In God We Trust on U.S. currency

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Too many people mistake freedom ofreligion with freedom from religion.... The current state of affairs in this country with regards to this issue makes me think of the 2nd Psalm.. v1-3.
 
as of 10pm EST its 24% yes 76% no.

So the 95% of the world's population that is religious should bow to the atheists of the world? I'd love to turn the tables on these wack jobs - sue them for violating my civil rights.

I'll have to go back and look again, but I thought the vote was to remove "in God we trust", meaning that the "no" votes do not want to remove it. IE, keep it. Usually when they try tricky wording like that, they're hoping that everyone will vote "YES", thinking its the same debate about whether to keep the wording.

Right now it stands at:
Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
23% (remove it)

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
77% (keep it)
 
Kinda off topic, but separation of church and state is a falsehood. What theletter by Thomas Jefferson meant was a separation of state and church.

Thats in the Federalist Papers, correct? I agree with your conclusion, Magno.

OH, but then you would be the kook who is opressing them Njaco. I mean really!!!! Haven't you learned better by now?

Can't we all just get along? :(
 
Kinda off topic, but separation of church and state is a falsehood. What theletter by Thomas Jefferson meant was a separation of state and church.

The letter from wiki...

It means that the state cannot tell the church what to do, not the other way around. Like many things, it has been blown out of all proportion.

Not quite Magno, the "Establishment clause" as it's known means very simply: The US government will not require citizens to belong to any particular religion, nor will it prevent them from belonging to or worshiping any particular religion.


Thats in the Federalist Papers, correct? I agree with your conclusion, Magno.

The mis-interpretation of the "establishment clause" by activist courts to ban prayer in schools, ban Christmas dispays on public lands etc has now gone from silly to ridiculous . :rolleyes:
 
Why should you get "In God we trust" off the money?...let me guess...the minorities felt offended...
Yep. Heaven forbid if a small minority gets offended. If they take it off they will make the majority offended. No one cares about the majority.
 
Not quite Magno, the "Establishment clause" as it's known means very simply: The US government will not require citizens to belong to any particular religion, nor will it prevent them from belonging to or worshiping any particular religion.

The mis-interpretation of the "establishment clause" by activist courts to ban prayer in schools, ban Christmas dispays on public lands etc has now gone from silly to ridiculous . :rolleyes:

Absolutely correct freebird! And many times these issues never even get to court. The ACLU threatens court action against a municipality, the locals then decide the money and time to fight the suit is not worth it, and they cave to the ACLU extortionists.

TO
 
It is all part of the insanity of the new state sponsored religion of the world....political correctness.

Nowadays if you are a white gun owning god fearing Christian you are a bad guy. If you are a homosexual, feminist, illegal alien, or a violent criminal who had a bad break , you are a good guy. Western civilization is teetering on the edge.
 
Absolutely correct freebird! And many times these issues never even get to court. The ACLU threatens court action against a municipality, the locals then decide the money and time to fight the suit is not worth it, and they cave to the ACLU extortionists.

TO

Yes and even worse TO, every case wrongly decided becomes precedent.


Every time I heard Hannity shill for Guiliani "Vote for Guiliani and he'll appoint another Scalia", I just rolled my eyes...

OK everyone, the President DOES NOT APPOINT JUDGES - he nominates them. If another "Scalia" is nominated, he will probably end up just like Robert Bork - thumbs down in the Senate.

Sorry to rain on your parade folks, but a President McCain would be lucky to get another "O'Conner" or "Kennedy" past a majority liberal senate. You are likely to have many more of these flakey verdicts on Religion, Guns civil liberties cases
 
Yes and even worse TO, every case wrongly decided becomes precedent.


Every time I heard Hannity shill for Guiliani "Vote for Guiliani and he'll appoint another Scalia", I just rolled my eyes...

OK everyone, the President DOES NOT APPOINT JUDGES - he nominates them. If another "Scalia" is nominated, he will probably end up just like Robert Bork - thumbs down in the Senate.

Sorry to rain on your parade folks, but a President McCain would be lucky to get another "O'Conner" or "Kennedy" past a majority liberal senate. You are likely to have many more of these flakey verdicts on Religion, Guns civil liberties cases

That is assuming that the democrats maintain their slim majority in Congress.
 
That is assuming that the democrats maintain their slim majority in Congress.


It's only the Senate that counts of course {for Judges}

It would be some miracle if the Repub's gain control, considering the # of incumbent GOP Senators retiring, and the political wind seems to be blowing that way. Supposedly the "Generic ballot" has Republicans down by about 15%, but for some reason Obama is barely ahead of McCain.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back