Lord O' Bones Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1723442' date='Mar 17 2009, 23.35']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.[/quote] Yeah, I'm bumping my own stuff. AT is interesting enough, that I would love to hear her response (as long as there isn't too much pressure.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Wolf Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723340' date='Mar 17 2009, 22.28']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] IMO any God which needs government support to fight off "attacks" is not worthy of the title and deserves to die. God does not need welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='The White Wolf' post='1723617' date='Mar 18 2009, 04.06']IMO any God which needs government support to fight off "attacks" is not worthy of the title and deserves to die. God does not need welfare.[/quote] :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I have this sudden image of God as a welfare abuser. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 SpaceChampion, [quote]If the [i]symbology of a nation is not representative of everyone in it[/i], 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. [emphasis added][/quote] So, if any individual American is offended by the U.S. Flag it should be eliminated? Ocean of Notions, Shryke, I believe you are thinking of "One nation under God" that was added to the Pledge of Allegience in the 1950s. I'm pretty "Meh" about "In God We Trust" on coinage and currency. I'm not offeded by it's presence, nor would I get up in arms if it was removed. I'm more interested in SpaceChampion's point about needing complete agreement on a Nation's symbology for those symbols to be adopted and displayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Oop North Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Does that mean I should turn away the dude who calls himself God at the Soup Kitchen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1723354' date='Mar 18 2009, 00.42']What does your religion have to do with my country? **** your religion as far as I'm concerned.[/quote] I'm not easily offended by things like that, but I hope you realize a few billion people probably are. [quote name='kungtotte' post='1723425' date='Mar 18 2009, 02.22']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.[/quote] "Allah" means, quite simply, "God" in Arabic, and is used as such by Arab Christians. In English, the word "God" encompasses Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. I concede tradition is not an infallible argument, but neither is it one to be tossed aside lightly. We might just as well say of the Constitution that just because it's 200 years old that doesn't mean we shouldn't replace it with one using gender-neutral language, apologies to the Indians, and Spanish subtitles. [quote name='The White Wolf' post='1723617' date='Mar 18 2009, 07.06']IMO any God which needs government support to fight off "attacks" is not worthy of the title and deserves to die. God does not need welfare.[/quote] There is a vast difference betwixt what God needs (nothing), and what He wants (which we must try to understand and do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoJojo Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723857' date='Mar 18 2009, 11.26']There is a vast difference betwixt what God needs (nothing), and what He wants (which we must try to understand and do).[/quote] Apparently the bible says he wants us to sacrifice goats to him, so get to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='MojoJojo' post='1723864' date='Mar 18 2009, 11.30']Apparently the bible says he wants us to sacrifice goats to him, so get to it.[/quote] Certainly animal sacrifices were ordained in past, but only for Jews - and even they don't do it anymore. In any case I'm a Gentile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoJojo Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723886' date='Mar 18 2009, 11.42']Certainly animal sacrifices were ordained in past, but only for Jews - and even they don't do it anymore. In any case I'm a Gentile.[/quote] Kind of a weak dodge. The Old Testament is considered a part of the Christian Bible, and in it he makes it quite clear that he wants us to ritualistically kill animals for him. Since I doubt you or any other Christian or Jew actually does this, how can you claim to follow what god wants if your only source for knowing what he wants is a book that demands animal sacrifice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='MojoJojo' post='1723896' date='Mar 18 2009, 11.50']Kind of a weak dodge. The Old Testament is considered a part of the Christian Bible, and in it he makes it quite clear that he wants us to ritualistically kill animals for him. Since I doubt you or any other Christian or Jew actually does this, how can you claim to follow what god wants if your only source for knowing what he wants is a book that demands animal sacrifice?[/quote] Although for Jewish Christians there is room for debate, it's been clear for the past 2000 years that, as declared by the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem, Gentile Christians are not bound by the ritual commandments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungtotte Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 You didn't really answer my question, El-ahrairah. If Christianity wasn't the religious majority in the US, would you be OK with non-Christian symbology appearing on the US currency and in the pledge of allegiance? If you'd pledged your allegiance to Vishnu and put your currency-related trust in Shiva, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoJojo Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723926' date='Mar 18 2009, 12.07']Although for Jewish Christians there is room for debate, it's been clear for the past 2000 years that, as declared by the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem, Gentile Christians are not bound by the ritual commandments.[/quote] The Council of Jerusalem (or whatever) is not the word of god, which to a believer the Bible is. My point is that it is silly to try and discern what god wants of us, and use religion to base our morality. We do what we want, and we use religion to justify it to ourselves. We chose which passages from the bible we listen to, and we discard those (and there are a TON of them) that make no sense in a modern context. In the end its just being rational, and being rational shouldn't require religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Speaking as an outsider here. When I first held a dollar bill in my hands as a child, I found the combination of "this note is legal tender..." (i.e. you have to trust in the US Dollar) and "In God we trust" a bit odd. I thought that Jesus might have had a few harsh words to say about mingling money and religion. Depending on translation, there might also be an issue with the 3rd commandment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='MojoJojo' post='1723945' date='Mar 18 2009, 12.17']The Council of Jerusalem (or whatever) is not the word of god, which to a believer the Bible is.[/quote] The Council is in the Bible- Acts 15:28 - [i]"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things"[/i]. Looks like the Word of God to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeologos Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723980' date='Mar 18 2009, 09.37']The Council is in the Bible- Acts 15:28 - [i]"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things"[/i]. Looks like the Word of God to me.[/quote] Thanks for this. Regarding "In God We Trust" on coins, that's a matter to which I am completely indifferent. Maybe "In God Some of Us Trust" instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungtotte Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Or maybe no mention of God at all? Or maybe "Some of us are rational, the rest of us trust in God"? That is kind of long though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeologos Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='kungtotte' post='1724022' date='Mar 18 2009, 09.56']Or maybe no mention of God at all? Or maybe "Some of us are rational, the rest of us trust in God"? That is kind of long though...[/quote] I'd actually be perfectly happy with nothing at all. Although I think it would be great if everyone were Christian, forcing them--in whatever small way--to observe the Christian faith is exactly counterproductive, and as a Christian witness putting a phrase on coins is meaningless. It's civic religion, going through the motions just like the Romans sacrificing to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 [quote name='Laron' post='1723964' date='Mar 18 2009, 17.27']I thought that Jesus might have had a few harsh words to say about mingling money and religion.[/quote]Makes me wonder if there is a 30$ bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minaku Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Is something wrong with e pluribus unum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.