You mean the original? The original is amazing. The current is at best (which the supreme court thinks) nonsense and at worst (which is what I would argue) sectarian.
Is the phrase "In God We Trust" and the pledge a endorsement of religion?
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
You mean the original? The original is amazing. The current is at best (which the supreme court thinks) nonsense and at worst (which is what I would argue) sectarian.
I'm not saying that we have no consensus at all, rather, what I am driving at relates to the underlying influences regarding the separation of religion/state debate.
While the authors of the documents made specific efforts to not include any direct religious references, I can't help but think that the influence exists through the fact that they were all practicing Christians. It's these secondary things that express the religious culture - the legal system is likely the best example.
The topic?... Sorry Cliffy, that'd be your topic..... And no, I don't want to get into body counts with you, I know you don't mind reallocating the responsibility of a few hundred millions deaths here and there to support your position.
"If your snide derision actually had a good basis, morgan, we'd be seeing Muslims and Buddhists going into churches and synagogues, Jews and Christians going into temples and mosques. It isn't just atheists that object to the Christian god being referenced everywhere."
AnnaG, "GOD" is a generic term for the Creator, the Supreme Being.
I different languages it may be Allah, Yehowah or whatever.
The inscription on coins, bills and federal buildings is NOT a Christian God, necessarily. It is a Supreme Being that only blind unrealistic know-it-alls can deny.
AnnaG, "GOD" is a generic term for the Creator, the Supreme Being.
I different languages it may be Allah, Yehowah or whatever.
The inscription on coins, bills and federal buildings is NOT a Christian God, necessarily. It is a Supreme Being that only blind unrealistic know-it-alls can deny.
Yes, and what I am driving at is their omission of any mention of anything religious is purposeful given the influence that I would agree with you upon. I also take as evidence the fact that they saw fit to pass, just two years later, an amendment enforcing said secularism.
Therefore, one should really regard the founders of the USA as secularist Christians. I am sure it was their background as Christians in a heavily sectarian world at that time (then it was a theist vs. deist battle) that led them to regard secularism in government as an important issue.
I stand corrected. The story of the Philippine massacres was one I read thirty or more years ago. Just because I made a mistake about the Rough Riders, doesn't excuse what he did in the Philippines. That was a nice try at deflection though.
No, the word "god" is a generic term for some superhuman being, the word "God" is a specific term to a monotheistic, supreme, creator deity. Use of the word "God" precludes paganism (none are supreme), buddhism(there is no deity), vedic religions(Brahman was not an entity, Brahma was only an aspect of Brahman) and certainly atheism(who believes in no such being) because of its cultural, historic and grammatic context. The word "GOD" is basically meaningless here because of grammatical incorrectness (too many capitals).
"The word "GOD" is basically meaningless here because of grammatical incorrectness (too many capitals)."
If the word "GOD" is meaningless, why the fuss over something that 85-90% of Americans agree with?
Tyranny of the minority, perhaps?
BTW, would these self-righteous do-gooders refuse to accept currency with showing the words "IN GOD WE TRUST"? Would they have enough integrity and honesty?
If the word "GOD" is meaningless, why the fuss over something that 85-90% of Americans agree with?
Tyranny of the minority, perhaps?
BTW, would these self-righteous do-gooders refuse to accept currency with showing the words "IN GOD WE TRUST"? Would they have enough integrity and honesty?
The word "GOD" is meaningless here, not in general, just this thread.
Now that I emphasized the operative word for you, I will point out that the semantic distinguighment between the definitions is important and capitalizing all words amounts to equivocation in this debate. Ergo, meaningless.
The highest number I've seen for the Phillipines is 500,000 but the number cited by most is 200,000 and the war was incited by the Phillipines not the Americans. As for Vietnam, the US was trying to clean up a mess left by the French, but the NYT and CBS wouldn't let the US military fight as it could. Read better sources; don't just go by one source, particularly if it's a lefty source.
The Americans were imperialist occupiers the rebels did the right thing in both cases. It is pathetic to blame the media for the humiliating American defeat.
Developed as a result of the Philippine insurrection, to combat the Moro's as the Moro's frequently used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain and the .38 was not powerful enough to stop some of them.
This has nothing at all to do with coinage though.
Last edited: