Amie

I think "From the many one" would be more inclusive however In God *I* trust.

Thieving Magpie

Actually, if you wanted to fully transpose what I said you would change the quote to: Which is the best thing to do for a girl who is happy and is being abused?

1. Abuse her.
2. Eat a doughnut.

Starboy

You are right, but the separation has declined because "we the people" have forgotten how our government was supposed to work. The motto in and of it self is unimportant, except that it directly illustrates one of the important ideas that this country was founded on. That we as a people have the right to hold diverse opinions on religion, philosophy, politics, culture and so forth, but that our government is constructed to protect our rights and to insure this right, along with many others, we come together as one nation. Letting the government cram prayer, the Ten Commandments, god or any other idea down people’s throats because the powers that be think it is good for us misses the whole point of "From the many one."

Starboy

Amos

When reading " in God we trust" the inferred message is: "but this is cash."

Starboy

Do you mean "In god we trust" others pay cash?

Amos

Either way why else write it on a note that is legal tender?.

Unforgiven Too

I wish I could get certain people I know (around my area) to see this stuff. So many otherwise nice liberal moderate Christians, including my mother and a friend from college, think that it's acceptable for the government to endorse whatever religion it wants as long as it doesn't make it mandatory, blissfully ignorant of the implications and where such implications lead.

My mother was of the opinion that religious belief and being a decent person were synonymous, and introducing religious indoctrination in public schools would somehow magically make all the guns and teen pregnancy go away--and that this religion should be whatever the majority deems best, that the majority's whims trump the rights of all. She loved to talk about Madelaine Murray O'Hare. "She was a bitch atheist, lousy bitch got prayer out of school, she's responsible entirely for the sorry state of public schools, even her kids hate her". She also thinks that someone who is non-religious (as in never thought about it one way or another) is an atheist.

I mentioned a thread on this site where some people were talking about this very thing, and how there are plenty of atheists in the world who have raised kids who are atheists and are good, decent functional members of society, how there are many social factors that must be considered before jumping to a conclusion that lack of forced prayer in school is responsible, and that her horrific tale of "that bitch" Murray O'Hare is a single story.

There are atheists who raise good kids who stand up for what is right. There are devout believers who will kill in the name of their Gawd (or at least, encourage violence, "kill a dyke for Jesus"). In fact, when an atheist does something nice for someone, it's not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward--it's because they actually understand the value of doing something nice for someone. To me, that indicates a far greater level of kindness, compassion, and intelligence than I've ever seen from the religious.

She hasn't mentioned Madelaine Murray O'Hare in ages.

My father, at least, is more intelligent, but thinks this arguement is meaningless, which also irritates me. He doesn't see how this is a precedent--how many people in this country have been led to think that "In God We Trust" "under God", etc, are things put there by the founding fathers? They love to cite these things, and in as sadly undereducated a country as the US, this can lead to other things.

You should have heard the old lady yesterday! She was argueing that no country has freedom, that we have the most freedom in the world. I told her we were one of the most censored. She started demanding I name one country freer than us. I was not informed enough to do that.

Then in came my wonderful Dad, who mentioned Scandinavia. Said they can do tons of things we can't, damn near anything they like. She was speechless for all of a minute. Then made the weak arguement "Well, there's no morality there". As though it's a good thing to give up freedom for the right to legislate other people's morality--including consensual acts? I want to ask her, where does it end?

At least she didn't pretend that legislating other people's morality is synonymous with freedom--freedom means naturally you might be less safe, and that other people might do or believe in something you don't personally approve of, like homosexuality for example. So many don't see how the second you, say, start legally confiscating the children had by KKK members because of what they think, you have opened a whole mess of crap. If you catch an individual actually doing something harmful to another person and showing their kids how, you have a case. But making a generality and making the correct opinion a prerequisite to keeping your kids is going over the line. I don't like them, I don't approve of them, but I am not going to stand for making their opinion a basis for removing their children--because once you've let that happen, tomorrow they might be removing the children of atheists and agnostics.

E Pluberis Unum. All the way.

beyelzu

Unforgiven too,

I enjoyed reading your post, but I dont really believe we are one of the most censored countries on earth. While some nations in europe do have more freedom, they also have higher taxes. just somethingto keep in mind.

Starboy

Amos, I don't know of any good reason to put it on money. From what I understand of Jesus he would not like it.

Starboy

Amos

For sure, and I agree with that but it sure adds to the make-believe of the entire story which exists only so it can help lead us into the future. In other words, religion is for our own benefit.

You may object to religion being good for us and to this I would say that only good religion is good for us.