Nope - still a limey, living in the glorious Commonwealth of VA. I was just impressed you no longer thought I had girly parts.
Well, actually that does make you a hypocrite.
prej·u·dice
[prej-uh-dis] Show IPA
noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
Yep, that seems to sum up your opinion of Christians.
Yeah, like I’m going to take “instructions” from you. Fail.
Sorry, you are stuck with the crap that you spewed. No amount of issuing “instructions”, faking up straw-men, or premature claims of victory get you off the hook you idiotically created for yourself.
How about try ‘not at all’? The “thrust of my meaning” was exactly what I said: if you don’t like what I have to say, tough.
Other posters have answered with, you know, actual intelligent argument on the point. Not you. I guess for you telling others to “shut up” is the height of wit.
Make up your mind. Do you want me to “shut up”, or do you want to argue?
Oh, and you are provably wrong. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was followed by Newdow v. Carey, for complex procedural reasons (briefly, the plaintiff’s case in Elk Grove was turfed because the court found the person pursuing the case did not have the standing to do so; they refiled and tried again).
Read all about it here: U.S. Pledge of Allegiance | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Religion, and Separation of Church and State | Britannica
Once again, the majority of the court decided, on March 11, 2010, as in Elk Grove … and guess who cast the deciding vote? Why, Madame Justice Dorothy Wright Nelson, who (surprise!) isn’t Christian:
It must burn to be so blatantly wrong. 
Well, the moment you name it an “inverted crucifix” you are saying that it is, indeed, not a cross with a very-low horizontal beam but a crucifix that’s been inverted… oh, wait, that could be a Catholic symbol (martyrdom of St Peter)
It was put on the money then for the same reason people want it to stay on the money today; it is a pretty way of the government saying “This is a Christian nation, we hate all unbelievers, and we get off on rubbing the fact in the face of those unbelievers.” “Society” hasn’t moved on that much, especially that part of society that is still mired in Bronze age superstition; not moving on is much of the point. It’s done in the same spirit as those judges who want to wear the ten Commandments on their robes or hang them on the courtroom wall; it is a way of publicly emphasizing that you aren’t really considered an American unless you are Christian.
A ridiculous claim; and obviously nothing more than an attempt to justify printing Christian propaganda on the money. Going by that standard, how could anything short of a god physically manifesting from the money qualify as a violation of the separation of church and state?
So I suppose if a Nazi flag was put on the money, we should also ignore what it stands for and shrug it off as part of the heraldry?
Of course I know your answer; somehow that’s different. It’s only when the “heraldry” is for something you approve of that it doesn’t matter.
Cite?
That’s a pretty strong statement: any proof for your quote?
If it is “Christian propaganda” and transparently so, why did a Baha’i federal judge cast the deciding vote on the leading appellate decision affirming this reasoning last year? You would think that she, more than anyone, would disapprove of putting “Christian propaganda” on the money.
Oh, you mean a swastika? Like these?
Got no problem with 'em. They are traditional native American symbols, also used by Buddhists. Why would I want them removed?
Oh, okay, good. The “at least” made me think that I’d gotten the gender right but the nationality wrong.
When I misgender someone and they correct me, I tend to remember it. I think you and **Zeriel **are the only guys here I thought were women, though, and in both cases I think it was your names that gave me the idea.
Hahahaha. Show me where I’m prejudiced against Christians, please. The only statement I’ve made about them in this thread is that Christian Americans, as a whole, are prejudiced against atheists–which they demonstrably are.
As for individual Christians, my only judgement about them is that they believe in something because of faith (i.e., made-up shit) instead of facts and evidence. So long as they do not also want to force me or anyone else to follow their same made-up shit, I couldn’t care less what they believe or how they practice that faith. Some of the best people I know happen to be Christians–so are some of the nastiest.
It’s not Christian propaganda so much as it is monotheistic propaganda that’s compatible with Christianity. Guess what the Bahá’í Faith is? Oh, right, monotheistic. So “In God We Trust” presents no problem for Bahá’ís.
Seriously. Go find me some “ceremonial deism” that *isn’t *compatible with Christianity and isn’t also incompatible with multiple non-Christian or non-monotheistic belief systems.
That’s moving the goal posts.
The original claim was that judges approved of “ceremonial deism” because they were Christian. You made that claim here:
[Emphasis added]
Der Triths made the claim “ceremonial deism” was really not-very-disguised Christian propaganda (and exclusively and explicitly Christian propaganda) here:
[Emphasis added]
Both of you made a point of stating that this was really all about pressing Christianity on folks - you used the term (emphasized here and above) “…Christian-compatible (and only Christian-compatible) religiosity …”.
Are you now willing to admit that this was all horseshit?
As for the challenge to find some ceremonial deism that may be incompatible with Christianity and isn’t incompatible with multiple belief systems - that’s easily done: the symbolism on the great seal.
Plenty of Christians complain that this eye-in-pyramid is incompatible with Christianity, because (they allege) it is a Masonic symbol; the motto providence has “approved of our undertakings” is clearly supernatural/religious (it presupposes an active concious “providence”) but is not obviously incompatible with other religions containing a personification of fate or providence.
The obverse of the Great Seal is also on the currency, the one dollar bill.
You’re misreading me and conflating my posts with those made by another person (Der Trihs). This is a complex issue.
1.) “Ceremonial deism” in the U.S. is created by the Christian majority.
2.) It is, however, not always explicitly Christian (e.g., “In God We Trust” vs. a plaque with the Ten Commandments).
3.) Because it is often not explicitly Christian, people in other monotheistic faiths can be more comfortable with it than those whose beliefs are incompatible with this “ceremonial deism.”
4.) The ceremonial deism almost never directly contradicts Christian beliefs, and where it does, AFAIK it will be *only *in a place where there are references to multiple religions *including *Christianity. There will never, to the best of my knowledge, be a lone reference to anything that explicitly excludes Christianity. (For more on what entails a specific exclusion, see my response to your other post below.)
An eye-in-a-pyramid is in no way incompatible with Christianity. “Incompatible with Christianity” would mean something that *directly refutes *a fundamental tenet of Christian belief, e.g., “In Gods We Trust” or “one nation, trapped in a cycle of rebirth until we follow our dharma, with liberty and justice for all.”
Look, I snapped at you pretty harshly when you first posted, and it seems clear that you do actually want to discuss this. But you have to understand that you are, without making any judgements about you as a person, ignorant of this aspect of American culture, just as I am ignorant of many aspects of Canadian culture.
Hello Mr. Mace. I’m not sure this is an issue where cites can trump perception. My perception is that the motto is clearly an endorsement of the God of the Bible. This is the best citeI have for that:
[INDENT] “One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked,” Watkinson wrote to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase on Nov. 13, 1861. “I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.”
“You are probably a Christian,” he told Chase. “What if our Republic were now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?”
(…)
Watkinson proposed that “instead of the Goddess of Liberty,” the nation’s coins should depict 13 stars, the American flag, the all-seeing eye crowned with a halo, and the words, “God, Liberty, Law.”
"This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection...."
Seven days later, Chase wrote to his subordinate, Mint Director James Pollock:
"No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay, with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition."
Pollock, former governor of Pennsylvania, set to work experimenting with half dollars and gold coins.(...)
Pollock explained in a Dec. 26, 1861, letter to Chase: "The motto adopted ['God Our Trust'] was selected in consideration of its having become familiar to the public mind by its use in our great National Hymn, the 'Star Spangled Banner.'"(...)
Chase evidently dragged his feet, because Pollock reminded him six months later that he hadn't replied. It was late 1863 before Chase got on the ball.
By that time, 11 Protestant denominations had teamed up to form the National Reform Association. Its aim was to reform the Constitution to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." Pollock was a member.
The association wanted to change the Constitution’s preamble to read: “We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union…” [/INDENT]
None of that shows that every politician who has supported the implementation of the slogan sees it as referring to the Biblical God, but that seems the most likely belief of the people active in the implementation.
You may wish to refer to the outcome of the court case your link references (see posts above).
In that case, decided last year, the history of the issue was pretty thoroughly referenced, and the majority essentially stated that while it was obvious that some of the people involved in putting references to god into the oath of allegiance and the like were thinking in terms of Christian exclusivity, that was not sufficient to establish on an objective test that this was its purpose.
I can accept that most people think “God” refers to the Abrahamic God, but that’s still more inclusive than the Christian Saints. Still, one can argue that “God” is more generic than just the God of the Bible (for Jews, Christians and Muslims), but there is no argument to be made that the Christian saints are anything but Christian (with perhaps a little overlap into the Muslim faith for some, like Mary, but that is the exception, not the rule).
The subject may be “complicated”, but your quotes were not. I see no misunderstanding of “…Christian-compatible (and only Christian-compatible) religiosity …”, or your reference to Judicial bias towards Christianity.
I see you are unwilling to drop the nonsense about me being “ignorant”, but I’ll simply choose to extend my “ignorance” to ignoring any further reference to it - as it is now boring me.
As to your challenge - that is easily met. Unless of course you think that Christianity contains room for concepts such as the Goddess of Liberty:
The very symbol of the US to many is a big freaking pagan goddess, whose statue graces the NY harbour. And, it may be noted, many US coins.
But Malthus, you don’t understand! It’s a complex issue!
Or else Shot From Guns is being an idiot again.
Regards,
Shodan
Sooooo you don’t actually address any of the points I made. I take back what I said about you being interested in debate, Malthus. Clearly, you’re just desperate to prove that you’re not ignorant of the role religion plays in American culture (and ironically, by doing so, confirming that you are).
You provided a challenge; I answered it. Your challenge was to identify an example of “ceremonial deism” that was incompatible with Christianity. The answer: the use of the Goddess of Liberty. Ball’s in your court.
Or of course you can simply sling more insults, thus showing you don’t have the guts to admit you’ve been beat - just as you were over the ‘judge must be Christian’ crack. Up to you, really.
A goddess that wasn’t worshiped for centuries by anyone by that point in history. As opposed to the Christian God, worshiped by the majority of the country then and now. You might as well use an actress being referred to as a “screen goddess” as evidence she’s a religious figure.
I’m not arguing anyone today actually worships her. Indeed, the whole premise of “ceremonial deism” is that the use of a diety is intended as symbolic, not literal. In the case of the Goddess of Liberty, that is obviously the case!
The issue is whether her use is “incompatible” with Christianity. That it certainly is, as Christians (and Jews and Muslims) tend to strongly oppose using depictions of pagan gods (depending of course on denomination).
The use of a Goddess of Liberty as civic symbol certainly has a strong anti-Christian history. You will recall that the Statue of Liberty was a gift of the French, and in France said Goddess was expressly used in the Revolution as a civic replacement for Christianity. From the above link on the Goddess of Liberty: