In God we trust

[MojoJojo]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1724537' date='Mar 18 2009, 18.33']Do you have some examples of religious persecution in the US? I hear about it a lot but have yet to see any.[/quote]

Wait until December and then watch Fox news for their annual "War On Christmas" coverage. Its non stop stories about important issues like how an elementary school in NYC wasn't allowed to put a nativity scene on their front lawn. Dum Dum Dum.

[MojoJojo]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1724539' date='Mar 18 2009, 18.33']Anyway, your opinion is your opinion and you're entitled to it. But at least admit that almost every argument from facts you've presented here is based on inaccurate information, and that your conclusion is no less opinion-derived than mine![/quote]

I have no idea what your point is to be honest. OK, there was a council of religious elders in Jerusalem two thousand years ago that said, among other things, that gentiles do not need to get circumcised to convert. OK, you win that one. Now explain to me how this is relevant to, well, anything.

[palaeologos]

[quote name='MojoJojo' post='1724561' date='Mar 18 2009, 15.49']I have no idea what your point is to be honest. OK, there was a council of religious elders in Jerusalem two thousand years ago that said, among other things, that gentiles do not need to get circumcised to convert. OK, you win that one. Now explain to me how this is relevant to, well, anything.[/quote]

Go throw poop at somebody else, monkey. :P

[TheKassi]

[quote name='tzanth' post='1723180' date='Mar 17 2009, 18.29']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]

One, it isn't unconstitutional. The principle of separation of church and state isn't in The Constitution. The decisions handed down sighting it are subjective interpretation of the founding father's intent, and to be fair that interpretation rather dubious and open to a lot of criticism.

When not using the letter of The Constitution, it is tradition to use the words passed down to judge how the founding fathers would have looked upon the issue. As example, the second amendment doesn't preserve the right to have arms, it preservers the right to have weapons.

The intent of the founding fathers on the subject of invoking god on a ceremonial level is clear. They were keen on the idea, did so openly and often in public, and didn't consider it a violation of the establishment clause.

Secondly, this is a very dangerous thing to wish for. Not only would the courts be ignoring the letter of The Constitution, they would be ignoring the intent of the founding fathers, and rendering decisions based on what they felt was morally right.

Having people in the supreme court rendering rulings based on their subjective morality might sound like a good idea when they agree with you, but it is easy to see how things can get really bad really fast. Secularists can be bigots to.

Wishing for an amendment to The Constitution that would make government secular in many areas, as well as wishing that judges would respect that and render judgments accordingly despite their personal feelings on the issue would be a very good step in the right direction. Wishing for SCOTUS to render judgments without referencing The Constitution at all wouldn't be.

Appointed officials serving until they retire shouldn't have that kind of power.

[quote name='SpaceChampion' post='1723215' date='Mar 17 2009, 19.05']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]


Literally impossible. Not every tax paying law abiding citizen of the United States agrees with such generic statements as “Freedom is good.” or “Yay for Democracy” or “Our troops are heroes” or “Skin color alone doesn't make you better or worse then anyone else..”

You can't get one hundred and fifty million to agree on anything. We are a melting pot. We span the spectrum from Anarchists to Totalitarian Theocrats, with a million different points of view in between. Even if you try something like “Being alive is good.” you will disenfranchise the emo.

A nation's symbols, mottoes, and insignia can only represent the views of a portion of the population. Thats one of the reasons the right to dissent is so fiercely protected.

[MojoJojo]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1724552' date='Mar 18 2009, 18.41']I think it is pretty clear that taxing a church would be Unconstitutional in even the most secular interpretation.[/quote]

I agree we shouldnt be in the business of picking and choosing which churches get special tax advantages, but what is unconstitutional about taxing religion? Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion (paraphrased) means that we cant tax them? When a church catches fire, the state puts it out. The state subsidizes it through infrastructure like roads and utilities. They benefit from the existence of a government as much as any other business so why shouldn't they pay taxes on their income like any other business?

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1723857' date='Mar 18 2009, 08.26']I'm not easily offended by things like that, but I hope you realize a few billion people probably are.[/quote]
Well, good for you. Two things though. Your religion and many others offend me every day. And I really, really don't give a shit if I state "Fuck your religion [i]as far as I'm concerned[/i]" and one or "a few billion" religious people get offended. There are a billion or more of us too, you know.

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1724087' date='Mar 18 2009, 10.36']I haven't heard any argument for it's removal that had more substance to it than just typical whining.[/quote]
So you ask the question, people respond, and you call them whiners. Nicely done. I don't know why I expected any less.

Look, I don't give a flying fuck whether my dollar has your god on it or Peter fucking Pan. If a Peter Pan dollar buys me that beer, it did what I wanted it to do. But it does bother some people, and for valid reasons that are hardly "whining."

[quote name='scrahan' post='1724461' date='Mar 18 2009, 14.37']since the Oath of Office bit, I've been more annoyed with the atheists.[/quote]
You know what? Remove [i]your[/i] fiction from [i]our[/i] government and you'd never hear from us again.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Ken Stone,

I really would like to know where in the constitution it says that churches will not be taxed.

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1724567' date='Mar 18 2009, 18.55']One, it isn't unconstitutional. The principle of separation of church and state isn't in The Constitution. The decisions handed down sighting it are subjective interpretation of the founding father's intent, and to be fair that interpretation rather dubious and open to a lot of criticism.[/quote]

Yes and no. The First Amendment: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
[/i]

As for interpreting our Found Fathers' feelings on religion and government... I'll leave it to [url="http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm"]James Madison[/url] to do the illustrating.

Outside, of pure law, I find the insertion of "god" everywhere by government and tax support to be quite alienating to anyone who doesn't conform to a monotheistic point-of-view. What people forget is that the fact that "god" is inserted into these symbols of our country is a symbol unto itself. Frankly, I despise the message it's sending.

[Celtigo]

[quote name='Prince Lotor' post='1724122' date='Mar 18 2009, 12.56']On the other hand, the majority can't simply pass a law that somehow abuses a minority, that would be unconstitutional. Does this abuse a minority? It certainly misrepresents them in a very fundamental way. I can't say it qualifies as abuse, but it smells a little funky at the very least.

Also, the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. By authorizing "In God We Trust" as the national motto, isn't Congress saying that there is a God? Isn't that establishing a religion (monotheism at the very least, even if it's otherwise undefined)? In my (biased) opinion, I think this is unconstitutional. But since it doesn't materially harm me, I'll concentrate on the other fish that need frying.

And might I say that I'm surprised that I have yet to see anyone bring up the idea of "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash."[/quote]

While I'd like to see this phrase removed, theres no way the Establishment Clause case law supports this. The Court would call it ceremonial deism, cite precedent, and that would be the end of the challenge.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='GdMisfits' post='1724549' date='Mar 18 2009, 18.38']Now, I'm an athiest. However, i find it very hard to care about a little phrase on a dollar bill. Let's start talking about how churches aren't taxed which affects me much more.[/quote]Are non-profit organizations taxed? I would say that churches and most religious institutions are much closer to tax-exempt NPOs than businesses.

[Serious Callers Only]

You trust God? After that Job story? Nutter.

[Watcher]

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1724591' date='Mar 18 2009, 16.14']Yes and no. The First Amendment: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
[/i]

As for interpreting our Found Fathers' feelings on religion and government... I'll leave it to [url="http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm"]James Madison[/url] to do the illustrating.

Outside, of pure law, I find the insertion of "god" everywhere by government and tax support to be quite alienating to anyone who doesn't conform to a monotheistic point-of-view. What people forget is that the fact that "god" is inserted into these symbols of our country is a symbol unto itself. Frankly, I despise the message it's sending.[/quote]

Thomas Jefferson was also a strong proponent of the Separtion of Church and State. He described how he vi ewed the First Amendment in his reply to the Danbury Baptist Association when they requested to make a national reli?
[quote]Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers Danbury Baptist Association mof government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," [i]thus building a wall of separation between church and State[/i]. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[/quote]

With at least two of the people that had input into making the U.S. Constitution starts that the First Amendment does create a wall of separation between the church and State arguing that because that specific phrase does not appear in the Constitution makes is invalid is disingenuous.

[palaeologos]

[quote name='Watcher' post='1724654' date='Mar 18 2009, 16.56']With at least two of the people that had input into making the U.S. Constitution starts that the First Amendment does create a wall of separation between the church and State arguing that because that specific phrase does not appear in the Constitution makes is invalid is disingenuous.[/quote]

Well yeah, but we can also pull quotes from both those people that suggest that only white men who own property should have the franchise. That's a sword that cuts both ways; I'm certainly comfortable with the separation of Church and State, and the status quo of that relationship is fine by me. I don't want the government encouraging or discouraging any particular religion. And if "In God We Trust" vanished from our coins tomorrow, I'm sure the practice of religion in the USA would continue as if nothing had happened.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1724406' date='Mar 18 2009, 16.55']You will certainly not win this game by playing the victim card.[/quote]
Thankfully we don't hafta win this game, 'cause we won already. But I appreciate the advice.

[ants]

Isn't the bigger problem here that your still using paper money???? And one and two cent coins! Come on guys, get your priorities right and joing the 21st century.

[Annelise]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1724660' date='Mar 18 2009, 19.59']And if "In God We Trust" vanished from our coins tomorrow, I'm sure the practice of religion in the USA would continue as if nothing had happened.[/quote]

I agree. Actually doing so.. while I wish the removal this and similar expressions would nurture a healthier dialogue as far as respecting one another in lawmaking by not demonstrating an official preference, it would just crank up the ol' culture war.

[TDH523]

[quote name='GdMisfits' post='1724582' date='Mar 18 2009, 19.04']Ken Stone,

I really would like to know where in the constitution it says that churches will not be taxed.[/quote]


It is not in the constitution. There is law on the Federal level that says that if the preacher does not preach politics from the alter then the church has a tax free pass. Several churches in the last three or four years have had their tax free status removed because the preachers refused to bow to the law and the IRS. Yes the IRS makes this ruling.

[Ocean of Notions]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1724660' date='Mar 18 2009, 19.59']Well yeah, but we can also pull quotes from both those people that suggest that only white men who own property should have the franchise. That's a sword that cuts both ways; I'm certainly comfortable with the separation of Church and State, and the status quo of that relationship is fine by me. [b]I don't want the government encouraging or discouraging any particular religion. And if "In God We Trust" vanished from our coins tomorrow, I'm sure the practice of religion in the USA would continue as if nothing had happened.[/b][/quote]

Exactly. So why do we have the government putting "god" in everything?

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Ocean of Notions' post='1724730' date='Mar 18 2009, 18.01']Exactly. So why do we have the government putting "god" in everything?[/quote]
Just because. Stop whining.

[Eponine]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1724734' date='Mar 18 2009, 21.03']Just because. Stop whining.[/quote]

Tell you what, we'll stop whining when we stop hearing from Christians about "the war on Christmas", "the war on the hearts and minds of our children", "how Christianity is the only viewpoint in America that people don't have to be tolerant of", "the war on Christian family values", etc.