|
Post by Paragon on Mar 25, 2007 19:12:31 GMT -5
Its mostly the latter, not the former. The means? By having it in there, it gives people (like some of you) the notion that this is a Christian nation when its not.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Mar 26, 2007 0:02:53 GMT -5
Its mostly the latter, not the former. The means? By having it in there, it gives people (like some of you) the notion that this is a Christian nation when its not. Ah so. Which of the following seems more realistic: A. Some of us consider the people of the United States to be a Christian nation, therefore the threat of a theocracy is clearly looming over us all. B. You are annoyed that some of us consider the people of the United States to be a Christian nation.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 26, 2007 7:12:06 GMT -5
Well it depends on the scope with which you look at things.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 27, 2007 17:16:34 GMT -5
Its mostly the latter, not the former. The means? By having it in there, it gives people (like some of you) the notion that this is a Christian nation when its not. If congress approved it, then its an issue of Congress being christian. So are you going to debate the christianity of the government? But who founded the government? If they act like this that almost hints the influence of Christianity in the establishment. Heaven forbid we be living off the foundation of christians!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2007 18:11:11 GMT -5
Its mostly the latter, not the former. The means? By having it in there, it gives people (like some of you) the notion that this is a Christian nation when its not. If congress approved it, then its an issue of Congress being christian. So are you going to debate the christianity of the government? But who founded the government? If they act like this that almost hints the influence of Christianity in the establishment. Heaven forbid we be living off the foundation of christians! Let me ask you a question, say that Islam or some polytheistic religion influenced the gov't. You were still Christian. Would you still be happy? Or would you want there to be no religious influence in the gov't? Perhaps you would just prefer that Christianity take over in place of those religions...
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Mar 28, 2007 0:29:38 GMT -5
If congress approved it, then its an issue of Congress being christian. So are you going to debate the christianity of the government? But who founded the government? If they act like this that almost hints the influence of Christianity in the establishment. Heaven forbid we be living off the foundation of christians! Let me ask you a question, say that Islam or some polytheistic religion influenced the gov't. You were still Christian. Would you still be happy? Or would you want there to be no religious influence in the gov't? Perhaps you would just prefer that Christianity take over in place of those religions... Let me answer the question that I think you are trying to pose: If I were a Christian living in an oppressive Islamic theocracy, what would I do? Answer: I would try to leave, and look for a society which matched my values or else allowed me to express my values as I saw fit. Now a reciprocal question to you: do you feel that the government of the United States is repressing your right to practice your beliefs as an atheist? In what ways, specifically? And on a barely related tangent, since I'm sure we can all agree that values are central to religious beliefs, should the government be allowed to endorse or finance any system of values which large segments of the population find morally reprehensible? Personally, I think it's funny that yall whine about some schoolkids reciting the word "God" when every U.S. taxpayer -- even those who equate such practices with outright murder -- are forced to finance organizations that run abortion clinics. Now, I'm going out on a limb to assume that you don't agree that abortion is murder, but surely you are aware that many people do in fact feel this way -- as religious people are aware that some people like you may not believe in God -- so let me ask you this additional question: is it fair to make a person pay for an activity that he finds morally reprehensible and possibly even considers to be an act of murder? Now, going back to the original point, please tell me again how it is unfair for a coin to have "In God We Trust" written on it.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Mar 28, 2007 7:38:56 GMT -5
While I'm in question-mode: hypothetically speaking, would Article 44 of the Irish Constitution, if duplicated in American law, be a violation of the Establishment Clause?
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 28, 2007 8:29:20 GMT -5
Because not everyone trusts in God?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 28, 2007 10:54:14 GMT -5
No one ever said you had to. Welcome to America!
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 28, 2007 13:01:09 GMT -5
So does that mean our currency is actually only for Christians? Where's the athiest money? The Muslim money? The Jewish money? "We" in this context means the entire nation. Does the entire nation believe or trust in God? No.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 28, 2007 19:06:23 GMT -5
But the entire nation refuses to recognize God? I don't think so. This is going in circles, you'll have to find a different approach.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2007 19:20:06 GMT -5
I've already tried my approach which also seems to not be working...
Practice whatever religion you want. But under no circumstances should that religion play any role in government or politics.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 30, 2007 18:46:30 GMT -5
Would E Pluribus Unum offend you?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2007 19:52:14 GMT -5
not me
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 31, 2007 12:13:57 GMT -5
Offed? Not at all. The statement noting the integration of the colonies into one nation for the cause of liberty and free government wouldn't offend any true American. But this topic is about religion in the Govt, and that statement is not a religious one.
|
|