Well, that sure does save a lot of thinking!
But then, one wonders… why don’t all countries have that motto? Oh, there goes that thinking again!
Should the president stop himself when he calls on the nation to pray for victims of disasters? Funny how we suddenly become a Christian nation in hard times.
God is a bit of a hobbyist, he likes some variety in his coin collection. He’s particularly excited about the forthcoming beach volleyball fifty pence coin commemorating the 2012 Olympics.
We are a nation with a majority of Christians, but that doesn’t make us a Christian nation-- that is, Christianity is not an essential part of this country.
But you also assume that only Christians pray.
You can think of this one I’m sure. And while you are at it perhaps wonder why you think you can predict what God will do.
Perhaps it’s to frustrate people who demand of God evidence.
I wouldn’t bother. But you seem to be able explain why God does things extremely well. Why do you think you can do that?
I wouldn’t know. I don’t demand anything, and so I’m not frustrated.
On my own I couldn’t. It is because God wants to know us and interact with us that He lets us know.
Happy to hear it, that’s a great way to be 
Considering the overwhelming numbers of people who are white the US, even if only a fraction of them got worked up over granting civil rights to blacks you are still talking about significant numbers. While the numbers of folks who would get worked up about civil right for blacks are taken mainly from a group that has an extremely small number of representatives. Small fraction of a large number of people=something that has political ramifications. Small fraction of a marginal group=yawn, politically speaking.
Funny how a couple of small changes can reveal how odious an innocent sounding statement really is?
Because our money is the only thing that separates us from the godless communist hordes.
Yeah, because having “in God we trust” on our currency is just like making blacks ride in the back of the bus, making sure they don’t vote, and hosing them down with fire hoses when they have the temerity to protest.
At least you didn’t compare it to Hitler!
I wasn’t comparing. Just pointing out the logic is the same.
Except it’s not the same. The fact is, we vote on which civil rights we have, and we’ve voted for equal rights accorded to all races. We didn’t vote for our currency to be God-free, and we aren’t going to do so anytime soon.
No one’s life is affected by it. No one is prevented form advancing in life because of it, and no is made to sit in the back of the bus, literally or figuratively, because of it. No one is prevented form doing anything because of it.
And if you sit around with your panties in a bunch over it, you have waaaaay too much time on your hands.
Please indicate where I said anything even remotely like this. Personally I don’t think it’s a big deal; there are much bigger fish to fry when it comes to separation of church and state. Reactions like this lead me to reevaluate, though. If the very suggestion of removing it leads to completely hateful, over the top reactions like this, than maybe it’s is a bigger deal than I thought.
That was my experience WRT the SSM debate. At first I didn’t think it was a big deal, there was no point in pushing for it when there was still a lot of people who wouldn’t accept it, and government really shouldn’t be sanctioning marriage in the first place. But I was wrong - it is a big deal, and it’s necessary to fight for what’s right.
Also, at the risk of more bile being spewed my way, I’ll point out that we didn’t vote for equal rights, and by your logic if the majority didn’t want it, the people arguing for it would just be wasting their time.
Because…it’s India? Err…a duck…made of wood?
Debate is not bile, but I can’t help it if you’re wrong. 
We didn’t vote for the 14th amendment? We didn’t vote for the Civil Rights Act?
[QUOTE=kenetic]
Considering the overwhelming numbers of people who are white the US, even if only a fraction of them got worked up over granting civil rights to blacks you are still talking about significant numbers.
[/QUOTE]
But, you see, the flaw (well, one of them) is that there WERE a lot of ‘white’ people who got worked up over first slavery and later civil rights. You are delusional if you think that atheists make up similar numbers to ‘white’ people who were repulsed by slavery and later by the lack of civil rights in the US.
The irony is that a lot of ‘white’ people who opposed slavery did so due to religious convictions…as did a lot of folks who fought for civil rights.
Horseshit. To paraphrase from Ghostbuster, you never studied in school…did you? The number of people opposed to civil rights balanced, for a time, the number of folks for it (we are talking ‘white’ folks here btw, since blacks didn’t make up large voting blocks), but eventually they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers of people (again, ‘white’ people) who were for civil rights legislature.
Contrast that to the number of atheists in the US, which IIRC is less than 10% (and that’s being generous).
Pretty much on such a stupid and marginal subject as fretting over ‘In God We Trust’ being on the currency. Attempts to compare this travesty to civil rights is, well, pretty fucking stupid, to be honest…bet you wish you hadn’t done so now.
Funny how making up numbers, doing silly comparisons and misrepresenting history can make your arguments seem sane…until someone points out the smell of bullshit in the air. Don’t you think? 
-XT
[QUOTE=kenetic]
If the very suggestion of removing it leads to completely hateful, over the top reactions like this, than maybe it’s is a bigger deal than I thought.
[/QUOTE]
Backpeddling works best when no one can scroll up and see what you wrote. I mean, yeah…it was pretty silly to try and compare civil rights (with some gratuitous ‘white’ people thrown in for flavor) to having ‘In God We Trust’ on the currency. Your best course would have been to come on out and say that, yeah, it was pretty stupid to say that, and we could all laugh it off.
Sadly, you didn’t do that and instead you want to shift the discussion to the above babble about some fictional person who is going over the top in a ‘completely hateful’ way and losing their minds over taking those words from the currency. Sorry…ain’t working. YOU were the one who decided to trot out the silly comparison, then when you were called on it you tried to shift the discussion, point some blame and muddy the waters.
Ah, trotting out the SSM card ehe? And you figure this is really going to be your trump, and save you from your earlier embarrassing comparison, right? Gods…that’s really, really funny. And sad.
Yeah, because a small percentage of atheists (who themselves make up a small percentage of the overall population, to say nothing of how many are actual voters) who are miffed about ‘In God We Trust’ on the currency is definitely equivalent to a large and growing percentage of ‘white’ (voting) public on an issue that was in real political contention in the US for literally decades. Definitely equivalent.
Plus, I beat my wife and kick the dog to, so there you go.
-XT
Like having Andrew Jackson on the $20? What’s the relevant difference between the Cherokee murdered by Jackson’s plans and the POWs murdered by Masaharu Homma? How about a Klansman in full bed sheet regellia on money?
None of those would fly on the tweenty, but a historical monster. He’s on our money. Guess Native Americans are less equal.
I get weary of the casual demonization of Andrew Jackson on these boards. In seeking removal of the Eastern nations, Jackson was pursuing a policy which had been in place long before he took office. In fact, the United States was contractually obligated to try to extinguish Cherokee claims in Georgia. (That had been Georgia’s price for ceding the lands that became Mississippi and Alabama.)
He also had good national security reasons for seeking removal, namely securing the Southern US against European adventurism. The Eastern nations had proven themselves amenable to alliances with European powers during the War of 1812.
This was not a case of Andrew Jackson sitting around, twirling some imaginary moustache and asking himself, “What evil can I do today?”
Nor is it Jackson’s fault that the removal was botched, costing lives. Though Jackson set the wheels in motion, Van Buren was in office when the removal actually occurred.
Moreover, I think John Ross has to bear some responsibility for keeping his people in a state of denial about what was coming, leaving them unprepared for the hard reality of removal. He could have chosen an orderly emigration before the roundup occurred. Instead, he chose to make his people martyrs to his pride.
/hijack
:dubious: Sadly, when it comes to the public reputation of important historical figures, crimes and war crimes are two different things. A popularly acclaimed President with a nickname like “The Hero of New Orleans” may have committed atrocities, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be perceived as the equivalent of an ordinary mass murderer.