honestly knew what kind of president he'd be) and for several other local politicians. A lot of my job was helping to take in information in the terms of random polling, surveys etc. That being said, I attended many of the local debates and many of the people complaining during the debates or expressing their dissatisfaction to me during surveys/polls in regards in the majority's decision openly admitted that they don't vote. While they had the right not to vote and not to answer my question (and I always informed them of this), most didn't hesitate to say they didn't vote.

Now that we're done putting me on trial for my opinions and findings, I'd like to say that I don't generally just spout BS. What I say are based on things I've experienced.

***Edited for grammar/punctuation.

[kungtotte]

[quote name='Adelle Tully' post='1723379' date='Mar 18 2009, 06.19']Honestly only the people actively campaigning to change a historical feature.[/quote]
Slavery and no suffrage for women were historical features too.*

[quote]Besides, as a coworker of mine brought up, people DO have the right not to use it if they think it's really all that harmful to them.[/quote]
People have the right not to use [i]money[/i]? Gee, thanks.

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723394' date='Mar 18 2009, 06.39']If it was removed against the wishes of the religious majority, yes.[/quote]
How would you feel if it was changed to [i]In god we trust[/i] so as to encompass all the monotheistic gods? Would you be OK with it saying [i]In Allah we trust[/i] if muslims happened to be the religious majority in the US? Why do you think that being the religious majority gives you any kind of right to put your specific religion in the spotlight as it were (I am talking here about all cases of it, not just a phrase on the money)?

Truth be told I am not so concerned about the phrase on the US currency, and more concerned about the reference in the pledge of allegiance, but so far the only arguments put forward as to why it should be on there is "It's been that way for a long time" and "Because we say so" while the arguments for removing it at least have a bit more substance to them even if I know that you don't agree with them.

* - I am not equating slavery with having 'In God we trust' on the US currency, I am just saying that "it's a historical feature" is a spectacularly bad argument for maintaining the status quo.

[Shryke]

The Cold War is over. Drop that crap from your money.

[Ocean of Notions]

I'm too lazy to do so much quoting, so bear with me...

Plenty of people don't vote, but concerning this particular subject, all the atheists I know vote.

I suppose I do have the right to "not use it". From now on, I declare that I refuse to use American hard currency! Too bad I live in the States and not everywhere takes credit card... As for historical artifact, if people cared enough to change it once, it can be changed again.

And "religious" does not equate to monotheistic. The Dalai Lama himself said that Buddhism is a godless religion.

The Constitution of the US gives the people of its nation religious freedom. For our government to hold a specific religion or specific religious views above others seems a bit hypocritical.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Adelle Tully' post='1723422' date='Mar 17 2009, 23.19']Now that we're done putting me on trial for my opinions and findings[/quote]
You have an interesting perspective about what just went on here. If I'm not sure what you're meaning is in the future, I will try to refrain from seeking understanding so that you will not feel put upon.

While your findings may be correct, I feel that it is vanishingly unlikely that non-theists (the minority group in [i]this case[/i]) make up a significant or even proportional block of eligible voters who do not avail themselves of that right. I suspect it's the opposite, in fact.

[Crazydog7]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723340' date='Mar 18 2009, 00.28']It is necessary now for at present religion is attacked to a far greater extent. And I'm well aware about McCarthy, that was my point.[/quote]


Religion is only being "attacked" because of a constant culture of fear precipitated by the religion right in this country. I'm always favored this quote from Babylon 5 myself "Faith and Reason are like the two shoes on your feet you can go further with both then you can with just one" of course not that either a very religious or a very irreligious person would see it that way.

[potsherds]

[quote name='tzanth' post='1723180' date='Mar 18 2009, 02.29']As a godless commie I find this horribly offensive!

Ya, be it on money or in the pledge, the use of religion by the US government is unconstitutional. Hopefully one day we will have a supreme court that will be receptive to upholding such an interpretation. The inclusion of god was actually one of the main reasons why I started to refuse to say the pledge in school back when I was a kid.[/quote]
Same here.

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1723354' date='Mar 18 2009, 04.42']What does your religion have to do with my country? Fuck your religion as far as I'm concerned.[/quote]
Quite so. :cheers: