Even though I think the world would be FAR better off without religion I in no way advocate any purging of people that "believe" in that crap. But I would also like to not have asshat politicians (mostly Republican in the USA) trying to push their BS religious agenda's in govt, what happened to separation of church and state.... In God We Trust should be removed from anything govt related and any legislation better not have stuff in it because "it goes against my religion".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.


You are picking and choosing your details man. I think you are also getting your 'facts' about the 40's and 50's from tv shows and movies and using them to spin your idea of 'how golden and free of crime America was before we turned out back on God.' And what about the decades before the 50's, certainly we hadn't 'turned away from god', so how do you explain the debauchery of the 20's, the turn of the century 'robber barons' that lived in luxury while their sweat-shops were worked by the masses of poor and children. The herione gangs and the waves of violence around 1910, 15.

It is really funny how some people (mostly white, older and male) see the 40's and 50's as this shining era of godly love, no crime and family harmony. It was all like 'leave it to beaver'. Dad made the big bucks, mom stayed at home and the most the kids ever got into trouble was when they broke a neighbors window. Yes, generally crime rates were low in the 40's and 50's but you cant attribute that to people 'having the fear of god' back then but skip over times that had just as much, if not even more religious fervor but also plenty of social upheaval and crime. Point of fact crime rates right now in most states are at historical lows, nearly to the levels of the 50's, but you still see murders every day. The information age has changed these things. In the 50's the only news you had was local. You might never have heard about some crime rave in another state.

Other things can attribute to the lower crime rates of those years. How many young men were serving in WWII during the 40's, that certainly would account for a drop in crime rates. And as to the 50's, the threat of nuclear war was constant. 'In God We Trust' wasn't added to money in the mid 50's because it was a particularly religious era, but rather because if the threat of communism. The term used to denote a healthy and proper family in the 50's wasn't coined the 'nuclear' family for nothing.

Last I'd like to point out that the US was 'never' designed as a Christian Nation and has only receive that monicker in the last number of years. I know bible-thumpers and hard-right politicians would have you think, hell have even changed school books, to wipe out ideas like the simple fact that many of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion, though certainly not all. You can twist the words of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson all you want, but they above all abhorred the idea of religion influencing politics. This is not to say that they were all anti-religion, many advocated religion as a personal foundation of morality, but to hear modern republicans suggest they wanted Christianity to be the basis of the constitution and this country, they would be rolling over in their graves.

I'm sorry, but when exactly has been government been bending over backwards for the atheists?

If the gov't was bending over backwards for the atheists..they wouldn't have, needlessly, re-affirmed the CHANGED motto of the USA of "In God We Trust"

If the founders had such a hard on for God, why was the actual motto of the USA, "e pluribus unum?" Or if you're too lazy to google it, "Out of many, one" Why would they expressly prohibit the establishment of a state religion hrm? It's more accurate to say that anyone who says we're a "Christian Nation" or <insert ANY religion here> Nation" is actively flipping the bird to the founders

Pastor Hagee doesn't know his history, obviously.

As usual, dimwits like him don't know what they're talking about.

>> ^VoodooV:


It's really rather disturbing watching atheists play the same "change the definitions" game that the right wing plays. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize agnostics as part of atheists is staggering.


The "changing definitions" parts of these arguments are what really make my head explode--along with it's weaker sister--the "No, No don't pay attention to the Primary definition, it's obvious that the Secondary definition is the correct one here." (correct because it reflects the meaning they want it to).

Atheists, take a chill pill and step away from the lectern for a minute or two--take a deep breath. We are with you on separation of church and state. Take "In God We Trust" off US money. Take "Under God" out of the Pledge. Why fight so hard over something which has no impact on you, or our common cause.

I understand where you're coming from @jonny, but the 1st Amendment is plain and clear about the 'level' of 'freedom from religion' and it's only the aforementioned.

The communist-founded ACLU has taken upon itself to decide that all mentions of religion in the public circle are, in fact, establishing a government religion, which is rubbish.

The words "Under God" in the pledge are not a religion.
Putting 'In God We Trust' on money is not a religion.
A cross in a military cemetery or public park is not a religion.

The Ten Commandments posted on a courthouse wall? A little more controversial, but not a religion.

Peeps in a free society have no right to live free 'from' encountering speech or ideas they don't agree with.


>> ^jonny:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

I guess it is also thoroughly commie of me to prefer "E pluribus unum", eh.
>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^hpqp:
Is it legal to have a giant "In God We Trust" sign in a government building in the US?

Sadly, yes, it is the legal motto of the US. Thank you McCarthyism. Obviously you're a communist for even asking the question.

>> ^hpqp:

Is it legal to have a giant "In God We Trust" sign in a government building in the US?


Sadly, yes, it is the legal motto of the US. Thank you McCarthyism. Obviously you're a communist for even asking the question.

Is it legal to have a giant "In God We Trust" sign in a government building in the US?

Despite Separation of Church and State, our Motto is "In God We Trust". This is seriously messed up.

lol at quantumushroom's loaded language. "Federal mafia", that's a good one! Except of course the federal mafia is composed of two families, Democrats and Republicans. And they hate each other because the Democrats want to help both Democrats and Republicans but the Republicans only want to help themselves (it's written in the bible!!!).

And the point about the economy being better when Republicans are in office is completely fallacious. The "good economy" of the Bush years was based on war (good for the economy on a short-term basis, but bad in the long run) and shady business practices. Of course, now that we're in the Obama administration, the long-term negative effects of war are starting to show and the economy came crashing when the banks realized their shady business practices were actually non-sustainable (again the banks wanted short-term gains against unknown long-term loses, which didn't happen because they were bailed out. Of course if Obama hadn't bailed them out and people lost everything, then he'd be made to be the bad black demon that didn't help the poor little people). So now the Republicans do what they do best, shifting the blame to the other side. The crazy thing is, it works. It works because Americans don't know shit about taxes or war, they don't know shit about the history of taxes nor the history of war, they don't know shit about how both taxes and war can be used to varying effects. Because after all American history started with taxes and a war, and Americans know all their is to know about taxes and war : War is Good and Taxes are Bad.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Truly words to live by. America should adopt them as its motto and print them on its money. After all, it only elaborates on "In God we trust" : peace is in destroying God's enemies, freedom is in submitting to God's commandments, strength is in having faith in God's all-knowingness. Are they teaching newspeak yet in Sunday school?

^Which is the exception proving the rule. This is enforcing morality, pure and simple. It may be a morality that most hold dear, but it is the same as "in god we trust" on the dollar, unacceptable.

Oh my god! Oh my god! Oh my fucking god!

There are so many things wrong with this! I want to impale my face on some rocks! Trust me, this is how fascism will come to be in America. It will be a unified message between corporatists and fundamentalists, and just when the country is bankrupt from printing the money supply into hyperinflation, a pro-national message will unify us all to give up everything: rights, money, property. You will be a ward of the great nation. A god's nation.

In god we trust?! Did she just cite something that's been around for 60 years as proof positive that this is a Christian nation?! Fuck me running. Fuck my balls off. And the sheep will believe it. Soon revisionists will convince us all this is a non-secular society divinely appointed by statuesque gods named Washington and Jefferson, and a mighty cross upon their escutcheon.

These people need to crack a bio or two of the founding fathers before they spew their bile. They'd be very surprised how anti-fundamentalism a lot of them were. These were, for the most part, intellectuals who believed in the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, which is antithetical to her "down home" one-cross-size-fits-all government. Damn.

"I'd give $100 for one that didn't say "in god we trust".

What the fuck do you cae gwhix, yer Icebound-You just can't stand the the ruse ya heathen fucktard!
But f YOOOOOD thought of it...well, wag a Krugerand under his nose and he'll suck yer member, kosher or otherwise!