Staredit Network

There are numerous fundamentalists in the present. Islamic extremists, all the religious right groups in America, neo-nazis..

God doesn't only refer to monotheism.

Their numbers still cannot be compared to the overwhelming majority of peaceful, loving, nonviolent religious people (at least in America).


Capitalized God refers primarily to monotheism, but not god (without capital).

Joshgt2, you do realize that "under god" and "in god we trust" were both added during the fifties as anti communist tactics?
There goes the "They're old so keep them" excuse.
Quite frankly I don't really care, seeing as nobody makes me say "under god" in the pledge, I just omit it. As for the currency, in prinicple I'd say yes, get rid of it, but right now we have much bigger seperation of church and state issues than in god we trust being on our pennies.

Just a question, but are athiests any less moral than someone with a belief? It would basically all have to depend what experiences either person had... Plus morals are basically defined based upon the lives of the people in a region.

I think that the words "under god" should be taken out, simply because it does cause some conflict in certain areas of life. But it does not weigh heavily on my concience.

Heh, I don't say the pledge in school, my teacher gives me a detention and calls me a Communist for the next few days...though, I have to admit, that's not a bad thing.

Erm...to the old religion thing, I Agree on this topic because of the Trinity Religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
It states in the Holy Texts of the religions that any name of God is not to be desecrated. Having God printed on our currency is against this ruling. If there were ever a misprint on the currency, where God may be just Gd, that's totally sacreligous. Putting an incorrect spelling on any of His names on permanent texts is sinful, and is said to have been punished by death in the days gone past.

Yeah, thats right too. I think it was once said by a prophet that money is the root of all evil, yes?

To have God printed on the root of all evil would imply that God is evil! So anyone supporting that God be printed on money, by this logic, would be evil. Any devout christians should strongly agree that God be removed from money, or they would be supporting evil.

There's nothnig wrong with beign a communist. Communism is so much better than elective democracy.

I don't think it should matter because you don't have to say the pledge. It isn't a requirement. Also, you can practice your religion at school while they say that.

Don't care. I don't believe in god, but others do, and I respect what they do. Words on common bills is nothing to be worried of, its just to get more of those bills.

Yes, the founding fathers probably were christian but they're also the ones who said in the constitution "Seperation from church and state." So, I think this guy is somewhat wrong.

I don't really mind but I just think it should be taken out because it just really shouldn't be there.

no not really. If a person with a mental disability cannot spell, is cursed for life? No. If this was true, people would be dieing in the millions... If God cared so much about his name, he would have killed half the population. God doesnt interfere unless he really needs to. I do not know when is the "right" time but God does. It is actually said to NOT use God's name in vain as in Damn you God... and so on.... things like that...



The root of all evil is the LOVE of money.. not money itself... If it was OMGN a 1000 pound dollar is after me... if money was evil, then why would people be using it? There wasnt a problem with this until someone raised it up. I think it should stay. In the place of "In God we trust" what would we put? "In Democracy we trust?" or "In logic we trust"? both are things created by humans. "In Brains we trust"... leave it as it has been for a while.
No prophet said that money is the root of evil...

Im strongly against it. Alot of people dont even believe god exsists.

"What would be of yellow if anyone liked blue?" May I remind that everything as a place of it's own and if you don't like that place, it's rather simple... avoid goin' there.



Just liked to point out that am an Agnostic. Therefore by your judgement I must be ruthless and evil, since I don't abbide for any of the religion's (rules) presented so far. *Tiny taint of sarcasm*
Don't just assume that "religion = morals", 'cause in fact it ain't. (Especially when you budge extemists into that same religion bandwagon.)
I can have a (strict) code of morals and still believe in what I believe. It hasn't forcefully nothing to do with religion.
*Basan thinks where's Nozumu and previous post (of his) about similar - nr. 30 there*



Not a problem about it's existance, although enforcing others upon it (more known as somewhat mild form of extremism), yes it does brings up some questions about the strict, true dissociation between State and religion.
I'd like to everyone else around here to also consider religion a method for teaching'em, not the method. (Society afterall has a point or two in this field as well.)
The "equality for all" speech comes to mind in such occasions... and it seems to flunk in this case.



Provided you don't press it onto others. Egs (enough good sense) 'standard', is my answer for that.

On a similar note: I do recall a similar case in France where muslim girls where forbidden to use shadors (aka face veils), due to some religious pressing inference over the non-muslim ones. And that it lifted a problem to teachers about correct ID'ing students (and also for school security to prevent strangers from getting in the premises).

---------------
But now for my vote, I don't give a crap about it in particular (since ain't an U.S. citizen/resident).
Although to be truthfull and honest, imo, I think that it should be dissociated in a short future time span.

Hey since the author of this thread was happy enough to steal my topic *cough cough*, here is a link to that thread. I don't think that religion should be involved with the secular government in any way, because there is a place for that and that place is not our government. By trial and error the risk being taken by allowing religion to gain a foothold in the government is far too large to take. There are good people everywhere, but on the whole I see too much bias in religion.

Take Pat Robertson's remarks about the Venezualan president, or his remarks concerning Dover, PA. True, he hardly speaks for the majority, but what if someone like Mr. Robertson were to get into politics (like an office instead of bickering about it on The 700 Club)? This is kind of like smoking - the easiest way to quit is to never have smoked at all. So if we don't start, we don't have to worry about it. However, if we do, then somewhere along the lines something bad might and probably will happen. I'd rather prevent a mistake instead of fixing it. Doesn't that sound familiar? Voting against Bush, disagreeing with the Iraqi Conflict from the get-go... heck being excited about Hydrogen fuel technology before Bush decided that we had to go with alternatives so we weren't dependent on foreign oil (where I believe I am in support of Hydrogen tech for the right and unselfish/nonparanoid reasons). Regardless of my personal beliefs, religion has a place in each of you, not in office.

What relevance does an emotionally charged statement have to this poll?

"A lot of people dont even believe god exists"

That's significant to the topic.

How so? Do you not see the way in which it's written? T-Masta's statement is put in that "God™ is the one true authority" brand of phrasing, which is so endemic to people who have had their minds made up for them. The two independent clauses "I'm strongly against it" and "A lot of people don't even believe God exists" have no relation in the context of this topic.

Roll again.

The federal government has no right to make any law regarding religion. Its the first amendment.It simply says "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion . . .

Its the state government that has the power to choose whether or not a religion be forced on the people. Not that they actually have that power any more.

Besides, I am not offended when i hear the word Allah, and I'm Catholic. You shouldn't be offended by the word God, no matter what religion you are in.

I'm not offended by it. But, dumbducky, religious meaning on bills is unconstitutional.



Seperation of church and state first, biotch.



Seperation of church and state first, biotch. AND you said it yourself...



WTF?

So lets take this: The government has the power of choosing whether they can force religion on us, but they cant make laws regarding religion, so they CANT FORCE RELIGION ON US. Wow, you contradicted youself, y'idiot.

DON'T USE MONEY? Are you a farking IDIOT?

People NEED money. There are UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORDS on the money. It's not the actual words people are riled up about, it's the thought that our government wants to impose religion on us.