"In odd we trust" pls.

kirbs is right on this one. the U.S. is NOT a christian nation. it was specifically set up to ensure freedom OF religion and and if need be, FROM religion. simply put, it does not matter what religion ANY of the founding fathers were, or what religion the majority of the population is. this country was not founded on any religion it was founded on freedom and liberty.

having said that i still think its nit-picky to try and get words taken off currency. unless it was a legally binding contract. like if the one dollar bill had a legal disclaimer on it that said "by using this legal tender you hereby solemnly agree under penalty of death to rip off your right testicle" THAT i would be concerned about...

A problem arises when it goes the other way. I met someone once who told me that Christians should not be allowed to hold public office because of separation of church and state.

I would also like to remind everyone that you really shouldn't arguing from a 'separation of church and state' angle, because no such language actually exists in the constitution. Instead, you should be arguing that having 'In God We Trust' on our money establishes a state religion, which the constitution does talk about. Remember that some of our first English settlers were protestants who came here to escape a state religion in England.

And I still haven't actually bothered to pick a side.

Even without the explicit word "separation," it has been echoed and assumed as early as the Declaration of Independence, where there were discussions about the religious tone, but it was eventually left in as a spite towards the Church of England. The specific ideal of freedom "from" religion has been a court issue since early settlement, and even British law discusses this to a point. It's a strong part of the French blueprints for democracy. The fact that it isn't specifically mentioned isn't a strong enough argument against the idea.

Jesus ****, people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_since_1947

Kirbs, I'm not arguing against the idea (Indeed, I'm not arguing at all), I'm just making you aware of a more effective way to argue the point you are arguing for, and warning you of the pitfalls inherit in claiming a constitutional basis to 'Separation of Church and State'. Now, you have two options : You can explain to your opponents how that separation is derived from the language in the constitution, or you can skip all that hassle and just make the point you meant to make in the first place.

Also, Emon... Wikipedia is down? What. The. ****. That's like that time Google went down. I'm pretty sure it's a sign of the apocalypse.

Whats funny is rather then most people nowadays, who piss and moan because of its religious significance, [edit]Teddy Roosevelt[/edit] wanted it removed because he believed that, by it being printed on money, it defiled God.

My how times have changed.




Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Controversy

you must have skimmed that article. otherwise you wouldnt have mistaken FDR for Teddy Roosevelt.

the latter being the more awesome of the two.

Hah! So... true...

I did skim it, sorry. Teddy not FDR. The point still holds.

It was officially added to money during the Cold War in order to help fight THE GODLESS COMMUNISTS. Now that the Cold War is over, it's no longer necessary.

If money = God then I trust in God.

Much like your belief system must be founded on Dragonball Z your grasp of American history is fundamentally flawed.

There is an alternate universe where that makes sense.

There is an alternate universe where having an indoor lawn isn't the equivalent of fail

Read more Heinlein.

amen brutha

Incidentally. I'm going to be trying that again in the spring. I have some ideas on how to tackle the mowing-makes-a-mess issue.

It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Thats probably the most whacked out thing you've ever said, even by previous set god botherer standards.

you may choose which religion to have, but YOU MAY NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE NO RELIGION wbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahamwahahahahah fools

So you'd rather have competing religions than people who don't believe in any god, and also don't go around converting people?

:carl::psylon::psyduck::suicide::downs::huh:

How is that not the same thing?

Not really.
You can do practice whatever religion you want. You can't demand no one says or prints anything religious.

The government should not endorse any religion. Its as simple as that.

Agreed. I was answering the difference between those two statements.

In that context, "freedom from religion" usually means that you're allowed to practice no religion if you wish. Axis disagrees with this.

Axis also thinks the world is 6000 years old and ignores much of the modern enlightenment period.

Edit: This thread sucks