-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Law of the Land says...
- Thread starter DavidFirth
- Start date
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
It's America. The christian god is kind of implied.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Actually, the fact that it's capitalized makes it a proper name.
Everyone knows it's Jesus's dad.....not Cthulu, Pazuzu, Odin, or L Ron Hubbard.
To test my view, government could issue money using other names for the worshiped one....
"In Allah We Trust".
"In Old Scratch We Trust"
How many would object then?
The hue & cry would be deafening.
Thus, names matter.
Last edited:
It really is.
Mammon is the god of Capitalism. And that's the real religion of the USA, has been forever.
Tom
That's the year of my birth.
Because of that phrase, I understood as a boy that America was not my country even though I was born and raised there. It belonged to those under God, which excluded me.Consequently, I refused to say the Pledge, and eventually retired much sooner than I had expected to expatriate.
Personally as someone who strongly believes in God, I could care less what is on money or in the Pledge of Allegiance. I've made my pledge to God in my heart. Having words on money or saying words in a ritualistic manner with no meaning attached is to me a waste of time.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I like it, because it's likely to also be in reference to minding one's own business, as in not butting your nose in where it doesn't belong. Cable news as we know it might die within a month if we all starting doing that.
I don't know where you get the idea that this is an issue of "Trump supporters." To things like this and the offense taken over the NFL players taking a knee, you are blinding yourself to the fact many people who aren't Trump supporters believe "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" should stay, and would be very offended if they were removed. They've been around way longer than Trump's political career. Rather, they tend to be "god and country" types, and sometimes they even vote Democrat, and even with a good number of them having voted for Hillary.
There's really no reason to assume such issues are exclusive to Trump supporters, and that Trump supporters hold similar positions on the subject. With the kneeling and "under god," it's more of a Conservative thing than a Trump supporter thing. Even if Hillary was in office, their would still be people outraged over such things.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is what's wrong with it.What's wrong with that?
I don't know which (perhaps both?) inference is best.
But I picked the one which allowed me to attack commies.
Always go with what's fun, eh.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Adding god to the pledge and money should be reversed. America was just fine how we were founded. No need to mix religion into government. That's fascist and dominionist.
As an atheist, I dislike seeing license plates with 'in god we trust' on it. And that's the standard issue, not a upgrade.
As an atheist, I dislike seeing license plates with 'in god we trust' on it. And that's the standard issue, not a upgrade.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Considering the narrow minded religious mindset of the common American Christian, absolutely. Sooo . . . it would have to be someone who's in his/her last term in Congress. But it would still succumb to quick death anyway. Unfortunately, neither we or any of our grandchildren will ever live to see it removed. It would be like trying to move Christmas to sometime earlier in the year, when most scholars figure Jesus was born. For a lot of Christians putting reason on hold is no big deal.
.
.
Actually the Ninth Circuit held that the 1954 law that codifies the Pledge as including "under God" is unconstitutional. In the 2004 appeal of that opinion, Elk Grove School District v. Newdown, in a decision delivered by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, with a concurrence by Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O'Connor and Thomas (Scalia did not participate), the Supreme Court reversed on grounds that the man who brought the suit did not have standing.
I have no doubt the the Court would agree that the 1954 law is unconstitutional, if a case were brought by a petitioner with standing.
I understand having it in the pledge. On the money its a little weird, because it is like a bad missionary. Bad things happen with money. Also, the no one is required by law to take the pledge, but we are required to accept cash for payments. Again, its just a weird place to put it.
And good things happen with money.
Besides, going back to bartering wouldn't reduce any of the money related problems.
Money helps people, yes; but its weird to put that on the money. Money is unfeeling and lets you down when you don't have any. Putting it on the cash is like putting 'Jesus is my co-pilot' on a bumper sticker and then driving like a lunatic.
Money....bartered goods....either way, the lack is equally troubling.
So eliminating money wouldn't magically cure poverty.
Which I have not been implying at all. Money helps to decrease poverty.