Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually it is different and harmful. It's saying life is good without God. That's a slap in the face to Christians. No different than saying Jesus Sucks. "In God We Trust" is only saying to atheists hey we happen to believe in God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
The only way I can read this is that it is OK to slap some people in the face, but not others. I guess you're OK with that as long as you are not the guy being slapped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Please explain to me how "In God We Trust" is a slap in the face. Is Christianity really that offensive to you?
Don't try to twist my words around. You are the one that brought face slapping into the conversation. You specifically said that the hypothetical suggestion to put "Good without God" was a slap in the face, but "In God We Trust" is not. You said it.
I did not in any way say or imply that Christianity was offensive to me. You have still not answered why it is OK to slap some people in the face but not others.
In every instance where an atheist was denied privileges that a Christian received, it was considered a violation of religious liberty. The landmark case actually occurred in prison when an atheist prisoner wanted to form a group counseling program for atheists and the prison said no ... yet Christians were allowed to have their own prisoner-run group counseling session for Christians. The court ruled in favor of the atheist and said in the briefing that atheism is considered a religion in terms of being protected by the 1st Amendment. Ever since that case, all other cases involving an atheist being denied specific rights and privileges that Christians receive for no other reason than the person is an atheist, the courts ruled in favor of the atheist.
The reason why this ruling most likely doesn't apply with the cop cars is because the motto doesn't deny an atheist any specific rights under the law.
I actually read the Opinion of the Supreme Court (or a District Court) on the issue of the Constitutionality of the New God Motto and Pledge God addition. In short, it was elaborated that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" didn't infringe on the Establishment clause because the title "God" was vague enough to include every religion and thus be Secular (or some other quasi-rationalization in such same line).
The issue of "privileges and rights" and Motto/Pledge weren't really seen as the same thing in regards to Establishment clause because "privileges and rights" is addressed in the 14th amendment (or somewhere around there) and not the First.
"Being Good without God" is offensive to Jeffbase40, and Yes! Christianity and Islam are as OFFENSIVE TO ME as Atheism (and perhaps Islam or Hinduism) is to you, Jeffbase40. Because all Lies are offensive to me! Basically all monotheism is, and so is all anti-agnosticism (few atheists, most religionists). It Slaps Me in the Face that they would say anything in regards to or supporting their personally hurtful lies!
But Freedom of Speech means they can say anything they want, since they are not the government, nor government supported practices (except by unskeptical tax-exemptions and such). Furthermore, they are not really slaps in the face, their contradictions against my beliefs only hurt me because I have such a thin-skin against receiving any sort of cognitive dissonance in regards to Agnosticism, same as you with your likely Trinitarian Monotheism.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-23-2015 at 05:54 PM..
Don't try to twist my words around. You are the one that brought face slapping into the conversation. You specifically said that the hypothetical suggestion to put "Good without God" was a slap in the face, but "In God We Trust" is not. You said it.
I did not in any way say or imply that Christianity was offensive to me. You have still not answered why it is OK to slap some people in the face but not others.
I never said it was ok to slap some people in the face, but not others. Now who is twisting words? Such a position would only be achieved if you believe "In God We Trust" is a slap in face. So hence my question. Why is it a slap in the face?
I never said it was ok to slap some people in the face, but not others. Now who is twisting words? Such a position would only be achieved if you believe "In God We Trust" is a slap in face. So hence my question. Why is it a slap in the face?
Yes you did. In God We Trust is a CLEAR slap in the face of those who "don't trust in lies".
Please explain to me how "In God We Trust" is a slap in the face. Is Christianity really that offensive to you?
Is non belief so offensive to you that saying "Good Without God" is a slap in the face?
Surely you realize this goes both ways. You can't say "Good Without God" is a slap in the face and says Jesus sucks, while at the same time saying "In God We Trust" isn't. By your logic, In God We Trust is saying those who don't believe are stupid or some such nonsense. Personally, neither one is a slap in the the face.
If you can't understand this, you may want to look inward and figure out why you are the only one who can't.
I actually read the Opinion of the Supreme Court (or a District Court) on the issue of the Constitutionality of the New God Motto and Pledge God addition. In short, it was elaborated that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" didn't infringe on the Establishment clause because the title "God" was vague enough to include every religion and thus be Secular (or some other quasi-rationalization in such same line).
All of which is utter nonsense. Like I said, the pushy Christians LOVE playing their little semantic games which is how they sometimes sneak in Christianity under the court's radar. They ALMOST got away with it in how they wrote up the gay marriage bans.
I personally believe that a few atheists should be sitting on the Supreme Court to counter the pervasive religious sentiment so rampant in America. To say that the word "God" is vague enough to be secular is like saying water is wet enough to be dry. How can "God" be secular? At all?
Yes, the national motto and the insertion of God into the pledge are just two ways in which the pushy Christians were able to bamboozle the courts with their semantics.
"Oh, I'm a devout, pure-blooded fundamentalist Christian ... but "God" means all gods!"
Bull.
Religion doesn't work that way. It never has, never will. Everyone with a functioning brain cell knows that God was referring to Christianity. Show me one courthouse with verses from the Qu'ran etched into the stonework. Show me one public building where laws are made and where politics takes place where a likeness of Ganesh is carved into the wall, or a few lines from the Bhagavad Gita? How about something from Wicca? And I've certainly never seen a big statue of Buddha in any of our public spaces. Oh, but you'll find PLENTY of references from the Bible and words from the Christian God.
Thus for anyone, court or not, to say that God means "any" god is a bald-faced liar.
Nor does it specifically endorse any one religion. Nor is it meeting the idea of "Congress making a law regarding the establishment of religion"....since it isn't Congress doing this.
Or maybe we actually believe that the Constitution was written as our rule book and we should actually live according to it.
Believe it or not, I really don't hate you. I think you're way off base on a lot of issues, and I hope you realize your error.
I suspect you will ignore this like you do all arguments that don't go with your agenda, but....
Police are GOVERNMENT employees, and as such, should not show favoritism towards a certain religion, or even religion in general. Not that you or your ilk care, but not everyone is religious, and having In God We Trust on the police vehicles clearly show a bias towards religion.
Wrong.
We cannot mandate a state religion, as in organizations connected with the state cannot as a rule make them put that on their car. The issue of the bureaucrat not allowing gay marriages is that she was making it policy not to allow marriages.
But state officials are still people, and can personally express their beliefs. That is, forbidding government officials to choose to have that on their vehicles would be making atheism into a state "religion", while forcing them to have it is making Christianity state religion. I have a pendant I wear, working at a library (this is, very loosely, a public sector job). Nobody can forbid me from wearing it, state employee or not. Religious expression is free to all not just private sector. You just can't force the officers to drive that vehicle.
You cannot force people to say the pledge of allegiance a certain way. In fact, you should teach the pledge of allegiance both ways, then ask them to join however feels right to them.
Is non belief so offensive to you that saying "Good Without God" is a slap in the face?
Surely you realize this goes both ways. You can't say "Good Without God" is a slap in the face and says Jesus sucks, while at the same time saying "In God We Trust" isn't. By your logic, In God We Trust is saying those who don't believe are stupid or some such nonsense. Personally, neither one is a slap in the the face.
If you can't understand this, you may want to look inward and figure out why you are the only one who can't.
No, the equivalent would be a slogan like "IN Man We Trust". That's stating a personal belief, not making a statement directed at the public. Good WIthout God would be a direct offensive message saying that life can't be good with God. You're the one who seems to have a hard time understanding here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
