sigh
Where-ever did you get the idea that “cute” non-answers were a sign of wit? :rolleyes: Or was this a sign of things to come if Christians actually take over the country-pretending to converse, compromise with and tolerate non-Christian viewpoints will just stop? The question asked was legitimate, and so far the non-answers you’ve given so far gives us an impression of the answer you might give if you wern’t in mixed company.
Monkey, that was very kind of you.
Peace. 
And you are pathetic.
As a practicing Catholic and seminary reject, I’ll answer my own question. Having “In Allah We Trust” or “In Krishna We Trust” would make me extremely uncomfortable. It would imply not that the government recognizes these entities, but that the government endorses each respective religion and/or ascribes to its policies. Not just the morality “don’t do bad things” policies, but the “pray 5 times a day, don’t eat pork” and “ring bells in airports and shave your head” ones as well.
As such, I also feel that having “In God We Trust” on our money suggests the exact same thing about generic Christianity. Hank Hill of “King of the Hill” once told a Christian rocker, “You’re not helping Christianity, you’re hurting rock n’ roll.” The same holds true in this case - the government espousing religious doctrine (or at least appearing to support it) “doesn’t help Christianity, it hurts the government.”
I love my faith - it’s an extremely important aspect of my life. But government involvement in it does nothing but dilute it. School prayer, the Faith-Based Initiative, “In God We Trust”, Ten Commandment monuments, “one nation, under God” - these serve only to breed resentment among non-believers, and encourage laziness among the laity (“why should I teach my child to pray if the schools are doing it for me?”).
So why don’t you just fucking answer the question already, county?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The height of arrogance is that you believe that your particular notion of god should be the one that is shoved down the throats of all who share that public space. And your inaccurate description of what our nation was founded on brings nothing to this discussion.
As I pointed out earlier, whether or not public funds are used for the upkeep of the monument, it sits on public land, and that’s enough to violate the E. clause.
It hurts the people who are not Christian, who do not hold the ten comandments in any kind of regard, by giving them the implicit message that they are not members of the community.
It’s that ‘We are a Christian town, and if you’re not a Christian, you’re not one of us.’ message that is so bothersome about monuments like these.
Kind of like when a certain government official said that he didn’t really think atheists counted as Americans and that they should find their own country.
Ostracism from a community because you do not share their religious beliefs is not an easy thing to deal with in general, and in some small towns it can result in some pretty horrible harassment. I’d be willing to bet there are people in that town who are afraid to say that the monument hates them, because the ‘You’re either Christian or against us.’ attitude has already been felt very personally by them.
Yes it is. I spent a very large number of years as ‘Town Heathen’ and the nasty things said to and about me in order to exert pressure on me to live like the ‘good citizens’ of the town was just awful. It didn’t become easier to be an atheist (in terms of facing the attitude) until I moved to a city.
Have you ever done that in a small town? If you work there, or go to school there, you’re risking a lot. For example, when I complained about a prayer at my high school graduation and said that I would go inside the gymnasium for that portion of the ceremony, the rumor mill began: I was a drug addict, a Satanist, a killer of kittens, a whore, and a lot of other things.
Those kind of rumors can destroy your reputation even if they are unfounded, and if you’re working in that town, could cost you your job.
It’s pretty bad when one of the first things you’re asked at your new job by your coworkers is what church you go to, and you get extremely dismayed looks if you tell them ‘None.’
Please, please don’t hold county up as the archetypal “Christian”. Now, I don’t want Christians to “take over the country” as you put it, but your question is slightly insulting. Imagine if I held up a picture of R. Kelley and asked, “Is this a sign of things to come if African Americans take over the country - an epidemic of urination on underage girls?”.
As I try to remind myself that not all atheists are consumed with hatred for religion and go around slipping “magical sky pixie” diatribes into hotel room bibles, you need to try to remember not all Christians are like county.
As I stated earlier, I’m nominally for the movement of the monument. However, I think the argument that the monument “shoves religion down the throats of unbelievers” is the height of overstatement. Let’s show some perspective, people. It’s a three foot marker in the middle of a park in a small town in Pennsylvania. It violates the establishment clause, sure, but it doesn’t signal the beginning of an opressive theocracy.
Additionally, I find it interesting that it’s almost always Atheists who put forth this “shoved down the throat” argument. It may be that the appearance of atheists being such drama queens is the very thing that has caused some Christians, Jews, and Muslims to have such a low opinion of them. Think about it, it’s never Budhists or Hindus screaming that a three foot tall marker five states away is an indictment of their worth as human beings.
Argue for the monuments removal, but try to retain some perspective. The issue is a tacky ad for an old Charlton Heston movie, not a government edict demanding that all women wear veils.
Well, I gave the guy legitimate answers to two (2) questions. Then he comes back with another question that is designed to make his point. Asking questions such as his is a legitimate, if sophmoric, debating tactic. I am not required to continue to answer his questions as he defines & frames issues, so I don’t.
Want to debate whether this is a christian nation or what constitutes a nation, I’m there, want to label me because of your “impression” - well, fuck you, or not.
Hope that is cute enough for you.
How about you pay attention to who is asking you questions? Not including the preceding sentences, the grand total number of questions I’ve asked you is one.
Well, I doubt you’d like my answer as much as your own. But, see my post above to that Czar guy.
It was a follow-on question to the on-going discussion. Please don’t hit my hand with a ruler.
You have problems with asking followup questions? You are correct in noting that it is a legitimate debating tactic. I’m trying very hard to see things from your point of view, and I can’t see what’s sophomoric about trying to show you how I as a nonbeliver feel when the government takes sides on religion.
Ok, then maybe my impression was wrong. I apologize for making any assumptions. But could you address why you feel “In Jesus We Trust” is inappropriate?
Whether it’s the start of a reign of oppression is not the point, and its status as a kick-off for the oppressive regime is irrelevant.
Christians put this argument forward all the time, not only in relation to religious issues but in relation to sexuality issues too.
First, there is some question as to the extent that DeMille was involved with the Eagles plan to place TC monuments. Second, violating the Constitution is WRONG whether accompanied by an order to wear veils or not.
I’m annoyed when Christians lose perspective, too, what’s your point. “But some of them do it to!” is a childish argument.
Also, how many times do I have to say that I think the monument is unconstitutional and therefore illegal? All I’m say is that though both the monument and my hypothetical veil edict are unconstitutional and wrong, there is a difference in severity. Both speeding and murder are illegal and wrong. Both laws should be enforced, but we don’t use the same language when we talk about the two, now do we?
Okay, but the original quote:
and the article in the OP are about Americans United, not FFRF. I believe that religious organizations do similar things to the letter-writing campaign you have a problem with (no cite–thank YDOC [your Diety of choice] we aren’t in GD and I won’t have to go surveying a bunch of religious sites; who knows what might follow me home). Many Christians seem to spend time spreading the Good News–going door-to-door in some cases. Perhaps FFRF is just taking the expedient route by writing to a publication with a large circulation–it would be hard to knock on that many individual doors to get the word out.
So, do you think that the Rev Barry Lynn and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (or even FFRF) are necessarily hateful zealots, atheist extremists, or, from the more recent quote, less about the separation of religion than they are about its eradication? Or is the idea that they are interested in protecting religious freedom a possibility you are willing to entertain?
I am glad to see that you find the monument placement to be unconstitutional, though, even as you argue that no one should care.
My point is that your statement
is false.
Well, at least where I came from, (small town in Pennsylvania) if you were a Jew, or a Buddhist, or a believer in anything, the Christians who ran the town believed you were better than an atheist.
Mr. Government Official Whose Name I Cannot Recall didn’t say that the American Muslims should go find their own country, or that the American Jews should, or that the American Buddhists should. He said it about the American atheists.
I’m beginning to suspect some of you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, so I doubt I’m long for this thread. But, 'cause I haven’t left yet, I want to give stretch some unsolicited medical advice. Though colon cancer is certainly a real threat, in his case preventive colonoscopies are unnecesary. His eyes, and his head, are already where the camera would go. I offer this because of his last post:
Where the hell did I argue that no one should care? Damn, you’re an idiot. The simple fact that a situation could be worse does not mean that it isn’t bad to begin with. Yes, people should care about the monument. Yes, they should push for its removal. But NO, they should not affect an attitude that this is the worst theocratic trampling of rights since the Inquisition.
It’s the drama queen thing I don’t like, regardless of which side of the coin said prima-donna is on.
Hey, man, I just asked a simple question. And you are correct, you never specifically stated that people shouldn’t care.
Now I understand your stance–it’s okay for people to care, and it’s okay to work for the monument’s removal. Excellent. You must be the one in this thread simply for the sake of arguing, so how come you’re not arguing with the OP?
Who gets to decide which SOCAS issues are worth getting really excited about and which ones should be put on the back burner?
Would you back up this grass roots effort, even though Americans United is backing it also?
Was there a local voice behind the case in the OP’s article? I don’t know because the article mainly dealt with Hanover Borough Council’s possible breaking of the Sunshine Law when they were dealing with the monument issue.
Anyway, this is a hijack, and I’m disclined to discuss it further with you. Thanks for answering my previous posts.
What I am saying is that “In God We Trust” is on the money becuase this is a christian nation and that fucking rock is in that park because this is a christian nation. I’m neither condoning nor condemning this - just saying that is a fact.
Me, personally, I certainly supported removing that other rock (w/10 commandments) from that courthouse down in Georgia? and think that judge is out of touch with what he is suppose to be doing. Personally, the rock in question in this thread, well, there’s better use for the resources than screwing with some small town about something that is arguablely (sp?) historic.
I don’t think that the government should have a position on religion.