PDA

View Full Version : "In God We Trust" is not religious



Paint_It_Black
03-12-2010, 07:25 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_re_us/us_god_and_government


In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency, saying that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious.

This really happened.

I understand that no court in the country is going to want to touch this, but fuck me. Could they have not come up with a better way to get out of it? Last time the case was dismissed based on the technicality that the guy filing the complaint did not have custody of his daughter. That was weak. Really weak. But ok, it bought them some time. Obviously this was going to come back, but this gave them time to prepare a sound counterargument. And all they could come up with is to rule that "In God We Trust" is not religious? Such a blatant refusal to really tackle the issue is an insult to basically the whole country.

It seems to me, and has always seemed to me, that the inclusion of "God" in the pledge of allegiance and to a lesser extent on the currency is a clear violation of separation of church and state. But hey, I'm no expert. I was excited at the idea of experts seriously examining this issue. But apparently the experts are retarded.

No matter which side you're on, this argument that "In God We Trust" is not a religious statement is clearly pants-on-head retarded. Both sides should be outraged by this ruling. I'm highly interested to see what kind of response is shown.

On a side note, do you think people really care about the constitution anymore, or do they only care when it can be used in their favor? Republicans love the constitution when they want to keep their guns. Not so much when they try to block gay marriage. Does the constitution really matter to America anymore? As far as old outdated documents go the bible is far more useful, because it's totally acceptable to pick and choose which parts of that you want to adhere to. In comparison that pesky Constitution really just gets in the way of creating the gay-hating gun-toting America that George Washington and Jesus had always intended.

And fuck Glenn Beck. Sorry, I just can't think of anything I don't like about America without picturing his smug little cunt face.

wheelchairman
03-12-2010, 07:37 AM
I'd expect a lot more apathy. No one cares about tiny words on a coin unless they are annoyingly atheist (even if the explanation given by the supreme court was lame, it doesn't really matter), and more importantly, if people actually thought about the pledge of allegiance, they'd probably be more worried about other things than the God part.

Like.... pledging your allegiance to an inanimate object... I get it, its symbolic. But its stupid symoblic.

Llamas
03-12-2010, 07:44 AM
I'd expect a lot more apathy. No one cares about tiny words on a coin unless they are annoyingly atheist (even if the explanation given by the supreme court was lame, it doesn't really matter), and more importantly, if people actually thought about the pledge of allegiance, they'd probably be more worried about other things than the God part.

Like.... pledging your allegiance to an inanimate object... I get it, its symbolic. But its stupid symoblic.

Oh man, this. I was going to post, but I figured everyone would jump on me for disagreeing... glad you posted what I was thinking.


lol "indivisible"... really? :P

Jojan
03-12-2010, 07:51 AM
First, you forgot a t here:

but fuck me.

I am as confused as you. The United States of America is as religous as any country they attack, if not more. So saying that the propaganda they put on their money, and what the leaders in the said country always end their speeches with is not religious, is just stupid.

I think the whole US political system should be revised and changed. Two party system where which is almost like a one party system is not good, mainly because USA is a very large country. Another solution would be to make USA two or three different countries.

And why doesn't the US just give Alaska to Canada?

littleCentipede
03-12-2010, 07:57 AM
Trusting in God is not religious? How? Is there a super high up Senator named God now? I would love to meet him. Pics or it didn't happen.

Being atheist, I keep this whole indoctrination out of my life. Which isn't hard at all. Those "annoyingly atheist" types embarrass me, and do not take up the majority of atheists.

As for the term itself, I don't pay attention to it. It's when I'm being preached at that gets me pissed off. Which happens a lot on the town I live in, unfortunately.

Saying "In God We Trust" is not religious? Sounds like they're just making up shit to keep from changing it. Because we all know God hates unbelievers.

Paint_It_Black
03-12-2010, 09:55 AM
No one cares about tiny words on a coin unless they are annoyingly atheist

But they should. I'm not quite an atheist, and I'm not particularly forceful with my opinions on the subject of religion. But this isn't really about religion exactly. This is about saying one thing, doing something completely different, and then refusing to acknowledge that a disparity exists in the lamest way possible.

When no one cares about supposedly little things like this it makes it easier for big things to slide right by too.

I'm also interested in the way there seems to be an accepted idea of what America is and what it stands for that increasingly has no bearing on reality. Religion is a good example. Everyone knows that America is a very religious country. It would be almost impossible for anyone to be elected President if they didn't let it be known that they believe in God and attend church. And yet there's this separation business, in theory. Compare that with England, where they have an official state religion and no pretext of separation, and yet the vast majority of English people don't really give a shit either way about religion. I just find the whole thing interesting.

And ok, so America doesn't exactly force any particular faith down your throat. A belief in a higher power is required, but there's a fair bit of wiggle room in the details. Even so, it seems strange in a country that supposedly places value on a separation of church and state.


even if the explanation given by the supreme court was lame, it doesn't really matter

It doesn't really matter that these guys aren't taking their responsibility seriously?

They could have at least said that basically "God is not Church" and gone with the angle that the concept of something bigger than yourself transcends any religion and can be embraceable by all. That would still reek a bit for me, but I'd at least feel like they were putting in a modicum of effort.


if people actually thought about the pledge of allegiance, they'd probably be more worried about other things than the God part.

The people that would be worried by it are already worried by it. The ones who haven't thought about it wouldn't care or even see any reason to care.

And just to make sure it's stated somewhere in here, the "God" part was only added fairly recently. So for those people who just don't like the idea of fucking with something traditional, it's already been fucked with.

It seems like the unwashed masses of America (the middle bit) are unsure what to hate more. Muslims, Atheists, or Communists. Yes, that doesn't really fit here. But I'm just going to go ahead and leave it anyway now I've made the effort to type it. Even though this probably detracts from any real point I may have had and just seems like generic America bashing now. My excuse is that the health care debacle is really depressing me.

Sidewinder
03-12-2010, 10:38 AM
It's just a completely lame excuse is what's throwing me. I don't even see how you could be forcefully behind their logic no matter what party you're in, and frankly, it diminishes further the very little faith I had in American legislation.

Can we have communism now, please?

ad8
03-12-2010, 10:50 AM
I don't think I have to add anything. Saying that the sentence "In God we trust" is not religious is stupid. It's like saying "All black people are inferior" is not racist. I know that there probably are a few ways of building up a half-logical argumentation to that, but those should never be validated by a court.

Paint_It_Black
03-12-2010, 12:37 PM
It's just a completely lame excuse is what's throwing me. I don't even see how you could be forcefully behind their logic no matter what party you're in, and frankly, it diminishes further the very little faith I had in American legislation.

Can we have communism now, please?

That's basically what I was going for when I said...



No matter which side you're on, this argument that "In God We Trust" is not a religious statement is clearly pants-on-head retarded. Both sides should be outraged by this ruling.

But then I said loads of other stuff and got in my own way as usual. I did better in my facebook argument though.

Moose
03-12-2010, 07:26 PM
it's pretty obvious that it was initially a religious phrase, but WCM is right, it doesn't really matter unless your intention is to infuriate other people.

people should be more concerned about the laws of the country/state and how they run the show, rather than the tiny words on a coin that no one cares about...i have atheist friends, and they don't care about these phrases because at the end of the day, it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) dictate the way a government is run.


to jojan:

now forcing people to say or do certain things like the other religious countries you speak of do...now that is something to be concerned about...

...not sure if it was your intent, but don't compare the US to other religiously run countries...such as russia who persecutes certain culture and religion, or the leaders of iran who speak hate, or other countries that do this.

WebDudette
03-12-2010, 08:02 PM
Once again, Richard said everything I wanted to point out.

I want to reiterate a few things anyway. Both the Bible and the Constitution are used in such a way that infuriates me. It really does. These are the type of things you cannot claim to live your life by and then turn around and say 'well actually, this, this, and this do not apply'. Fuck that.

I was thinking about something Richard pointed out the other day. I mean, it doesn't really bother me that 'in God we trust' is on currency or that 'one nation under God' is in the anthem, or at least I don't think it should bother me. But then again, if it isn't stopped there, where should it be stopped? Separation of church and state should be separation of church and state. Not 'separation of church, but only if it is actually something significant', because when you let the little things start slipping, the bigger things follow and you end up with a cluster fuck debate on whether gays should have basic human rights or not.

tl;dr I'm tired of the 'this type of thing only pisses off militant atheists' straw man argument.

Paint_It_Black
03-13-2010, 07:27 AM
You know PilZ*, it really cheers me up that you seem to always get where I'm coming from.

Also, things that make no sense always annoy me. Whether they matter doesn't, in fact, matter to me. I see something that's wrong and I want it to be corrected. Although this can result occasionally in petty behavior it is one of my few character traits that I'm proud of. So, although people apparently cannot agree on whether this issue matters, I think we can mostly agree that the ruling was a bad one. I believe that alone is enough reason to want to see it pursued further.

I really don't want to see all the currency recalled and replaced. That's impractical. I just want them to give an explanation that actually makes sense and thereby show that they take their responsibility seriously. If that can't be done then they need to admit that it IS fundamentally religious in nature but fuck you all we're sticking with it anyway. At least that's honest.

They could even perhaps make an argument that the currency we use really isn't part of the state. I could accept that. The money in my wallet is mine. No one says there has to be a separation of church and my wallet. Even that would perhaps satisfy me. I'm not that hard to satisfy really.

I really would like to see The G Word removed from the pledge though. I guess I just don't dig the remix. The pledge is nothing but words, so you can't make the argument there that "little words don't matter" like you can with currency. Words are everything.


*I'm only about ninety percent sure that I know your real name, hence why I still use your username. I have however shortened it to invoke a sense of familiarity and approval, whilst keeping the correct capitalization of the Z as a token of respect. That's just how I roll.

I've also decided I like being tl;dr. It maintains my elite readership base.

littleCentipede
03-13-2010, 07:42 AM
I agree that this issue does matter, because I honestly find the notion of "In God We Trust" not being religious extremely offensive. But there's nothing I can do about it. The only thing I can do is translate it into my Prints in the printlab, and who even looks at Contemporary art anymore and thinks "Hm, this expresses a real issue and from the looks of this print, something has to change!"?

Llamas
03-13-2010, 08:10 AM
I was thinking about something Richard pointed out the other day. I mean, it doesn't really bother me that 'in God we trust' is on currency or that 'one nation under God' is in the anthem, or at least I don't think it should bother me. But then again, if it isn't stopped there, where should it be stopped? Separation of church and state should be separation of church and state. Not 'separation of church, but only if it is actually something significant', because when you let the little things start slipping, the bigger things follow and you end up with a cluster fuck debate on whether gays should have basic human rights or not.

I could agree with this, actually. It's tough, though, because rules rather always have exceptions, and if they don't, they're probably bad rules. But I don't know if I think "in god we trust" is a valid exception. I just tend to treat as so insignificant that it doesn't matter, and if something else comes up that actually matters, we deal with that. Allowing something like this doesn't automatically make room for huge shit, especially if it's just one or two things.

Anyway, "it's not religious" is a really stupid argument, and I'm not sure whether I believe they were trying to pull a fast one - some of these people are so beyond stupid that I'd be willing to accept that they really believed this when they made that argument. Sometimes it seems like politicians can convince themselves of any lie they or their party comes up with.

Paint_It_Black
03-13-2010, 08:56 AM
Sometimes it seems like politicians can convince themselves of any lie they or their party comes up with.

Perhaps. But this wasn't politicians. That's also a central part of what bothers me.


and who even looks at Contemporary art anymore

I would have just stopped there really. Which is really significant when you consider how much I like to ramble on.

Static_Martyr
03-13-2010, 10:02 AM
I don't really know WHAT to think about this....on the one hand, I feel like I understand the reason they said it was "not religious" --- I don't think they were saying that the phrase *itself* was nonreligious, so much as they were saying that its occurrence there is not really intended to have religious significance. I think it's more like the argument that it's "tradition" and that nobody takes it seriously anymore (in the sense that they're not *requiring* you to "trust in god," so to speak, just because you're in America), so it's no biggie.

On the other hand, though....for one, it seems kind of cheap to me for them to say that a direct reference to god isn't religious. If I were religious, I would be confused as to how to approach that....so if I directly say that I trust in god, that's not a statement of my faith? If that's not, then what is? Unless they mean to distinguish between "religion" and "spirituality" or "faith." If that's the case, it still seems odd to say something so denominational as "in god we trust" under the guise of universal spirituality or faith, because there are ways that even atheists/agnostics can live "with faith" without believing in a god. You can believe in people or in general "goodness" or whatever; belief in god is just one of many manifestations of that.

On the other other hand, though....I have to admit, I don't worry much about the phrase being on the money. It doesn't really bother me, and I only even bring it up in those rare discussions where people use the fact that we have the phrase on our money as some justification for why we're supposed to be a specifically Christian nation. Keep in mind, right across from it (on the one dollar bill, anyway, which is the most common cash bill) is the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum," which (IIRC) means "New Secular Order" :D

Paint_It_Black
03-13-2010, 11:01 AM
I don't think they were saying that the phrase *itself* was nonreligious, so much as they were saying that its occurrence there is not really intended to have religious significance.

What other significance could it possibly have?


I think it's more like the argument that it's "tradition" and that nobody takes it seriously anymore

That would be a totally different argument. To make that argument you'd have to first say "Ok, it's obviously religious, BUT it's just tradition and nobody takes it seriously anymore". And as soon as you admit it's religious you've lost the main argument.


they're not *requiring* you to "trust in god," so to speak, just because you're in America

Just strongly implying that you should?

I think the "we" part is significant. In God WE trust. So clearly if you don't trust in God you cannot be a part of that "we", by definition. And that "we" is referring to Americans, right?


it seems kind of cheap to me for them to say that a direct reference to god isn't religious.

If that isn't religious then churches aren't religious. They're ceremonial. And prayers aren't religious. They're mottos. And religion is not religious. It's patriotism. A ceremonial, patriotic motto is how they chose to define the phrase according to the article I posted. Completely ignoring the fact that it can be all those things and still be religious. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact ALL religions have ceremonies and mottos. And then they threw in the word patriotic because they probably figured why the fuck not. Americans love patriotism, so let's just throw that in there real quick and we might still make happy hour. They did more to prove that it IS religious, in my opinion, though when the word "God" is right there I can't believe it really needs further thought.


I have to admit, I don't worry much about the phrase being on the money.

And you don't worry much that this court clearly went into this with the outcome determined from the start without even a nod towards objectively examining the legality of the issue? I get a little worried when courts do that, personally.


I only even bring it up in those rare discussions where people use the fact that we have the phrase on our money as some justification for why we're supposed to be a specifically Christian nation.

It's not that rare. And bad ideas are like cockroaches. If someone reveals one to you, there's probably dozens more really close by that you're not seeing. And you know, the very same people that use this as evidence for why the US is a Christian nation (which is then clearly justification to persecute all non-Christians) are the people that will yell the loudest that "it's not religious!" when you bring up separation of church and state.

It's largely a matter of cognitive dissonance. They want to believe that the US is a Christian nation. Always has been and always will be. Yet they also want to believe that the constitution is a perfect document. So they do whatever it takes to hold both these beliefs simultaneously.

I mockingly said earlier that religion isn't religious. A disturbing thought just occurred to me. I suspect that there are probably a lot of American Christians who would actually say that Christianity isn't religious. Islam is religious. Judaism is religious. But Christianity is just the unquestionable and irrefutable truth. How can truth be religious? Believing in God is then no more religious than believing in potato chips.

It goes like this. Small religions with particularly unusual concepts are cults, especially if they're relatively new. Most people won't even pay them the respect of calling them religions. See Scientology. Once cults have been around for a while and suck in enough members everyone starts to get used to the insane concepts and see them as somewhat reasonable, even if they don't personally agree and even though they are actually still insane concepts. At this point you get to call yourself a religion. The next phase is to become so big and so accepted that your religion transcends the title of religion. America is somewhere right around this point. And then separation of church and state no longer places any restrictions on Christianity because Christianity isn't a religion. And, just like the founding fathers clearly intended, you have yourself a good Christian nation, the constitution is still a perfect document, and separation of church and state exists solely to protect us from the evils of all those silly religions. Pretty soon "religion" becomes a dirty word after that, like socialism. Christianity isn't religious in the same way that medicare is not evil socialized medicine. Merely because powerful people say it's not and the masses listen.

I'm scared that someone is going to take this and use it now. This would work.

sKratch
03-14-2010, 11:16 PM
We're obviously getting trolled by the Supreme Court.

T-6005
03-14-2010, 11:34 PM
Richard, your argument is totalizing.

I just wrote a huge thread so maybe I'll write more about it.

However, that your argument is totalizing is mildly irritating. Although no more than the fact than the people you're arguing against are even more so.

sKratch
03-14-2010, 11:37 PM
Oh no, Thaibult I see my baby-shipping quote has left your signature!

T-6005
03-15-2010, 12:14 AM
It was there over a year. I mean, I tried poking air-holes in it but these things eventually die, you know?

Harleyquiiinn
03-15-2010, 10:15 AM
I admit, I didn't read everything... almost just the first post.

This argument is ridiculous, no doubt about it but I don't think it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Basically, "In God we trust" is a theory, something general, it's not a rule when the separation of church and state is practical.

It's a tradition, it doesn't really have a legal value. Saying it's not religious to keep it is completely stupid but not using it just because it might be a violation of the separation is stupid as well.

No practical consequence, no violation.

As I see it, what the court wanted to say in very strange way is that "In God we trust" is cultural. And I agree with this. I don't see any violation.

It's like saying that the mayor of Paris should stop taking care of the pollution on Notre Dame because it's a Cathedral, and a Cathedral is catholic. True, but it's also a very important monument of our culture.


Oh and about the constitution of the US, I always learnt in class that it was made to be used in favor of the citizens of the different states anyway... Against the invasion of the big federal state...

Static_Martyr
03-15-2010, 01:22 PM
What other significance could it possibly have?

It's just a technical loophole, really. The phrase itself *is* clearly religious. But it's possible to squiggle around that by saying that the reason they're leaving it there is *not* religious, even if it was at one time. If you go with that argument, it's possible to make the case that nobody is expected to take it seriously, but that it's a part of national tradition....and as such, its significance ('national tradition') can be argued as "not religious."

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that reasoning, but I do feel like I understand what they were trying to say.


That would be a totally different argument. To make that argument you'd have to first say "Ok, it's obviously religious, BUT it's just tradition and nobody takes it seriously anymore". And as soon as you admit it's religious you've lost the main argument.

Not necessarily; the 'main argument' as far as I'm concerned is whether or not "In God We Trust" violates church and state. And that really depends on the intent of the phrase; if we simply say that all occurences of the word "god" or "faith" are automatically a violation of church/state if they appear in a governmental setting, then yes, that would be a violation. But following that logic, it's also important to consider that this would mean forbidding someone from even mentioning god publicly. And while I think that would solve a lot of problems with people proselytizing illegally, I also think it's kind of missing the point overall.

I think that would be kind of overkill, I guess is what I mean. I think it's possible to mention god or faith without automatically violating church/state. Don't get me wrong --- I do lean against having IGWT on our money, I just disagree with the reasoning that it's automatically unconstitutional because it merely mentions god.


Just strongly implying that you should?

I think the "we" part is significant. In God WE trust. So clearly if you don't trust in God you cannot be a part of that "we", by definition. And that "we" is referring to Americans, right?

Yes, but what the phrase implies becomes moot if you consider the possibility that they're only including it for traditional purposes; if the *only* reason for keeping it in is for "tradition," and not out of any sense of acknowledgement of the phrase's validity, then it doesn't really matter much what the phrase actually *means* (from a legal standpoint) because it isn't being used for that meaning, it's being used as a historical symbol.

Although it'd be hard to argue that nobody would take it differently; as I said before, there are people who use IGWT on our money as a jumping-off point to declare the US as a "Christian nation." But IMO, this ruling actually makes that case easier to defeat in a number of ways --- for one, the government has to publicly acknowledge, as they apparently have, that the situation has no real religious meaning, which means that no matter how oxymoronic it looks or sounds, they are deliberately taking pains to distance themselves from a religious implication. It seems odd that such a "Christian" government would so openly deny religious implications in such a case. Aren't Christians supposed to openly proclaim their faith and be unashamed of it? So if we are a "Christian" nation, we aren't a very good one.


If that isn't religious then churches aren't religious. They're ceremonial. And prayers aren't religious. They're mottos. And religion is not religious. It's patriotism. A ceremonial, patriotic motto is how they chose to define the phrase according to the article I posted. Completely ignoring the fact that it can be all those things and still be religious.

I agree with most of that; to say that it's not religious is to cheapen the image of similar things that are religious. And I think that taking that road to justify things like IGWT is going to ultimately hurt Christianity (and all religion, really) as a political tool. It's a double-edged sword....on the one hand, it lets you squeeze in minute religious references here and there without having to account for church/state separation. On the other hand, it kind of defeats the purpose of having them there in the first place, which is to proclaim religious beliefs. If your proclamation only means anything indirectly --- if you're forced to discount the religious significance of it every time you're officially asked about it, as the court did with IGWT --- then how can you really call it a religious proclamation? It's really not much more than a backhanded reference; having to openly discount it like that takes a lot of the potential force out of it as a religious statement.


It's not that rare. And bad ideas are like cockroaches. If someone reveals one to you, there's probably dozens more really close by that you're not seeing. And you know, the very same people that use this as evidence for why the US is a Christian nation (which is then clearly justification to persecute all non-Christians) are the people that will yell the loudest that "it's not religious!" when you bring up separation of church and state.

That's part of why I'm not worried; that very contradictory system of ideals can be a way for idealogues to get their feet in the door, but sooner or later it will start to contradict itself more noticeably, as I described with IGWT --- there will ultimately be a fight between "religious proclamation" and "devoid of religious significance." If the reason for its instatement is actually religious, but nobody wants to admit to that, then their hands are tied; if they try to make just one simple move on the basis that it *is* religious, then they are admitting to a religious significance and that can be used as grounds on which to fight against it.

I would be more worried that nobody with the power or money to do that fighting, would be willing to do it, than I would be that it was happening in the first place.


And then separation of church and state no longer places any restrictions on Christianity because Christianity isn't a religion. And, just like the founding fathers clearly intended, you have yourself a good Christian nation, the constitution is still a perfect document, and separation of church and state exists solely to protect us from the evils of all those silly religions. Pretty soon "religion" becomes a dirty word after that, like socialism. Christianity isn't religious in the same way that medicare is not evil socialized medicine.

Actually, people already do that. I've argued with several people like that on the internet just in the last few months. "Christianity isn't a religion," while a fascinating position to take, has a similar effect as saying that IGWT isn't religious; it takes out a lot of what makes Christianity Christianity in the first place. This is an argument that you can actually argue against rationally, with just a few minutes and a dictionary....Christians who use this argument say that it's not a religion because religion is false and Christianity is true, but to say that religion is false is to say that anything that fits the definition of religion is false. So, my dictionary says that "religion" is:

1)a) a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe
b) expression of such belief in conduct and ritual;

2) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy;

It actually uses the phrase "The Christian religion" as an example to demonstrate the word's usage.

So if someone says that Christianity does not fit the above definition....then what *is* Christianity? Nothing is left; Christianity involves the worship of a divine power to be obeyed (solely) as the creator and ruler of the universe; Christians tend to express such beliefs via conduct and sometimes ritual, depending on the sect; Christianity has a code of ethics and a degree of philosophy. So if Christianity is not a religion, then it's up to the person making that claim to explain what it *is.*

CLARIFYING EDIT: What I meant was....if you say that Christianity is not a religion, you're saying that it has no code of ethics or conduct, that it does not involve worshiping a divine power, and that it does not concern itself with ritual. If you take away all those things, then you have no doctrine and no philosophy to give Christianity its identity, which is what we use to tell it apart from other religions. Those things are inherently relevant to the definition Christianity because they are what makes it different from religions that aren't Christianity in the first place. So to say it's not any of those things is to remove its identity.

P.S. How do you guys do that thing where it says, "Originally posted by [X]" and it has a link to the cited post? That looks so neat....

WebDudette
03-16-2010, 05:32 AM
I have a few random things to add:

Can we agree that buddhism is a religion?

Did you know, only 30% of Americans will vote for an atheist for an federal government position?

Atheists are the least trusted minority in the whole country.

The Boy Scouts do not allow homosexuals or atheists, and this is a recent thing, it didn't used to be that way. You know why? They are bankrolled by Mormons. It wouldn't bother me, but the Federal Government also funds them.

The don't ask don't tell policy is fucking ridiculous.

I think I have more direct, relevant, and thought out things to say, but I'll wait till I am sober.

mario_spaghettio
03-16-2010, 10:51 PM
First, you forgot a t here:


I am as confused as you. The United States of America is as religous as any country they attack, if not more. So saying that the propaganda they put on their money, and what the leaders in the said country always end their speeches with is not religious, is just stupid.

I think the whole US political system should be revised and changed. Two party system where which is almost like a one party system is not good, mainly because USA is a very large country. Another solution would be to make USA two or three different countries.

And why doesn't the US just give Alaska to Canada?The US is not anywhere near as fanatically religious as the nations they "attack" Why should the US give Alaska to Canada? Make the US 2 different countries? I bet the Euro pansies would just love that.

mario_spaghettio
03-16-2010, 10:55 PM
It's just a completely lame excuse is what's throwing me. I don't even see how you could be forcefully behind their logic no matter what party you're in, and frankly, it diminishes further the very little faith I had in American legislation.

Can we have communism now, please?After 1 year of communism you would be begging to have capitalism back

mario_spaghettio
03-16-2010, 10:57 PM
it's pretty obvious that it was initially a religious phrase, but WCM is right, it doesn't really matter unless your intention is to infuriate other people.

people should be more concerned about the laws of the country/state and how they run the show, rather than the tiny words on a coin that no one cares about...i have atheist friends, and they don't care about these phrases because at the end of the day, it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) dictate the way a government is run.


to jojan:

now forcing people to say or do certain things like the other religious countries you speak of do...now that is something to be concerned about...

...not sure if it was your intent, but don't compare the US to other religiously run countries...such as russia who persecutes certain culture and religion, or the leaders of iran who speak hate, or other countries that do this.I am atheist(though I hate the term) and I agree with everything you said.

wheelchairman
03-16-2010, 11:05 PM
The US is not anywhere near as fanatically religious as the nations they "attack" Why should the US give Alaska to Canada? Make the US 2 different countries? I bet the Euro pansies would just love that.
Heh, euro-pansies. Such a lame term would have to come from someone who enjoys talk radio.


After 1 year of communism you would be begging to have capitalism back

The joke in Russia goes that 10 years of capitalism achieved something 70 years of communism never did, namely make communism look good. (this joke is obviously 10 years old though.)

mario_spaghettio
03-16-2010, 11:20 PM
Heh, euro-pansies. Such a lame term would have to come from someone who enjoys talk radio.



The joke in Russia goes that 10 years of capitalism achieved something 70 years of communism never did, namely make communism look good. (this joke is obviously 10 years old though.)you can't really compare Russia's failed attempt to the United States 200 plus years of unprecedented success

No talk radio for me. Liberals and conservatives make me equally sick

Re: Euro-Pansies, always the first to bash the US on everything but the first to come crying for help when they get themselves in a jam

Harleyquiiinn
03-17-2010, 12:13 AM
Ah ! another european basher... at least it's not only french this time... Oh please great and smart american, teach me politics !

The thing is, I have noting against the US but when I read that sort of post, I think maybe I should... fortunately, I am pretty sure your posts are not a good representation of the country you live in...

wheelchairman
03-17-2010, 01:03 AM
you can't really compare Russia's failed attempt to the United States 200 plus years of unprecedented success

No talk radio for me. Liberals and conservatives make me equally sick

Re: Euro-Pansies, always the first to bash the US on everything but the first to come crying for help when they get themselves in a jam

Ah well you come off sounding very conservative, with your over the top rhetoric and all that.

Unprecendented success? Didn't Rome rule for centuries? And I mean more than a couple. In fact during the 20th century I'd say that Russia was the second most succesful country, and the quickest developing for its time. Capitalism for Russia has put that at an impetus. I mean we are talking about capitalism and not just the US right?

While I have exceptional distaste for European generalizations, disdains and misconceptions about Americans, it hardly helps to have people like you generalize all Europeans into one category. Speaking of crying for help, who's helping who in Iraq anyways?

jacknife737
03-17-2010, 01:17 AM
Ah ! another european basher... at least it's not only french this time... Oh please great and smart american, teach me politics !

The thing is, I have noting against the US but when I read that sort of post, I think maybe I should... fortunately, I am pretty sure your posts are not a good representation of the country you live in...

Quite down frenchy. You can either support our troops and our fetuses, or you're a terrorist.


No talk radio for me. Liberals and conservatives make me equally sick

There's a fucking war going on: pick a side.

mario_spaghettio
03-17-2010, 01:51 AM
Ah ! another european basher... at least it's not only french this time... Oh please great and smart american, teach me politics !

The thing is, I have noting against the US but when I read that sort of post, I think maybe I should... fortunately, I am pretty sure your posts are not a good representation of the country you live in...only bashing the Europeans that bash America, not all Europeans are Euro-pansies

wheelchairman
03-17-2010, 01:58 AM
You're a troll aren't you?

Jesus
03-17-2010, 06:50 AM
Could be, but I think he's an actual libertarian nutjob and also a 311 fan. He probably signed up because they are touring with offspring.

mario_spaghettio
03-17-2010, 11:13 AM
Could be, but I think he's an actual libertarian nutjob and also a 311 fan. He probably signed up because they are touring with offspring.your assumptions are fairly accurate

IamSam
03-17-2010, 11:22 AM
"In God We Trust" is not religious = "Spaghetti Sauce" is not sauce.

mario_spaghettio
03-17-2010, 11:51 AM
The Supreme Court has upheld the motto because it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content"; so-called acts of "ceremonial deism" that have lost their "history, character, and context". In such related decisions as Zorach v. Clauson, the Supreme Court has also held that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of such a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.