Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center

[Christa]

WASHINGTON — A California Republican congressman wants to do a little writing on the walls of Washington's newest federal building. If Rep. Dan Lungren gets his way, Congress will spend nearly $100,000 to engrave the words "In God We Trust " and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent spots at the Capitol Visitor Center .

Lungren's proposal drew only a whimper of opposition last week when the House of Representatives voted 410-8 to approve it. Now, however, Lungren finds himself tussling with a national atheists and agnostics group.

The Wisconsin -based Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. sued this week to stop the engraving, accusing Lungren of trying to force his religious beliefs on as many as 15 percent of all U.S. adults. That comprises "atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers, none of whom possess a belief in a god," according to the lawsuit.

"It really is a Judeo-Christian endorsement by our government, and so Lungren is wrong," said Dan Barker of Madison, Wis. , a co-president of the foundation. "Lungren and others are pro-religious, and they want to actually use the machinery of government to promote their particular private religious views. That is unconstitutional, and that's what we're asking the court to decide."

The Senate has approved a similar plan introduced by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina . The congressional directive orders the Capitol architect to make the changes in the design of the $621 million center, which opened last December.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation , which has 13,500 members, sued in U.S. District Court in Wisconsin . It alleges that Congress is trying to make belief in God synonymous with citizenship and "discouraging nonbelief" among Americans, a contention that Lungren rejects.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090718/pl_mcclatchy/3274259

[rfranklin]

1. I absolutely agree...these guys are promoting their religion....

because they certainly don't mean to honor Allah or Buddha or Lord Krishna.

[FarCenter]

2. How about?

In we trust.

[jwirr]

9. In the dollar we trust or in wall street we trust?

[PSzymeczek]

18. That would at least be honest. n/t

[jwirr]

40. That is what I was thinking.

[rrneck]

3. Gotta give 'em credit.

They're predictable. The fundies sing one song and the political hoes have one dance step. Or is it the other way around?

edited for what little clarity I could wring out of it.

[niyad]

4. one would think we didn't have a serious financial crisis on our hands. dan, you are now,

always have been, and always will be, a complete moran.

[Joanie Baloney]

59. Why?

Dan Barker is not the President of the U.S. He is the head of FFRF which does not stand for Freedom From Right-wing Finances. His focus is knocking down religious intrusions in the government. What's so moran about that??

Sheesh.

[MindPilot]

61. Dan Barker is more of a patriot that you will ever be.

But for FFRF and similar organizations, you would be living in an even more theocratic state than you already are. You're welcome.

[tbyg52]

93. I think the poster may be talking about Dan *Lundgren*

(the one who wants the thing)

[MindPilot]

102. Oh, well that's very different...(best Rosana Rosanadana voice)

Never mind.

[JHB]

133. You mean Emily Litella

You're mixing up your Gilda Radner characters.

Then again, Emily would be railing against "Bob", and wondering why we trust him.
:hippie:

[Joanie Baloney]

115. Ooooh!

Well then...my bad!

(But it was good practice for me!)

:hide:

[MindPilot]

103. Sorry if i went off one-eighth cocked.

Pls see post 102

[rd_kent]

104. Whats a moran?

[tbyg52]

124. Here.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm
http://moran.urbanup.com/1303800

[Deja Q]

5. $10 triillion and those dudes can't think of anything better to do?! What a bunch of wankers.

There really are more things to be done... especially when there's maybe 2 million people.

At another time and scenario I'd listen, but with so many problems, removing 4 sodding words to appease them* surely can wait...



* followed up with lawsuits from everybody else pertaining to their own religious persuasions...

[Mz Pip]

7. I agree

It's a silly lawsuit. I'm not much of a believer but I have better things to do with my time than be offended by every display of belief that is out there.

[tbyg52]

10. Uh, do you not distinguish between private displays of belief

and *government* displays of belief? (Hint: One is unconstitutional, despite the fact that it goes on, and one is not.)

[Mz Pip]

21. A public display of

belief is not an establishment of a government religion.

I pretty much don't see "In God We Trust" on our money or on a building somewhere as being that. Other than that, I really don't care.

When the government forces me to go to church or to believe in a particular way then that is when it becomes unconstitutional.

[tbyg52]

23. The government puts god on money and buildings

and that's not an establishment of government religion? I realize it's a pretty small thing as it is now, but what if it were extended to every building and piece of paper the government produced? Sure, there's a difference between shoving words in my face and making me go to church, and one is less objectionable to me than the other, but that doesn't make the words any less, in my view, unconstitutional.

[Mz Pip]

35. Except it's not on

every piece of paper or government building.

And no, just because In God We Trust is on some money it does not mean the government is establishing a religion.

It's not like a STOP sign where you have to stop or get fined. The government is not requiring that you believe anything.

[tbyg52]

48. I refer you to post #43. nt

[ekelly]

129. "Except it's not on every piece of paper or government building. "

"Except it's not on every piece of paper or government building."

Not yet, and that's the point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Spoken like a true non-non-believer.

It is not YOUR ox that is being gored, is it.

[Mz Pip]

49. Sorry if I can't

muster up the appropriate amount of outrage over this. I'd rather they didn't do it, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I've got more important things IMHO to be pissed off about.

[rd_kent]

105. "A public display of belief is not an establishment of a government religion"

When it is paid for with taxpayer money, yes it is.

[SidDithers]

11. $10 triillion and those dudes can't think of anything better to do?! What a bunch of wankers...

There really are more things to be done, but with so many problems, engraving those 4 sodding words surely is a waste of time and money.

Sid

[tbyg52]

12. I honestly can't tell if your post is for or against the ffrf lawsuit.

If it's against the ffrf, then I wish to mention that the money the ffrf is using is coming from willing donors (like me). The money the government may be spending to fight it could be saved simply by leaving off that unconstitutional sentiment. Save the cost of engraving it, too.

[kimmylavin]

29. I'm not sure you understand.

The lawsuit is to keep them from spending money to engrave, not spending money to remove.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. It's not about removing the words. The words are not there yet.

It is about not ADDING them at a cost of $100,000.

[snake in the grass]

119. You're right!

And while were at it:

$10 trillion, same sex rights can also wait.

$10 trillion, closing Gitmo can also wait.

$10 trillion, investigating torture crimes can also wait.

$10 trillion, fighting for health care can also wait.

$10 trillion, restoring the Constitution and habeas corpus can also wait.

$10 trillion, fighting global climate change can also wait.

We'd be so much further, if people would leave their egotism at home and concentrate on what's really important!

[niyad]

6. I demand "In Goddess We Trust" since, after all, our goddess gave birth to their gods

(note to self: REALLLLLLY must talk to Her about selective breeding)

[jmm]

8. How many school books could $100,000 buy?

Even if I believed in God I'd still like to think I could see better uses for our tax dollars. A nation with as much debt as ours doesn't need to spend $100,000 engraving a religious phrase on public property.

[immoderate]

13. What the hell does "In God We Trust" mean?

I've never come across anybody who could explain what that statement means. :shrug:

--imm

[Fumesucker]

14. For Christians it means..

Trusting a deity who drowned every single human being on the planet save for Noah and his immediate family not to get mad and do something like that again.

[Lerkfish]

17. really?

hey, as a christian, I support the atheists in the OP, your post, however, I do not support, even though I understand your point of view.
However, freedom from religion and freedom to disrespect religion are not the same concept.

[tbyg52]

19. >>freedom from religion and freedom to disrespect religion are not the same concept.

And respecting a person's right to hold a particular belief and respecting that belief itself are not the same thing either.

The post you replied to quoted what the Bible says actually happened, and expressed an opinion that people hoped it wouldn't happen again. Seems reasonable.

[MNDemNY]

22. Wrong, fish, MY freedom TO DISRESPECT your, and any ...

religion is just as important as the "freedom from religion" You have NO right to NOT be offended. I have NO respect for any religious belief, one is as stupid as any other. Based on superstition and little else, religion is the scourge of mankind.Humans who will survive in the long,long run will be those who most successfully abandon all religion. People, come to your senses before it is too late.

[Lerkfish]

52. shrug -- I'm not asking you to respect anything.

I'm saying there are two concepts:

concept one: freedom FROM religion (which I support)
concept two: freedom to disparage any religion (which I don't).

I'm saying those are not the same concept.

not sure why that merits such vitriol on your part.

methinks you have some unresolved emotional baggage that prevents you from reasonable discourse.

and, no matter who espouses it -- racists, republicans, atheists, parking lot attendants -- the concept that one has the right to say anything, no matter how offensive but another does not have the right to be offended -- it the refuge of someone who wants to piss on everyone else and is not adult enough to take responsibility for their actions.

[MNDemNY]

60. I said you have no right NOT to be offended.

[moggie]

65. So what should the penalty be?

If, as you say, you don't support the freedom to disparage religion, what action do you think the state should take against someone who says what Fumesucker did? Jail time? A fine? Death by stoning?

[Lerkfish]

81. wow. such hyperbole.

and what intellectual dishonesty.


try to reread and understand what I meant, if its possible for you to do so.

by "not support" I mean I don't agree with it. To suggest death by stoning is just bigoted of you.

[moggie]

87. So your language isn't clear

You said:

concept one: freedom FROM religion (which I support)
concept two: freedom to disparage any religion (which I don't).

I think it's reasonable to say that, if you don't support (or, in your new words, don't agree with) the freedom to disparage religion, this is equivalent to saying that you support (agree with) the proposition that people should not have the freedom to disparage religion. This doesn't seem a very liberal position to me.

I'm free to say rude things about conservatism, capitalism, libertarianism, you name it. I'm free to say that people who believe in astrology are deluded, that holocaust deniers are sick fucks, and that Firefly is overrated. I'll usually avoid being especially dickish about it, on general principles, but there are times that harsh language is called for, and I'm certainly not going to let anyone tell me that I don't have the freedom to say things which might upset the delicate sensibilities of a freeper or a Bigfoot enthusiast. And I really don't see why one set of beliefs (which we label "religion") should be granted an immunity from criticism which is not extended to other beliefs - particularly since so many of the religious have such a hair-trigger sensitivity that even the mildest opposition will cause them to clutch their pearls in shocked dismay.

By the way, should all religions be privileged this way? Am I allowed to say that Scientology is a crazy scam, or that the Westboro Baptists are mentally ill? Who gets to decide which religions are off-limits?

If all you're saying is "you have the freedom to disparage religion, but that will upset some people, and then they'll say rude things abou you"... well, that's so blindingly obvious that I don't know why anyone would even bring it up. It's certainly not news to atheists.

To suggest death by stoning is just bigoted of you.

Hey, it's not atheists who stone people to death, you know!

[Lerkfish]

88. you accused me of suggesting to stone people to death

which, if you'll be fair, I neither said nor implied anything of the kind. Your conclusions were far afield and nonsupportable, except by your own prejudices.. certainly nothing I said even stepped one iota to that extreme position.

I always find it interesting how atheists resort to such bullshit, when they really don't have to. If you'll note, my first post in the thread was saying I support the atheist's position in the OP.

[moggie]

90. Now you're just floundering

You said, perfectly clearly, that you don't think people should have the freedom to disparage religion (so you'd support the curtailment of an existing freedom). I've given you a chance to refute that, and instead you've weaselled and cried about how mean atheists are. So, it sounds like you'd support a blasphemy law.

If you'll note, my first post in the thread was saying I support the atheist's position in the OP

Big whoop. It's clearly unconstitutional and a waste of money, so I hope you're not expecting a gold star for this.

[Lerkfish]

96. "it sounds like you support a blasphemy law"...? only in your own head.

I'm tired of trying to get you to argue honestly.

I never said nor suggested anything of the kind, I've corrected you on that multiple times yet you persist in your intentional "misreading" of my point.

shrug.... I see diminishing returns in continuing with someone as dead set to mischaracterize what I say.

[rd_kent]

108. You have CROSSED a line here

Firefly is NOT overrated!

[tbyg52]

125. I am never, ever going to get as many laughs from a single entity as I have from this thread! nt

[rd_kent]

107. "concept two: freedom to disparage any religion"

Is that concept covered under the first amendment, freedom of speech?

[Lerkfish]

116. yes, but I'm saying two things: I don't personally think people should,

and its a different concept from freedom of or from religion.

by saying I don't think people should, that's a personal opinion not a law.


k?

[stopbush]

122. Sorry, but religious belief comes down to nothing more than an opinion,

and in this country, we have a right to disparage opinions.

Are you suggesting we not disparage firmly held Republican beliefs, like not providing universal health care? I don't think so.

People can believe whatever they want in this country. they're entitled to that. What their beliefs are not entitled to is respect if someone believes said beliefs are childish, ridiculous, fantastic, whatever.

Religion is no different. I don't expect a Christian to say, "you know, there's a lot of truth to your atheistic belief that god doesn't exist," so why should Xians get upset when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Lerkfish]

126. agreed, and I have the right to say I don't agree with people doing that, right?

just like I don't agree with Neil Sedaka fans, I can say I don't agree with people who disparage religions, or atheism, for that matter.

if everyone would just stop assuming what I"m saying here, we'd be better off.

you're equating my saying I dont AGREE with people doing something with saying they can't do that something.

ok? got it now?

[RadicalTexan]

32. I am free to disrespect whatever the fuck I want

Offense =/= harm

Just because it hurts your feelings, doesn't mean the rest of us don't have the right to criticize your religion.

[Lerkfish]

53. you have the right to disrespect, but others do not have the right to be offended

that's the way it works in your juvenile one-way universe.

As long as YOU feel good about your own viewpoint, all is right with the world.


There's a psychological term for that, actually.

[moodforaday]

79. Get offended all you want!

I don't think your right to be offended is actually under debate here. Get offended all you want. Problems begin when offending someone's religious sensibilities becomes a punishable offense.

This is the case in my country, Poland (and in a few other EU countries; specific laws and formulations differ). In Poland you can be fined or jailed for up to 2 years for wilfully offending another person's religious sensibilities. It's part of the criminal code, no less. This means every so often an author, an artist or a journalist is hauled off to court, and their basic defense is they didn't do it wilfully. They can't just claim they didn't do it, once someone says they've been offended.

Meanwhile, there is a cross hanging in Polish parliament, there's a cross in every classroom, religion is taught at schools (but no ethics or philosophy, and practically no sex-ed), bishops get invited to bless newly opened highways, bridges and malls, and no law gets passed unless the church hierarchy okays it first. All this, with the exception of teaching religion, happens without any legal codification whatsoever.

Abortion is completely illegal in Poland with rare exceptions for rape and life endangerment, but even in those exceptional cases doctors can invoke the conscience clause and refuse to help a woman (and they do). Women whose cases fell under those exceptions have been publicly vilified by the church and the right-wing media (that is to say, most of the media, including the public TV and radio) - whether they actually had an abortion or if they tried but were denied. They get hatemail and death threats. In once case hospital staff gave away personal details (name, address) of a girl who was to have a legal abortion performed to a priest, who then proceeded to brainwash the girl and called for the courts to revoke her parents' parental rights.

Artificial insemination will almost certainly be made either illegal or exceedingly difficult to obtain when the parliament resumes in the fall. These things happen despite public protests and polss that show a great majority of people opposing them (over 50% to 80%, depending on the issue).

Saying things are OK as long as the government does not force people to attend church is setting the bar very, very low. Way too low.

Does it offend you when I say religion is an instrument of control? It seems indisputable.

[Lerkfish]

82. I am not personally offended.

but a lot of you seem to arrive at that conclusion.


try rereading what I actually said instead of kneejerking into something I did not.


honestly, I used to think atheists were rational people.

[tbyg52]

91. Uh, nobody said you couldn't be offended. Go right ahead....! nt

[rd_kent]

109. Uh, yeah, thats is the way it works.

It's not a juvenile one-way universe, its the constitution.

[Lerkfish]

114. I'm afraid you're not making sense, at least to me, here.

If I am pointing out that someone says they have the right to say whatever they want, but no one else has the right to feel offended.... and I point out that is a unilateral activity, I am not speaking of the constitution at all.

[Fumesucker]

37. Was I inaccurate somehow?

The story of Noah is quite well known, I said nothing that is not in the Bible.

You have a problem with people telling Bible stories?

[tbyg52]

47. This thread has supplied me with the most laughs I've had in quite a while! nt

[Lerkfish]

54. LOL, how coy.

reread my post to you, carefully.

[Fumesucker]

58. So you don't trust your deity to not kill off the huge majority of the world's population?

I don't understand your point of view, either you trust your deity or you do not.

Personally I wouldn't since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and the past behavior of the Christian deity bears a strong resemblance to that of a spoiled child, but that's just faithless ol' me.

Pointing out the logical implications/consequences of a certain position does not constitute "disrespect".

[Lerkfish]

63. do you understand the definition of the word "coy"?

how about "straw man"?

[Fumesucker]

64. I know the meanings of both words..

But you have failed to show how they apply in this instance.

[immoderate]

67. Does it really offend you if I profer that Samson's super strength hair is mythology?

(Remember that mythology means "allegorical narrative.")

There is plenty in scripture that predicts that god is getting set to wipe us all out. I don't believe that. If you want to take that as a personal insult, that's on you.

--imm

[TokenQueer]

75. +1

:thumbsup:

[Lerkfish]

80. not offended personally at all.

honestly, I'm beginning to think the definition of DU atheist is "kneejerk". I never said I was personally offended.

in fact, if you actually reread what I said: I was being extremely reasonable an unoffended.

my point, if you care, is that I personally support diversity of thought, even thought I disagree with. What I hate to see is any side with a singular point that refuses to respect the points of others.

how is that offended or offensive?

[tbyg52]

92. It's your right to *hold* and defend the opinions that I respect.

I am under no obligation to respect every opinion in the world. And I don't. And you don't have to either. What's important is that the opinions aren't being silenced. And they aren't.

[rd_kent]

106. Are you saying that one cannot disrepect religion?

[Lerkfish]

111. no, but don't let that stop you from making that wrong assumption.

it hasn't stopped anyone else in this thread.

I'm saying I don't agree with it and that it is not the same thing as freedom from relgion.

Honestly I don't see why this is so difficult.

[rd_kent]

112. Im trying to understand you

"However, freedom from religion and freedom to disrespect religion are not the same concept."

That is what you posted. You also wrote that the two are not the same concept, but you disagree with those who dont respect religion and should not be allowed to do so. Am I missing something here?

[Lerkfish]

113. yes, you're missing something.

when you say I said:

"but you disagree with those who dont respect religion and should not be allowed to do so. Am I missing something here?"

the part in bold is what people are assuming I said -- including you --and refusing to listen to me when I correct them.

here is the correction, sigh, ONCE AGAIN:

I disagree with disrespecting religion (and disrespecting atheism) because I personally support a great deal of diversity of thought, even those I do not agree with, because I think as a species that open thinking is better than closed or singular thinking.

The difficulty, I think, of this whole ordeal is that I may not be stating my case very clearly, I"ll accept some responsibility for that. HOWEVER, when I attempt to correct misapprehensions of my point repeatedly and no one listens to the corrections, then I"m at a loss.

I think the difficulty MIGHT be in the word "freedom". in the second part of my statement, I"m not referring to a constitutional freedom or lack of one, but the actions of an individual that are not fettered by conscience or concern for others... in other words, the free disparagement (meaning without limit) is not something I agree with.

I have not suggested any punishment or restriction, just that I don't support -- or agree with -- treating others with whom you disagree on metaphysical assumptions with disrespect.

If I were a buddhist and made the same statement, would I have received as much grief?

[armyowalgreens]

120. Fuck off religion.

There, I disrespected religion. When will I be arrested?

[Lerkfish]

127. sigh... are you ALL idiots?

read what I said, don't jump to conclusions, and try to figure out why your interpretation of what I said is wrong, like veryone else in this thread.

[armyowalgreens]

130. No, I got your point loud and clear.

Criticizing religious doctrine is off limits. I get it.

[Lerkfish]

131. no, you did not get it at all.

not at all

I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.
I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.I said I don't agree with it, I did not say it was off limits.

now, does everyone get it yet?

[Marr]

16. I always assumed it meant the same as "trust to providence".

But now that I think about it, that really wouldn't make much sense.

'Hopefully, it'll all work out for the best' doesn't seem like much of a motto.

[tbyg52]

20. OK, now I can't stop laughing!

At least I wasn't drinking any coffee.....!

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. I actually rather like it.

It's forward thinking, non-intrusive, and generally positive.

And it certainly does not violate the separation of church and state as 'In God We Trust' does as a national motto - that being a statement that "We, as a nation, are doing God's will". How is that NOT a violation?

[immoderate]

66. Uh-huh! Trusting in god seems foolish.

After all he works in "mysterious" ways. Does he cure the sick? Does he return on investments? Does he send customers to your business?

Trusting in god is kind of like trusting in Cheney.

--imm

[Lerkfish]

15. as a christian, I completely support the atheists, here.

:)

[tbyg52]

25. I appreciate that!

:hi:

[Lerkfish]

55. actually no you don't.

judging from your post further up.

Atheists are amazing: they demand everyone accept their worldview, and even when people respect their worldview, they continue to disrespect the worldviews of others.

ironic, since that seems to be on the largest criticisms they have of organized religions.

[Rebubula]

56. LOLZ

Christians and Muslims are amazing: they demand everyone accept their worldview (many times at the end of a gun or sword), and even when people respect their worldview, they continue to disrespect the worldviews of others and force their worldviews on large, unwilling populations with laws and martial actions.

NEWSFLASH - People that take themselves too seriously tend to be hypocritical and arrogant.

I dislike the tactics of many atheist groups (been atheist for 20 years) almost as much as the religious. Live and let live...

[Lerkfish]

57. precisely, which is why I said it was ironic.

I believe the criticism is VALID for some religious people, and its VALID for some atheists. The irony is that atheists guilty of this never look in the mirror. (and neither some religious people)

to me its same/same.

[tbyg52]

89. Sigh.....

I am not required to respect your worldview. I am required to respect your right to hold it and your right to defend it. (You know, the same rights *I* have.... ;-> )

As far as what I respect about religious views, I respect the things I find ethical. I respect the myths (they *are* part of our culture, after all) as long as people don't use them to justify doing what I regard as bad stuff. For example, I don't respect, at all, many of the Pope's positions - quite a few of them, such as being against birth control, I consider downright evil.

Oh, and, I actually *did* appreciate it, but, if you insist, I'll stop doing that....!

[Lerkfish]

94. LOL! sorry about that.

this thread got so contentious that I lost track.

my apologies.

at any rate, my own point got lost in the mire. I'll just give up trying to have some people (not you) understand it.

Thanks for your post.

[tbyg52]

97. No problem!

:hi:

[chucker47]

24. In God We Trust

It is part of the nation's history, it's heritage and belongs
in the visitor's center as a factual part of our history.  The
intent of the Founders was not to keep God out of government,
but rather to keep government from infringing on citizens'
practice of religion.  That God was indeed part of government
is evident, or should be, from examining almost any historical
Congressional record, how Bibles were a part of government
meetings, and the presence of His name on so many document and
buildings in our nation's capital.  To intentionally omit it
where it historically is found is to distort history, in
essence to rewrite it in the name of political correctness
(like the statue fashioned after 911 of the 3 men were
originally made to be of different races when the 3 were, in
fact, of one race). If someone doesn't believe in God then
they are free to disagree, but not to attempt to alter
history.  History, after all, makes us who and what we are
today.  We demean ourselves by distorting our past.  It's just
an example of lying to impress someone.

[tbyg52]

28. Uh.

Can you say "Jefferson's 'wall of separation'"? (Yes, he did actually say that.) Can you say "Treaty of Tripoli"? (Yes, treaties have the force of law.)

Edited to add:

Are you aware that most of this crap was added during the McCarthy era?

[Sinistrous]

34. A weak try at spin, at best.

The intent of the first amendment is quite clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Over and over again, this has been adjudged to mean that government is to stay out of the religion business.

Enjoy your stay.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. That is an impressive amount of bullshit, for such a new poster.

The founders' intent most decidedly WAS to keep religion out of government, as they were all well aware in their own recent history of the deletarious effect of state religions.

"In God We Trust" was NEVER on any US money until 1862, when it was engraved on a 2 cent piece. It was not put on all US paper currency until 1956. YOU are re-writing history by making a claim that simply has no foundation.

I'm not sure how many of the early presidents took the oath on a bible, but I'm pretty certain that Washington never did. It only became expected after the 1820s.

Many of the founders argued strongly that there should be no such post as Congressional Chaplain, but couldn't decide if forbidding it would be in itself a violation of the separation of church and state - I believe they resolved that by making the convocation preceed the calling of the house to order, thus keeping it out of the official business of state.

You know, there are also Masonic symbols on a great many of our public buildings - would you use that to argue that we are, in fact, a Masonic state?

"...the presence of His name on so many document..." What is 'his name'? What documents, specifically, are you talking about? Please, present me with evidence, not just repeating what your preachers say.

And what's with the RACIST rant about the 9/11 statue?

[Zomby Woof]

73. Washington did take his oath on a bible

Many presidents, even in recent history, have used his bible to take the oath. That didn't make him a frothing evangelistic-style christian, of course. Personally, I think the oath should be administered on a copy of the Constitution. But that being said, Washington did use a bible, both times he was sworn in.

Without a doubt, chuckles was spewing the usual wingnut talking points about church and state. My red flags go up when I see the 1st amendment guarantee of religious freedom expressed as a one-way street. It was a dead giveaway when he said that its purpose was not to keep god out of government. D'oh! James Madison expressed this two-way principle (and elsewhere, Jefferson aptly coined it as a "wall") in greater detail in his writings, including the Federalist Papers. (I wonder how many right-wingers have read those? Probably not very many - and they are definitely at the core of our "founding documents" - kind of like an instruction manual for the Constitution).

I suppose he would cite the Declaration of Independence's "Creator" as "evidence" of Jebus being found in our original documents. Jefferson, as we all SHOULD know, was a deist, who professed no particular religious creed. His creator was a detached architect - a cog in nature's wheel. He cited that our rights were granted by nature's 'god', not the Judeo-Chrustian variety.

Chuckles needs to be reminded, just because something has always been done a certain way, doesn't means it's always right. "Heritage" can be used as a veil to cover a multitude, of um, (pardon the religious metaphor) sins.

I would also like to remind him that the republic's original (and best) motto is "E Pluribus Unum" - 'Out of Many, One'. Appropriately Latin, to reflect our REAL 'heritage' - that of the Roman Republic.

[elshiva]

50. What do you want on your pizza?

[fascisthunter]

71. no... no it isn't... stop listening to right wingers

the founders were diests... and they strictly forbade any indoctrination or stae sponsored support of ANY religion. Seperation of Church and State is part of the Constitution.

[armyowalgreens]

121. You are a moron. Thanks for playing.

"In God We Trust" didn't replace the original slogan "e pluribus unum" (from many, one) until the 50s. And that was directly a result of church interfering with government officials.

"In God We Trust" has only existed partly since the 1860s. And it was not made official until the 1950s. All of the movements to make it part of government legal documents have been made by the church.

[JHB]

134. Perhaps you should take the plank of history distortion out of your eye...

...before you complain about the splinter in someone elses?

In debates about official prayers in public schools, those advocating such often use quote Ben Franklin's motion at the Constitutional Convention to start each day with a prayer for guidance. But they never mention the outcome of that motion: it was set aside and never voted on, so our Founding Fathers, assembled for the very purpose of drafting the legal framework for our nation, went about their business of doing so with only whatever prayers they felt they needed to make privately, without a daily exercise of enforced piety. And in that light, it shouldn't be any surprise that the Consititution itself contains no pieties and no mentions of God nor divinity.

I should also add that one of the ways the we "keep government from infringing on citizens' practice of religion" is, in fact (though poorly stated), by "keep(ing) God out of government", or rather, not using public offices to favor one religious viewpoint over another.

Perhaps you can tell me: Where in this new visitor's center is "E Pluribus Unum" engraved? Because if it's not, that's an omission of history too, but yet I never hear anyone complaining about "political correctness" at its absence.

[melm00se]

26. the courts have ruled on this

topic in 1970:

Aronow v. United States

"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."

while this pending case, specifically, does not deal with US currency, it does deal with the phrase 'In God We Trust' and the 9th Circuit Court issued the above ruling and it is not a stretch to apply it to other places within the federal government.

the Supreme Court elected not to review this ruling.

[tbyg52]

31. Yeah, and what's funny is

that in one breath the people who want it there say it's "just ceremonial" and in the next scream that it's so important to keep it on. Seems self-contradictory to me, always has. And the courts have been wrong before.

[Silent3]

43. Try to have a plaque in a public building inscribed "In Allah we trust"...

...and see how well that goes over as "just ceremonial". Allah, after all is just a synonym for God, so why should anyone be offended?

[tbyg52]

46. Bingo. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. I submit that it is only 'obvious' to believers.

To the 15%, it is anything BUT obvious - it is, in fact, obvious that it is a statement favoring religion over non-religion BY THE STATE.

If it truly is meaningless, then DON'T PRINT IT ON OUR CURRENCY. Or, I suggest, print 'FLAPADOOLE WACK WACK' right after it, on ALL American currency.

McLuhan said 'the medium IS the message', and the court can say it is meaningless, but printing it on our money and engraving it on our public buildings GIVES it meaning.

[fascisthunter]

72. the fact that god is on our money is pretty twisted actually

you can see how Americans have somehow melded the two together especially in the Republican Party... as if god and wealth went hand in hand.

[tbyg52]

95. >>Or, I suggest, print 'FLAPADOOLE WACK WACK'

I have set a new personal record for number of belly laughs on a single thread....! :thumbsup:

[BlueJazz]

27. The Main part of "In God we trust" that I don't like is the "WE" part.

There are millions of people who paid for this building and don't believe in a God, so who is this "We" Crap ??

[tbyg52]

33. Oh, I guess

"In God Some of Us Trust" just wouldn't have the same ring.... :hi:

[BlueJazz]

36. LOL!...or maybe "In God we (except Bluejazz) Trust"

[Union Yes]

30. Oh Lord, protect us from your followers.

[Metta]

41. They scream about spending and then do this stuff. Hypocrites. They act like it isn't their money.

And they don't care that it's ours.

[Solly Mack]

44. k/r

fucking theocrats

[annabanana]

51. These people just don't trust the American Dream... or E Pluribus Unum

would be just fine with them.

[Starry Messenger]

68. Isn't it enough it's on all of our money?

If you want god overkill guys hire me and I'll paint it up on black velvet with sequins all over the capitol.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. Even in this hyperpartisan era there are some issues which get strong bipartisan support:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll515.xml

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. That is not support - that is fear.

Nobody wants to run in a campaign where their opponent can claim 'He voted against God and Patriotism'.

Which is exactly why this should NOT go through.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. It shouldn't go through, because voters would be angry if their representatives DIDN'T support it?

:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. You would maybe support a theocracy if the voters wanted it?

You see, it has nothing to do with actual governance - there are hot-button issues that the religiously insane will push, and our gutless politicians can't seem to understand that they CAN step up and support a demographic that is larger than Jews, Muslims, gays, and Mormons COMBINED.

There ARE enough enlightened theists out there that it is not political suicide for a politician to court the non-theist IN DEFENSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

The fucking fundies can squawk all they want - they don't outnumber the aggregate numbers of non-theists and true believers in the constitution.

It's just the politicians are too scared to try standing up for the principle. Because society has been led to believe, against all evidence, that religion is 'good', the religiously insane are able to amplify the effect of their delusion.

It shouldn't go through because a religious minority should not be able to create a climate of fear for the general populace. The closest parallel (and there is a direct connection) is to the red scares of the McCarthy era, which dragged the uninformed into supporting repressive measures that destroyed thousands of lives, guided by a vocal few. Politicians don't stand up to the theocrats today for the same reason they did not stand up to McCarthy then.

Now, please, DEFEND MCCARTHY.

[tbyg52]

98. A lot of our representatives would, I'm afraid

Either through fear or stupidity.

[Blue For You]

70. Why put a false statement on any public building?

Unless all citizens of this nation trust in God, the statement is false. Why do theists feel the need to spread falsehood?

[Zomby Woof]

74. Jean Sheperd said it best

In god we trust... all others pay cash.

[Senator]

76. It's Actually A Blasphemy For Most

Because most faiths (not all) hold that we have been endowed by our creator with free will. Therefore, we are free to trust in the deity or not. But...

...to declare that decision for others, let alone an entire nation, is arrogating to oneself a god-like authority.

Lungren is leading us all directly to hell.

---

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. Has any Christian group ever used that argument to speak against this sort of thing? -nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. The first law of the theist, is don't condemn other theists.

They won't speak up, just like they didn't speak up against Jim Jones, or the Moon cult, or the Branch Davidian, or any OTHER religious weirdness - because they know they are all variants on a theme.

Look too close at the Moonies, and you see the Lutherans.

[Senator]

117. Not with any high visibility that I'm aware.

I think the post above has it right in that the 11th: Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of... Commandment is at work.

But it is fun to point out to a Xtian Nationalist if you get the chance.

--

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

84. I ain't afraid

I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God

music and lyrics by Holly Near

http://www.hollynear.com/free.download.html

[tbyg52]

100. Great song! nt

[tbyg52]

99. And sometimes people wonder why atheists can be a little paranoid.....

Congratulations FFRF, you’re correct about one thing – but wrong about another. First of all you’re correct that the engravings will exclude you. This is the intent. We want you excluded. Keeping idiocy out of the mainstream is a healthy goal. However, you are wrong about something… there are not 15% of Americans who identify themselves as non-religious. At best, (or worst, depending on your point of view) only 5% of our population claims atheist/agnostic status.

snip

No American with any sense will stand for this attempt to whitewash our American religious heritage and Little Miss Annie and her FFRF will remain on the fringe of society because of their own choices, not because the mainstream puts them there. This is the thing about fringe groups – they choose to be on the fringe. No one forces them to be there.

Uh, these people do not seem to quite understand that civil rights have nothing to do with your percentage of the population.....

More:
http://www.examiner.com/x-11535-Christian-Living-Examiner~y2009m7d18-Atheists-try-again-to-remove-In-God-We-Trust

[TokenQueer]

101. The only thing missing was an attempt to re-brand us "Atheist Fundamentalists"

Disgusting. These people infuriate me! :argh:

"No American with any sense will stand for this attempt to whitewash our American religious heritage..."

Here they go again, expressing disdain for whitewashing while still holding the roller dripping with white paint.

[tbyg52]

110. Hey, TokenQueer!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

And I adore your username!

[TokenQueer]

123. Thanks!

:toast:

[KamaAina]

118. In God We Trust

all others pay cash. :P

[nolabels]

135. Where is the ATM at then?

(snip)
Naturally, most people who remember Rev. Moon and the social turmoil that followed him think he disappeared, died, was deported. In fact, as you will read in The King of America, Moon is richer and better-connected than ever. And an all-star cast of Washingtonians show up in his story.
(snip)
The King of America: The amazing true story of the billionaire cult leader, his newspaper, his sushi empire, and the politicians who put a crown on his head:
http://www.gorenfeld.net/book/

[mamaleah]

128. Well, they'd be hating life in Canada.

God is mentioned in the Canadian national anthem. Oh noes.

Funny considering Canadians are generally more liberal than us in the states, yet they aren't up in arms over that.

[moggie]

132. But not the French version?

I think the French version of O Canada leaves God out. Sneaky Frenchies. Our British national dirge anthem, of course, has God as the very first word. I'd like to see it replaced, but not because of the God stuff (firstly: it's about a person, not the country; secondly, it's ghastly).

It's interesting that European countries with an official "established" church tend to be less Christian than the US. Over here, we have the Church of England, but it's a national joke (official motto: "cake or death!")

[tbyg52]

136. Well, if that was the *only* place it appeared in the US

and if the fundies didn't keep trying to shove it in as many more places as they could, I probably wouldn't be "up in arms," either.