|
Post by bbqsandwich on Apr 5, 2007 7:30:28 GMT -5
Paragon, let me present the flip side of your argument: by removing all traces of religion from the public (here, government) sphere, we begin the decline down the slippery slopes towards complete government prohibition on religion -- as evinced in cases where municipal governments have been sued by groups such as the ACLU over holiday decorations with religious meanings, or where public school children have "Christmas vacation" replaced with "winter solstice."
As you are well aware, the abolition of religion is a Marxist principle. So, any steps taken to remove vaguely or obviously religious symbols and words from public life is quite simply a step towards the establishment of Marxist ideology as a secular/ civic replacement for all religion.
I personally find the prospect of having my freedom to practice whatever religion I choose replaced with an outdated ideology that is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people to be quite offensive.
Also, you never responded to the question of why it was fair to argue that "In God We Trust" offends you -- and therefore must be changed -- when I say that abortion (to name just one policy) is offensive to me, and my tax dollars nevertheless go to finance organizations which not only promote but also conduct such offensive activities . So I ask you again, where is your moral outrage over that?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 5, 2007 17:51:55 GMT -5
Apparently you dont understand that the United states is connected, and that the coin makers/government/people all make up this funny thing called the USA. Check out wiki, i'm sure theres an article about it.
At first glance it seems like you are in their interests, but pay attention to what I underline in the upcoming paragraph.
This is a look at how most Atheists view Christians and other religions. You said yourself in several topics that it seems illogical to you to base a religion off an old book. Don;'t tell me that on one hand you would say thats wacko, but on the other say your looking out for my interests in the government. Your out to wipe out any trace of religion in the government, which only serves yourself.
Is it? what if Buddhists thought that they'd get Buddha on the coins? Or how about the old Anglicans? The Jews? The noodle worshipers of southern Florida? What if they want to be put on coins? You would deny God and all religions for the sake of all religions. Yep. Thats logical folks!
And once again you show your personal bias for atheism. I don't deny that I'm 'biased' since I am not trying to hide anything here. But you on the other hand are spewing this neutrality idea and acting like a country that denies God (and all other religions) is beneficial to anyone but the one faction that denies God (and other religions. Thats Atheism if you cant catch on.
I wont address the same thing again. Read the posts before you make another statement related to this.
But they aren't my friend. You said they aren't Christian, they weren't founded Christian, and obviously nobody is arresting you for denying the existence of God, yet you still keep saying that this is affecting how you choose to worship.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2007 23:55:45 GMT -5
Apparently you dont understand that the United states is connected, and that the coin makers/government/people all make up this funny thing called the USA. No. What I doubt is your knowlege of what you have been saying. You changed your answer twice At first glance it seems like you are in their interests, but pay attention to what I underline in the upcoming paragraph. Whos interests and what paragraph? This is a look at how most Atheists view Christians and other religions. I don't dislike 'most' religions, just christianity in the states. [ You said yourself in several topics that it seems illogical to you to base a religion off an old book. Don;'t tell me that on one hand you would say thats wacko, but on the other say your looking out for my interests in the government. Your out to wipe out any trace of religion in the government, which only serves yourself. Still not sure what you are trying to say here... But it doesn't just serve me. It serves every non-Christian in the US. And just because 'in god we trust' isn't on the money, doesn't mean that you can't still believe in God. All it does is take away the notion that this is a christian nation. Is it? what if Buddhists thought that they'd get Buddha on the coins? Or how about the old Anglicans? The Jews? The noodle worshipers of southern Florida? What if they want to be put on coins? You would deny God and all religions for the sake of all religions. Yep. Thats logical folks! And once again you show your personal bias for atheism. I don't deny that I'm 'biased' since I am not trying to hide anything here. Which takes away your validity in any arguement regarding science or politics But they aren't my friend. You said they aren't Christian, they weren't founded Christian, and obviously nobody is arresting you for denying the existence of God, yet you still keep saying that this is affecting how you choose to worship. It gives the Christians the notion that we are a christian nation. We are not. And how will it give others the notion that we are an atheist nation? Other countries don't have reference to Christianity on their money, yet there are still a significant number of christians and nobody considers them atheist.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Apr 6, 2007 3:32:53 GMT -5
It gives the Christians the notion that we are a christian nation. We are not. And how will it give others the notion that we are an atheist nation? Other countries don't have reference to Christianity on their money, yet there are still a significant number of christians and nobody considers them atheist. Alien, what do you think of the European monetary system? Some member states of the European Union have images on their coins which, by your logic, give rise the false notion that those are Greek/ Roman Pagan states.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2007 18:40:59 GMT -5
Yet both Greece and 'Rome' (as you call it, though I would say Italy) overwhelmingly believe in the same god you do . Does their money show it? No. But would you say that either of these two are pagan nations? Not unless you're retarded. The vast majority religion in Italy is Roman catholic, and Greece is Orthodox. So does the fact that they show pagan symbols mean that all those christians can't practice their faith, and that they are forced to worship Zeus and Mars and everyone else? Again, no. If they did that there would be chaos. So why if we took 'in god we trust' off the money would the atheists bar the christians (who make up approx. 78% of the population) from worshiping their god? Use logic, isn't there more of a threat from Christianity? I mean they are the majority, but other religions plus atheists make up 20 percent of the population, making them the largest minority. And isn't this suppost to be the land of equal rights and opportunities Taking 'in god we trust' out of our money doesn't deny the christians their right to practice, and also doesn't offend any minority.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Apr 6, 2007 23:07:25 GMT -5
Yet both Greece and 'Rome' (as you call it, though I would say Italy) Italy as we know it did not exist in the political sense back when mythology was popular, and when I said "Greek/ Roman Pagan states," I was talking about Greek and Roman mythology... You wouldn't call Spain "Greece" just because they have scenes from mythology on their coinage, but I was actually pointing out the absurdity of talking about a country establishing a religion based on coinage, for example calling Spain "(Greek) Pagan" because of symbols of ancient Greek mythology depicted on Spanish coinage. I think that was pretty clear... While we're on the subject of coins, would it be offensive to you if a European coin depicted the face of a Christian saint or Christian religious site? So does the fact that they show pagan symbols mean that all those christians can't practice their faith, and that they are forced to worship Zeus and Mars and everyone else? Again, no. If they did that there would be chaos. Thanks for agreeing with me; you phrased that much more logically and succinctly than I was able to. Showing God or related symbols doesn't mean that atheists can't practice their (lack of) faith, and it doesn't mean that they are forced to worship God and Jesus or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on Apr 8, 2007 18:56:05 GMT -5
Here is a little history on the pledge from history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm. "Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897)." "His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]" "In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored." "In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer." I personally think it should be change back to the second version of the pledge. Just because congress caved under the lobbying of a religous intrest during the Mcarthy era does not make it right. Besides it would be more historically accurate. We are honoring the people that came before us and should use the original pledge. The change to the second version was to make it clear that you were pledging to the US not your individual state. As for the money. If the original designs had that latin phrase then we should honor our past and put that back on the money and remove the god statement. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 10, 2007 18:25:28 GMT -5
I have to ask, You do know the founding fathers of the US were Christian. So the US was Christian first. Some of the founding fathers were Christian, some were not. I personally find the prospect of having my freedom to practice whatever religion I choose replaced with an outdated ideology that is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people to be quite offensive. I hope you don't mean to suggest Marxist Communism is an outdated ideology directly responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people, because if you were suggesting this, you would be wrong. Just because I fail to bring up abortion does not mean I lack "moral outrage" towards the prospect of using taxpayer's dollars to fund it. The subject was of no relevance to the argument until now. I agree as well, your tax dollars should not be used to fund abortion clinics. You should have the option to choose which programs your money supports. Why do I find the mention of God offensive in government - instituted areas? Because the government of the United States is "A government of the people, for the people, by the people." As one of these "people" I do not believe in God, and therefor am offended that my government, of which I am a part, endorses something in which I do not believe. I do not want to pledge allegience to one nation under God. I, as a part of the "we" of the people of the United States, do not trust in God, and do not want my currency to state otherwise. I am offended that my government would print an outright lie on legal tender, and in the interest of preserving the trustworthiness of my nation demand that it be removed. I have not proposed printing my beliefs on currency instead. I have not proposed using "In God we do not trust". Instead, I have proposed something that I believe accurately represents the nature of our government, something far more universal than "In God we trust", and something that is not untruthful. Using E Pluribus Unum will not make anyone turn toward atheism, or believe that this nation is an atheist one. If anything, it should inspire a sense of dignity and unity. Statements including God also alienate people who do not believe in God. My proposition should not alienate anyone, and is even designed to promote inclusion of all groups of people within our nation. Yes, I dislike religion, and am biased toward it. Yes, I would like to see it removed from our society. No, my proposition is not designed to further this goal. If I wanted to use the government to snuff out religion, I would do so in the name of logic. If I wanted to spread anti-religious propaganda through our currency, or our pledge, I would propose something else that I believed was the opposite of religion, not something I believed neutral to it.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Apr 13, 2007 15:37:59 GMT -5
I hope you don't mean to suggest Marxist Communism is an outdated ideology directly responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people, because if you were suggesting this, you would be wrong. Ignoring your other points for the moment, yes that's exactly what I said. Attempts at implementing Marxist ideology have led to the deaths of over 100,000,000 people. -- Ukraine's famine, 1932 to 1933: 7 million dead. United Nations Human Rights Council estimate; I've read higher numbers elsewhere. Great Leap Forward, 1958 to 1961: 20 to 43 million dead. That's from wikipedia; if I get the time, I'll look up the numbers from my books...they were in the same ballpark, if I remember correctly. North Korean famine, which peaked from 1995 to 1998: anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million (most sources I researched seemed to dwell in the 1.5 to 2.5 million range, but the North Korean government's own census count [which may or may not have been accurate any given year], according to Jasper Becker, was 2 million lower after the worst of the famine years than the it had been prior to the famine. -- Note that each of these three incidents were the results of implementations of the Marxist vision, including forced collectivization of agriculture. If you chose to dispute the causal factors, give me a while and I will elaborate with excerpts from scholarly texts. That's just three incidents, and we're already up to the 28 to 50 million range.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 14, 2007 22:05:21 GMT -5
I don't like derailing threads, so I'll ask to move the communism discussion to another thread (I guess I'll create it).
Meanwhile, please return to my other arguments, I felt like they were good ones, and not hearing your reply/rebuttle was disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 16, 2007 15:13:44 GMT -5
I must make a point on this neutrality myth. The other day I was sitting in an Apple bee's waiting area, and began thinking about the smoking/non-smoking sections. What if apple bee's wanted to be 'neutral' on the issue? They would have no smoking at all, since anyone smoking would give rise to the belief that apple bee's accepted smokers over non-smokers. Yet having non-smoking would be a good 'neutral' decision, though it only pleases those who don't smoke. Aside from the entire smoking issue, this demonstrates the very myth of neutrality. IN this case its recognize God or don't. If we became "neutral", we would only please those who don't. However there is a true neutrality, which is simply detachment from. Someone who s neutral on smoking, would say "come on in, if you smoke or don't I don't care." This is a more conservative action on the subject, and I think the best for the country. So we have "In God we trust" On coins. Want to be neutral? Then I suggest you simply not even bring the issue up. But in your minds that would be letting the evil Christians win the country, which is a poor example of your own "neutrality".
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 17, 2007 12:41:13 GMT -5
Wrong. There is a difference between apathy and neutrality.
The major problem with your Applebee's analogy is that there are only two choices in Applebee's, that the choices involve activity, and that Applebee's already is neutral, by allowing people to both smoke and not smoke.
Neutrality on the issue of including religion-affirming statments on legal tender is not a myth from some points of views.
For example the question could be, "What religion should we support on our currency?" The neutral answer would be, "Lets not choose any of them, and choose something else not related to religion". That is neutral. It does not affirm Christianity. It does not affirm Judaism. It does not affirm Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, Scientoloy, or Wicca. It does not affirm atheism either. Therefor, it is neutral.
And I think that's what the question should be.
But some people think the question is, "Should we affirm Christianity on our currency?"
In this case, the only apparent answer are "yes" or "no". The only possible neutral answer would be "Lets not have currency", but I think we can agree that won't work right now.
And that is what most Christians erroniously think the question is, apparently what you think the question is, and why you claim a neutral answer is a myth.
So now what do we argue about? Which question is the right one?
The reason I believe the first question is the right one is because it supercedes the second question. You cannot decide whether or not to affirm Christianity on currency until you have decided if you will affirm any belief on currency.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on Apr 17, 2007 16:43:43 GMT -5
I affirm Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 18, 2007 8:40:16 GMT -5
But nobody walks into Apple Bee's and screams that they have to stop letting people smoke, or not smoke, which is neutrality. You seem to believe your making a big sacrifice by denying all religions the right of being put on the country's coins. Including Christianity, which I affirm also. However as anyone who has read your faith in Atheism, denying all other religions, Including Christianity, is what your all about. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on Apr 18, 2007 18:44:32 GMT -5
I believe President Eisenhower added to the pledge, and not President Reagan. Also, the founding fathers did not caution against a state religion. They prohibited the government from enacting a state religion. Nothing in their writings indicates atheism. They never assumed that the people who made up the government would not have faith.
|
|