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.
What about "In Allah we trust"? Or "In the Goddess we trust"? or "In Krishna we trust"? or "In Zeus we trust?" The list goes on and on and on.
There is SUPPOSED to be separation of Church & State. Unfortunately, there are WAY too many people who forget that and want to impose THEIR religion on everyone else.
What about "In Allah we trust"? Or "In the Goddess we trust"? or "In Krishna we trust"? or "In Zeus we trust?" The list goes on and on and on.
There is SUPPOSED to be separation of Church & State. Unfortunately, there are WAY too many people who forget that and want to impose THEIR religion on everyone else.
Cat
What about using hypothetical examples that mean absolutely nothing.
All of that narcissistic mass-murdering anger-management stuff seems to be ALL that atheists care about. And they are just stories mostly within one book, or set of books. And the stories could have been written by an atheist jokester for all we know.
Most people are more Naturalistic in their faith. Church and religion are just a connection to their community.
The Bible is either “the” word of this god, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. The problem with churches and religion is that they are indoctrinating absurd doctrines along side the worthy doctrines.
No one should be afraid of the phrase "In God we trust" especially in an English speaking environment. God is just a reference to the creative force of the universe, and to the united spirit of all mankind, and it doesn't even refer to any specific religion. Even atheists should appreciate this kind of idea, but I doubt they will.
No as an atheist, I can appreciate the idea, I just think that it is probably better not to call it God ( particularly with a capital G) because it just causes confusion. If everyone who is pushing for the inclusion of God in school curricula, the adoption of religious rules in law, and religious symbolism in public life had the same sort of definition of God as you, GldnRule, Mystic, etc... There wouldn't be a real reason to get concerned. But you guys are not the ones pushing for these sorts of changes. And I guarantee you that hose who are, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jay Sekulow (recognize that name?), Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, and those that think like them do not share your vision of God. When they refer to God the mean something entirely different. They are the folks trying to push for these things, to try to shape the nation in service to their idea of God, not yours. It is their ideas and influence I am concerned about, not yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
All of that narcissistic mass-murdering anger-management stuff seems to be ALL that atheists care about. And they are just stories mostly within one book, or set of books. And the stories could have been written by an atheist jokester for all we know.
Most people are more Naturalistic in their faith. Church and religion are just a connection to their community.
I think you are wrong about this, at least in the ways that matter. I would argue that for those who believe that Government should endorse religion, that (their) religious beliefs should define or override law, that the country is founded on their religious principles and should not be secular or religiously neutral, they are not at all "naturalistic" about their faith. They have a specific concept of God, a specific holy text, and a specific prophet or teacher, and theirs is the faith that must be established by the law.
I do believe there are many religious people who do not wish to force their faith on others, who don't have any interest in mandating their beliefs using law and government. Those are the ones who are either fighting alongside us "godless heathens" for separation of church and state, or who are just assuming, like yourself, that it really isn't a big deal because nobody really believes that stuff anyway. Unfortunately that isn't true.
I can't get too worked up over "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" or "endowed by our Creator", personally, but I can see Shirina's point. These are baby steps on the road to legitimizing the actions of Kim Davis, or cementing discrimination by doctors, hospitals, and adoption agencies against LGBT individuals. This is, intentionally so on the part of those pushing for these changes, one step down the road to a world in which the Roy Moores of the world are in charge. Its a bad road, and one that you should be concerned about as well...
What about using hypothetical examples that mean absolutely nothing.
To some people "In God we trust" means absolutely nothing. My point is when you say "God"-it doesn't matter who's God-it is STILL religious and doesn't NOT belong in the public realm!
What about "In Allah we trust"? Or "In the Goddess we trust"? or "In Krishna we trust"? or "In Zeus we trust?" The list goes on and on and on.
There is SUPPOSED to be separation of Church & State. Unfortunately, there are WAY too many people who forget that and want to impose THEIR religion on everyone else.
Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
What about using hypothetical examples that mean absolutely nothing.
I think she makes a valid point. If the discussion were, "Should the United States adopt on its currency the phrase, 'There is no god but Allah'" would that make a difference to you? Theoretically it shouldn't, because Allah is just Arabic for God, so its still a vague universal declaration, right?
However I expect that almost everyone who believes that we in America need more God in our schools, government, and society would oppose this strenuously. Because the reality is "God" in this context is not intended universally, and this mingling of church and state is not intended to be some universal, warm fuzzy, but a very specific set of changes to force compliance to a specific set of beliefs.
All of that narcissistic mass-murdering anger-management stuff seems to be ALL that atheists care about. And they are just stories mostly within one book, or set of books. And the stories could have been written by an atheist jokester for all we know.
Most people are more Naturalistic in their faith. Church and religion are just a connection to their community.
I would think that any civilized person would care about narcissistic mass-murdering anger management stuff.
They're just stories? Not to millions who hang on every word as being the word of god.
If everyone believed as you do, that nature is god (minus the consciousness aspect) that would be preferable.
My question is why does anything have to be put in those locations?
No one should be afraid of the phrase "In God we trust" especially in an English speaking environment. God is just a reference to the creative force of the universe, and to the united spirit of all mankind, and it doesn't even refer to any specific religion. Even atheists should appreciate this kind of idea, but I doubt they will.
God = God of the Bible
god = some unspecified deity
Not everyone believes there are deities, so you are correct in your statement that atheists will not appreciate your take.
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.
