Another Court Loss for Liberals

[stu]

Apart from the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe in God, and it - as the court says - is part of our traditions and heritage, no. If it was removed tomorrow, it would just be the latest example of an assault on American tradition and belief.

I know the moment religion is mentioned on this forum it draws you like a magnet (much in the same way gun control discussions do for me), but I'm not about to get into a religion discussion with you. I realized the futile nature of discussing that topic with you the first and last time I tried it, long ago. Seek Jem for that.

I was just interested in why Here4money, who seems to not care about such trivial things, cares about this.

if you are just interested in H4M's response it's a bit nuts of you to answer me and if the phrase is so trivial, as you say, why do you care if it is removed?

Apart from the fact that the vast majority of Americans used to believe in slavery too , the court is declaring that the phrase containing the word God is ironically enough, not a religious one.
So if the phrase is not religious but is an example of heritage, then In God We Trust does not according to the court, express a religious heritage.

Given all that I was just interested in how rather than supporting Christians as claimed, the court can be seen to have backhandedly achieved your so called "assault on American belief". You know in a similar way it did with abolition and that assault on slavery. You see how your assault comment is silly now, right?

I notice things are always futile to you when you either disagree or can't or don't want to understand . My experience on this board, suggests with you, it's usually the latter.

Please feel free to not respond.

 

[stu]

And that’s the key because when we look at this issue vs having the 10 commandments in a court, it becomes a religious endorsement of the justice system itself.

Exactly, so if it isn't an endorsement of anything including religion, why is it even there other than to appease eccentric religionists.

 

[Tsing Tao]

if you are just interested in H4M's response it's a bit nuts of you to answer me and if the phrase is so trivial, as you say, why do you care if it is removed?

I answered you because you asked. I figured it was polite to do so.

Apart from the fact that the vast majority of Americans used to believe in slavery too , the court is declaring that the phrase containing the word God is ironically enough, not a religious one.
So if the phrase is not religious but is an example of heritage, then In God We Trust does not according to the court, express a religious heritage.

Given all that I was just interested in how rather than supporting Christians as claimed, the court can be seen to have backhandedly achieved your so called "assault on American belief". You know in a similar way it did with abolition and that assault on slavery. You see how your assault comment is silly now, right?

I notice things are always futile to you when you either disagree or can't or don't want to understand . My experience on this board, suggests with you, it's usually the latter.

Please feel free to not respond.

So you're comparing believing in God to believing in slavery?

Holy shit, you're a loon.

 

[Cuddles]

Apart from the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe in God, and it - as the court says - is part of our traditions and heritage, no. If it was removed tomorrow, it would just be the latest example of an assault on American tradition and belief.

I know the moment religion is mentioned on this forum it draws you like a magnet (much in the same way gun control discussions do for me), but I'm not about to get into a religion discussion with you. I realized the futile nature of discussing that topic with you the first and last time I tried it, long ago. Seek Jem for that.

I was just interested in why Here4money, who seems to not care about such trivial things, cares about this.

Don't really care, but atheists/buddists/scientologists/etc.. have an argument for overturning it (separation of church and state and all).

Also, if not a religious symbol, why get in a hissy fit if removed (don't really buy the heritage excuse).

 

[Tsing Tao]

Don't really care, but atheists/buddists/scientologists/etc.. have an argument for overturning it (separation of church and state and all).

Also, if not a religious symbol, why get in a hissy fit if removed (don't really buy the heritage excuse).

How much of the population is represented by atheists/Buddhists/Scientologists? You're always going to find a group that wants to overturn something.

As for it not being a religious symbol, I'm betting the majority of the 80% or so Christians in the country disagree.

 

[UsualName]

Exactly, so if it isn't an endorsement of anything including religion, why is it even there other than to appease eccentric religionists.

It can be whatever you want to make it because it’s innocuous and ambiguous.

I like to think it serves as a counterbalance to money being the root of all evil.

 

[Optionpro007]

I am not a religious guy, but humans are not developed enough to guide themselves based on whatever 'liberals' believe should be moral d'jour.

To wit:

“Remember the quote from Forrest Gump, “stupid is as stupid does”?

It is not Biblical but is sure displays the lack of wisdom of doing things that seems to make sense and not changing when the results are consistently bad. Persisting in behavior when all the facts show that you are wrong is the definition of irrationality.

Has anyone bothered to take inventory of removing prayer and the Bible as a standard for morality? Someone eloquently said the philosophy of the school room in one generation will become the philosophy of government in the next.http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0124_When_America_stopped.html

It is beyond a coincidence that every social indicator took a nose dive once prayer and the Bible were removed from our standard. Add in the fact that relativism was added and the gray area of no absolute right or wrong became individual standards of vacillation, and it should not surprise anyone of the following results;

Criminal arrest of teens is up 150% according to the US Bureau of Census; teen suicides in ages 15-19 years up 450% according to the National Center of Health Services; illegal drug activity is up 6000% according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse; child abuse cases up 2300% according to the US Department of Health and Human Services; divorce up 350% according to the US Department of Commerce, and SAT scores fell 10% even though the SAT questions have been revamped to be easier to answer.

Violent crime has risen 350%, national morality figures have plummeted, and teen pregnancy escalated dramatically after prayer and the Bible were removed from the schools.

One of the most damning statistics is to follow sex education in the schools. As the school’s involvement in sex education increased from grade level to grade level, promiscuity followed and the increase of premarital sex increased. Without any firm foundation to discourage sexual experimentation, unplanned pregnancies exploded. When right or wrong becomes relative to the individual, a natural consequence is to self-approve immoral behavior.


More at..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cpcfou...r-and-the-bible-from-the-schools-in-1962/amp/

 

[Optionpro007]

"When right or wrong becomes relative to the individual, a natural consequence is to self-approve immoral behavior."

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The problem here is the Supreme Court has mangled the religion clauses of the First Amendment. I believe the original intent of the Establishment clause was to prevent establishment of an "official" federal church. Several states did in fact have official state churches and that practice was not disturbed, at least initially, by the First Amendment. Similarly, the Free Exercise clause was intended to prevent the government from banning religions.

Activist courts couldn't leave well enough alone however, and eventually elevated the subjective feelings of atheists and assorted malcontents into constitutional proportions. No longer did the Establishment clause bar an official state church. It also barred the government from endorsing or promoting religion or one religion over another, a completely different issue than the one addressed in the First Amendment and one the Founders would have had violent disagreement with.

This slogan on currency dispute is one entirely of the Court's own creation. Properly interpreted, the Establishment clause would not be remotely implicated. No one is being forced to observe a religion, any more than they are pledging fealty to the party or policies of various notables whose pictures appear on the same bill.

 

[futurecurrents]

Genuine curiosity here. Do you really have a problem with "In God We Trust" on money?

Yes. It's stupid. It's equivalent to "In Made Up BS We Trust". It's offensive to those of us who think that the US is better than that.

How would you feel if it actually said "In Irrational BS We Trust" ? Or "In the figment of our imagination we trust." ?

Or "In some thing we have no proof exists and is highly unlikely to be real we trust"?