If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WND)   Seeking to extend his 15 minutes, atheist Michael Newdow challenges "In God We Trust"   (worldnetdaily.com) divider line 861
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

8953 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2006 at 9:35 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



861 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-05-10 07:07:18 PM
It's sad that some people are so threatened by the idea of the government remaining neutral on matters of religion.

No, sad isn't the word. Revealing is what I meant.
 
2006-05-10 07:07:36 PM
img143.imageshack.us
 
2006-05-10 07:08:47 PM
kronicfeld: It's sad that some people are so threatened by the idea of the government remaining neutral on matters of religion.

It's equally sad that people are very concerned about what their money says. Quick! Which one is the right penny?
 
2006-05-10 07:10:45 PM
Last post, I promise:

If he wins, does that mean they're going to forcibly collect every "In God We Trust" penny that's been floating around since the 50s?
 
2006-05-10 07:14:40 PM
People like him crack me up.

I haven't a religious bone in my body, but I believe in 'live and let live'.

Sayings, symbols, slogans, and whatnot, do me no harm. Just let it be.
 
2006-05-10 07:19:41 PM
ThatDevGuy: It's equally sad that people are very concerned about what their money says.

Right. So why so much opposition to removing affirmative references to deities from official government-issued currency? Why are people so dependent on the government to validate their belief system?
 
2006-05-10 07:20:40 PM
kronicfeld: Why are people so dependent on the government to validate their belief system?

Good question.

*looks at Mr. Newdow*
 
2006-05-10 07:21:01 PM
ThatDevGuy: It's equally sad that people are very concerned about what their money says.

How happy would you be if it said, "In Allah we trust" or "In Satan we trust"? His point is not that he's trying to rip away your beliefs or force his beliefs on you. He just doesn't want the US gov't to force "In God we trust" on people that don't believe that way.

Religiously neutral gov't is all he asks.
 
2006-05-10 07:22:23 PM
ThatDevGuy: *looks at Mr. Newdow*

Again, he's not asking for his belief system to be validated. He just doesn't want ANY belief system validated by the gov't.
 
2006-05-10 07:23:11 PM
In God We Trust.
All Others Pay Cash.
 
2006-05-10 07:24:07 PM
ThatDevGuy: Good question.

*looks at Mr. Newdow*


You fail at logic. He's not asking the government to validate his belief system. He's not asking the government to say there is no God or gods. He's asking the government to stay out of it entirely and to remain neutral. How novel.
 
2006-05-10 07:24:10 PM
SpinnyNuNu: How happy would you be if it said, "In Allah we trust" or "In Satan we trust"?

If I lived in Iran or Jordan or Syria or Turkey or ... (uh ... where are Satanic worshippers prevalent?) ... I probably wouldn't be very unhappy.
 
2006-05-10 07:25:56 PM
kronicfeld: He's asking the government to stay out of it entirely and to remain neutral. How novel.

Stay out of what, exactly? It's not like the government is embroiled in a Christian conspiracy to take over the world. It's not like they're taking sides by having or not having a traditional slogan on their money. And yes, it is traditional, just like keeping Christmas as a national holiday is traditional.
 
2006-05-10 07:29:43 PM
ThatDevGuy: It's not like they're taking sides by having or not having a traditional slogan on their money. And yes, it is traditional, just like keeping Christmas as a national holiday is traditional.

"Traditional" is a meaningless term. A bad policy is no better simply because it's been around for a long time. See, e.g., slavery.
 
2006-05-10 07:30:14 PM
It wasn't traditional until the mid 1950's. Extra-super-long 50-year traditions are sacred, I guess.
 
2006-05-10 07:30:59 PM
"In God We Trust" wasn't "traditional" until the 1950's..
 
2006-05-10 07:31:16 PM
kronicfeld: See, e.g., slavery.

I'm sure the slaves would be thrilled to know you're comparing their plight with a slogan on currency.

The slogan on my money is "VISA".
 
2006-05-10 07:31:42 PM
ThatDevGuy: I'm sure the slaves would be thrilled to know you're comparing their plight with a slogan on currency.

Again, you fail at logic.
 
2006-05-10 07:32:27 PM
ThatDevGuy: And yes, it is traditional

Lots of things can be traditional without being good policy or Constitutional.
 
2006-05-10 07:34:02 PM
ThatDevGuy: It's not like they're taking sides by having or not having a traditional slogan on their money.

Not taking "sides" by ENDORSING a religious belief via forcing it to be printed on our money??? Are you insane? Of course there's a side taken here...and it's a pro-Christian side. Tradition has NOTHING to do with it. It used to be traditional in the "Christian" faith to burn women as witches...

Tradition isn't enough of an excuse for printing religious slogans on government-funded paper.
 
2006-05-10 07:34:25 PM
It's equally sad that people are very concerned about what their money doesn't say.
 
2006-05-10 07:35:54 PM
Capitalist1: "In God We Trust" wasn't "traditional" until the 1950's..

On paper money. It's been on all metal currency since 1873 and some metal currency (back when three cents was a meaningful denomination) since 1865.

I find it very interesting that people find this slogan offensive. In England, for instance, the same freedoms of religion are granted. Only some 10% of UK citizens attend church regularly. There is a great deal more latitude to believe whatever you want in that country.

And yet, the Queen of England is the head of the Church of England. That is the very definition of church-state intermingling and what people in this country are so desperate to avoid. Their money contains the slogan "DG REG FD" which is a Latin abbreviation for "By the Grace of God Queen and Defender of the Faith".

I don't really care what slogans are on the money. Just don't go saying that it limits your religious freedom in some way because it's there.
 
2006-05-10 07:36:04 PM
"I couldn't care less what anyone believes. I just care that our government treats everybody equally."

--Michael Newdow
 
2006-05-10 07:38:11 PM
ThatDevGuy: And yet, the Queen of England is the head of the Church of England.

And Parliament and the Prime Minister run the country.
 
2006-05-10 07:38:31 PM
granolasteak: It used to be traditional in the "Christian" faith to burn women as witches.

"Really now". Is that "so"?

Have we stop"ped burning witche"s because people who use invisible power "to" destroy other peoples' property and lives do not deserve punishment or becau"se we've stopped believing in such people? Are "we" really "more" humane when we stop laying mouse"traps because we don't believe there are any "mice"?

kronicfeld: Again, you fail at logic.

You apparently succeed at hyperbole.
 
2006-05-10 07:40:12 PM
ThatDevGuy: Have we stop"ped burning witche"s because people who use invisible power "to" destroy other peoples' property and lives do not deserve punishment or becau"se we've stopped believing in such people? Are "we" really "more" humane when we stop laying mouse"traps because we don't believe there are any "mice"?

You're drunk, right? Or just typing with your toes?
 
2006-05-10 07:40:45 PM
SpinnyNuNu: And Parliament and the Prime Minister run the country.

And neither of those have repealed laws demanding that the British citizens stop relinquishing their hard-earned dollars in taxes to support the leader of the Church of England.

"blah blah" --Michael Newdow

I'm sure he'd get very far in his court case if he said anything else. Not exactly the most reliable of sources on the topic.
 
2006-05-10 07:42:03 PM
SpinnyNuNu: You're drunk, right?

No, I'm using "sarcastic quotes". Apparently it's the cool thing to do when you disagree with somebody's position.

You, sir, are a "Republican".
 
2006-05-10 07:42:50 PM
ThatDevGuy: You apparently succeed at hyperbole.

Hyperbole? I didn't compare "in god we trust" and slavery. Learn to read.

Frankly, I should know better than to argue with someone so passionate about something so silly.
 
2006-05-10 07:44:34 PM
kronicfeld: I didn't compare "in god we trust" and slavery. Learn to read.

Frankly, I should know better than to argue with someone so passionate about something so silly.


The position I am arguing: "IN GOD WE TRUST" on your money does not scald your fingertips, brainwash you into attending church services, or even compel you to consider a religious position. I suspect that you notice more crosses and churches and religious slogans driving down the street than glancing at your money.

The position I am not arguing: "IN GOD WE TRUST" belongs infallibly on the money and Jesus himself has ordained it to be so
 
2006-05-10 07:48:28 PM
ThatDevGuy: "Really now". Is that "so"?

Have we stop"ped burning witche"s because people who use invisible power "to" destroy other peoples' property and lives do not deserve punishment or becau"se we've stopped believing in such people? Are "we" really "more" humane when we stop laying mouse"traps because we don't believe there are any "mice"?


Dear goodness, you gave me a migraine with all that misspelling and errors of punctuation.

Tradition does not equal constitutional correctness. Freedom of religion equals freedom FROM religion. Our tax dollars should not go to paying for imprinting religious slogans on our money, our cars, our clothing, our books, or anything else. Religion is a personal system of belief, and so is atheism. Neither is more important than the other.
 
2006-05-10 07:53:52 PM
So, hypothetically, if "In God We Trust" is erased from all the currency by noon tomorrow and all existing currency is recovered and eventually disposed on some sort of schedule over the next few years, what then? Is the discussion over?

Doesn't a public discussion bring about more "God" conversation than an atheist would want care to endure than if they just let it sit quietly on the back of a piece of paper kept in the dark in your pocket in the rare occasions you carry paper/metal currency in the VISA plastic card payment age?
 
2006-05-10 07:55:25 PM
Smell the Glove: Doesn't a public discussion bring about more "God" conversation than an atheist would want care to endure than if they just let it sit quietly on the back of a piece of paper kept in the dark in your pocket in the rare occasions you carry paper/metal currency in the VISA plastic card payment age?

Um, no.
 
2006-05-10 07:56:02 PM
2006-05-10 07:44:34 PM ThatDevGuy
The position I am arguing: "IN GOD WE TRUST" on your money does not scald your fingertips, brainwash you into attending church services, or even compel you to consider a religious position. I suspect that you notice more crosses and churches and religious slogans driving down the street than glancing at your money


Perhaps not, but so what? That's not the point here, is it? The point is whether it complies with both the letter and spirit of the following words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hard to credibly argue that putting "In God We Trust" on the money isn't an official endorsement of religion. That's a no-no under our Constitution. An endorsement is an endorsement, even if it's not likely to result influencing the citizens to run down to the nearest church and fall down to their knees praising the imaginary bearded dude in the sky. The act of endorsing religion is what's important, not the effectiveness of that act in convincing people to get religion.
 
2006-05-10 07:56:21 PM
ThatDevGuy: The position I am arguing: "IN GOD WE TRUST" on your money does not scald your fingertips, brainwash you into attending church services, or even compel you to consider a religious position. I suspect that you notice more crosses and churches and religious slogans driving down the street than glancing at your money.

would you feel the same if the phrase 'do not trust god' was on your currency?
 
2006-05-10 07:57:15 PM
granolasteak: Religion is a personal system of belief, and so is atheism. Neither is more important than the other.

It's an unfortunate situation which will not be easily remedied by governmental interference. I realize this. The very problem is that atheism does not propose a religious belief at all. So, references to no religious belief are automatically references to atheism.

A common analogy to atheism-as-not-belief is that "bald" is not considered an option for hair color. Now, suppose that the bald-headed men of the country petitioned the government to impose a law saying that having a particular hair color was endorsing that hair color.

Next, suppose that we elect a brown-haired President. By Constitutional law, he is endorsing the brown-haired, so he very publicly shaves his head. Now, is he really endorsing "no hair color" or is he endorsing "baldness"? Since he very publicly had previously endorced the brown hair color, when he shaves his head, is he very publicly changing to no affiliation or bald affilition?

As you can see, they are one and the same. In conforming to the restriction that he should not endorse any particular hair color, he has very effectively endorsed the "no hair color" (bald) position.

I also want to make sure Democrats in the crowd realize that a court decision putting Mr Newdow's view into the mainstream will automatically ensure a Republican victory by backlash not only in 2006 but in 2008. Pick your battles wisely.
 
2006-05-10 07:59:44 PM
Smell the Glove: Doesn't a public discussion bring about more "God" conversation than an atheist would want care to endure than if they just let it sit quietly on the back of a piece of paper kept in the dark in your pocket in the rare occasions you carry paper/metal currency in the VISA plastic card payment age?

Why are you equating opposition to government endorsement with opposition to public discussion? They have nothing to do with each other.

ThatDevGuy: I also want to make sure Democrats in the crowd realize that a court decision putting Mr Newdow's view into the mainstream will automatically ensure a Republican victory by backlash not only in 2006 but in 2008. Pick your battles wisely.

What the F*CK does this have to do with D versus R? In case you weren't paying attention a couple years ago, the Democrats in government were just as faux-outraged about the Pledge case as as the Republicans were.
 
2006-05-10 08:00:43 PM
ThatDevGuy: So, references to no religious belief are automatically references to atheism.

THIS IS NOT A REFERENCE TO NO RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Jesus tapdancing Christ.

Unless you believe that my not having mentioned the St. Louis Rams in this thread constitutes a reference to NO St. Lous Rams.
 
2006-05-10 08:00:57 PM
kronicfeld: What the F*CK does this have to do with D versus R?

It has nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that that is exactly what will happen.
 
2006-05-10 08:01:13 PM
The position I am arguing: The lack of "IN GOD WE TRUST" on your money does not scald your fingertips, brainwash you into attending Satanic services, or even compel you to consider a non-religious position. I suspect that you notice more crosses and churches and religious slogans driving down the street that wil save your soul than glancing at your money.
 
2006-05-10 08:01:33 PM
Cyberluddite: Hard to credibly argue that putting "In God We Trust" on the money isn't an official endorsement of religion. That's a no-no under our Constitution.

Even if it is, I would consider it de minimis (and I am sure you are familiar with that as a legal term), up there with the Congressional Chaplain and the image of Moses on the Supreme Court building. I don't think it comes close to the establishment of a state religion.

Besides, who uses cash anymore, anyway?
 
2006-05-10 08:02:20 PM
Mordant: The position I am arguing: The lack of "IN GOD WE TRUST" on your money does not scald your fingertips, brainwash you into attending Satanic services, or even compel you to consider a non-religious position.

I'm glad we agree then.

So, why not leave well enough alone and not tear apart the country in the process of changing something that doesn't really need to be changed.
 
2006-05-10 08:02:59 PM
ThatDevGuy: So, references to no religious belief are automatically references to atheism.

Are you saying that the absence of a reference to religious belief is a tacit endorsement of atheism?

As you can see, they are one and the same.

I agree with kronicfeld. You fail at logic.
 
2006-05-10 08:04:13 PM
SpinnyNuNu: Are you saying that the absence of a reference to religious belief is a tacit endorsement of atheism?

What would you consider an endorsement of atheism, then?

"Don't believe in God, fools. Now. I command you."?

If that's what it takes to be an endorsement of atheism, why is "In god we trust" an endorsement of Christianity?
 
2006-05-10 08:05:15 PM
ThatDevGuy: As you can see, they are one and the same.

No, I don't see. Your argument is nonsensical and does not relate at all to this argument.

/I do believe you are drunk.
 
2006-05-10 08:06:10 PM
granolasteak: Your argument is nonsensical and does not relate at all to this argument.

Oh, I agree. I've always thought that the "atheism is not a religious belief like bald is not a hair color" was a stupid argument. I'm just expanding on the consequences of it.
 
2006-05-10 08:06:24 PM
i love topical insanity.
 
2006-05-10 08:06:27 PM
kronicfeld
Why are you equating opposition to government endorsement with opposition to public discussion? They have nothing to do with each other.


Amazingly I'm somehow finding myself with ThatDevGuy's school of thought that you'll see more God crap on your way to work than you will paying for your #2 combo at McDonald's.
But for the record I'm not trying to make equations about anything, I'm asking (philosophically I guess) is this a worthwhile battle?
 
2006-05-10 08:06:27 PM
ThatDevGuy: What would you consider an endorsement of atheism, then?

"There is no God." Or the like.
 
2006-05-10 08:07:34 PM
Smell the Glove: But for the record I'm not trying to make equations about anything, I'm asking (philosophically I guess) is this a worthwhile battle?

Oh, who knows. I'm not here to judge the strategic value or political ramifications. I don't care about those. I don't have a dog in that fight.
 
Displayed 50 of 861 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report