Originally posted by PsychoPawn Historically speaking, Moses is very far removed from the US. I see little difference between Moses being on the Supreme Court building and a state courthouse having a representation of the Ten Commandments.
Yeah, moses himself isn't related historically, but maybe the engraving itself has some historical significance. I don't know. I don't dis iced against atheists to elect one as president so we have to take what we can get.
Now I know you're arguing just to argue.
With Moses you seemed to go from the engraving, to the person and now you're back to the engraving again.
With the President, you don't seem to understand the concept that during a Presidential Address, the President is in the role of President and not that of a private citizen.
BTW, the "invasion" line was a joke alluding to Bush and reports of him saying that he invaded Iraq because God told him to.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Now I know you're arguing just to argue.
With Moses you seemed to go from the engraving, to the person and now you're back to the engraving again.
With the President, you don't seem to understand the concept that during a Presidential Address, the President is in the role of President and not that of a private citizen.
BTW, the "invasion" line w ...[text shortened]... invaded Iraq because God told him to.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
Now I know you're arguing just to argue.
No, I'm not. I misspoke when I referred to Moses as the person and I admitted that.
With the President, you don't seem to understand the concept that during a Presidential Address, the President is in the role of President and not that of a private citizen.
You don't really seem to have a good grasp of what I understand and what I don't understand.
How do you differentiate? I don't see "god bless you" as leading people in prayer. Leading people in prayer would be a violation for me. Saying "god bless you" in itself in a speech doesn't express the will of the nation. If you define "god bless you" as being leading a prayer then I guess that's where we are really disagreeing.
BTW, the "invasion" line was a joke alluding to Bush and reports of him saying that he invaded Iraq because God told him to.
I know, I just didn't see a point in bringing politics into the mix.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd I fall more in line with those who see a freedom from religion implied in the Constitution, more than a separation of church and state, but I'm open minded enough to see how it can be interpreted either way.
So, freedom from religion doesn't necessarily entail the separation of Church and State?
I can be free from religion if there are State-sponsored religious activities, and State-funded
religious programs?
Originally posted by PinkFloyd I would say so, yes. Our money says In God We Trust on it, yet that fact does not in any way impact you in a negative way.
Yeah but you didn't read the small print, In God We Trust.... All others use cash.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd I would say so, yes. Our money says In God We Trust on it, yet that fact does not in any way impact you in a negative way.
It does establish a preferred religious view though - and that is what the constitution is there to prevent.
With the government sponsoring religious groups they are using tax dollars from those who are not interested in supporting that faith. You think that's fair? That is the government showing its preference for a religion.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn It does establish a preferred religious view though - and that is what the constitution is there to prevent.
With the government sponsoring religious groups they are using tax dollars from those who are not interested in supporting that faith. You think that's fair? That is the government showing its preference for a religion.
We just see it differently. I may not want my tax dollars to go to public radio, or some other entity that I don't approve of, but it's the price of having a fake democracy/republic instead of a true democracy where everybody votes on every issue. I don't like it, but ...
Originally posted by PinkFloyd We just see it differently. I may not want my tax dollars to go to public radio, or some other entity that I don't approve of, but it's the price of having a fake democracy/republic instead of a true democracy where everybody votes on every issue. I don't like it, but ...
It's not about just not wanting your tax dollars to go to something and I hope you realize that.
It's about the fact that the government is supporting and establishing one set of beliefs over another and that this is a violation of the constitution.
Having "in god we trust" on our money violates our constitution. It establishes a preference. If you have no problem with that just because you believe it doesn't have any effect on anyone, then that's up to you. I don't hold it as a high priority to get it off our money since there are more serious infringments on this part of our constitution that need to be fought. That doesn't change that it should not be on our money since it does violate the constitution.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn It's not about just not wanting your tax dollars to go to something and I hope you realize that.
It's about the fact that the government is supporting and establishing one set of beliefs over another and that this is a violation of the constitution.
Having "in god we trust" on our money violates our constitution. It establishes a preference. If yo ...[text shortened]... oesn't change that it should not be on our money since it does violate the constitution.
Yes, the money violates. So does the Pledge of Allegiance. So does the slogan "God bless America." All of these arose during the McCarthy era when people were terrified to speak out against their country for fear of losing their jobs at the hands of a very smart, but very evil, man.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn It's not about just not wanting your tax dollars to go to something and I hope you realize that.
It's about the fact that the government is supporting and establishing one set of beliefs over another and that this is a violation of the constitution.
Having "in god we trust" on our money violates our constitution. It establishes a preference. If yo ...[text shortened]... oesn't change that it should not be on our money since it does violate the constitution.
It looks to me like we are in agreement on one oint: there are "more serious" problems that having In God We Trust on our money.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd It looks to me like we are in agreement on one oint: there are "more serious" problems that having In God We Trust on our money.
Absolutely. There are those that use the fact that "in god we trust" is on our money as evidence that we're a "christian nation" so we should violate the constitution further, amongst others.
church v. state rears ugly head in SC
31 Jul '08 12:171 edit
Back to Top