In God We Trust is imposing religion on others. What weakminded those poor souls must be to be terrified of 4 little words that are meaningless to them - or so the atheists say.
I have but it has been many years.
I subscribe to the Lockean version that we adopted in our founding.
As for your examples above, even if a moral change does not directly/physically affect one who is opposed, it still could affect them in an emotional or spiritual sense.
The question really becomes where is a line to be drawn for societal norms? Moving that line does affect those on either side even "non-participants".
You present a very good argument. Thanks for that. Nice to see a civil discourse.
"Weakminded" and "terrified"? So basically you want to call people names rather than debate the issue.
"In G-d We Trust" on our currency and coinage or "Under G-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance are a direct violation of the separation of church and state. The Supreme Courts and Congresses of the times had no business legislating the changes; the fact that the majority of the country didn't disagree with either/both of the changes is irrelevant.
No one should give a shit about this. Seriously.
It is not establishing a State religion.
everyone should care about society and its mores. Seriously.
don't really care.
It is not establishing a State religion. Try again.
You might want to read up on the circumstances surrounding both "In G-d We Trust" on currency/coinage and "Under G-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Both were heavily influenced by Christians. Atheists, and agnostics, as well as citizens who were members of non-majority religions, or not members of an organized religion had no say in the matter.
You don't see (or is it won't see) the problem because you are part of the majority religion in this country.
For this country's first 126 years of history there was no Pledge of Allegiance and when it was introduced it did not include the "Under G-d" phrase. Not that I think there should be a pledge in the first place (that's a whole different thread) but if our government is supposed to be secular, which it is, then there should not be mention of any religions' deity in the pledge.
don't really care.
i am very familiar with all the details surrounding the origin of those phrases. i agree you should not have to pledge allegiance to anything. but if you do not have allegiance to any country or organization, then that country or organization has zero responsibility to protect or assist you from anything.
So you're not interested in participating in a discussion, which is the whole point of this area of the forum.
Thanks for clearing that up. Folks now know to ignore you.
rote recitation
I'm sorry, do you not know what we're talking about when we mention the pledge? Your glib response certainly suggests that you do not.
no, just you. You're not interested either
Now I understand why dphantom does not want to discuss this with you!!
It`s quite obvious that you have no desire to really discuss this matter as a discussion per say....
It appears that you just want to make snappy one liners that are meaningless and useless in a discussion!!
look who is actually arguing semantics. Sorry, I will advocate for the things I think are right. Deal with it. It is what we call a free country. If you take your position, any law is "imposing" by someone or some group.
Gay rights movement, Civil rights movement, equal pay, voting rights...all these are "imposing" change, even when it's unwanted.
The point is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with "imposing" change as shown above...the question is whether or not said change is good for society.
Every [insert movement here] is an example of a group forcing their views into law.
These are based upon Principles and are not just Change for changes sake. They also don't "Impose" anything on anybody. Instead, they provide greater Liberty to those denied it. That would be Unimposing.
It's hard to deny the truth in this statement.
I agree with this too, as long as it's understood that what's "good for society" is largely in the eye of the beholder.
I think you'll have little trouble finding people who feel imposed upon by equal rights laws because it restricts their ability to discriminate on whatever basis they wish.
The old South (circa 1860-1980) certainly felt imposed upon when the hurdles preventing black voting were removed, and when white-only schools, restaurants, waiting rooms, and restrooms were opened to blacks.
And here's a modern day example:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
As others have suggested, it seems to me that everyone has a right to try to shape society as they see fit and for whatever reason they see it the way they do.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we'll like the results if we "let the patients run the asylum". It's in our individual interests to be sure this doesn't happen by being involved in the political process. I certainly prefer to live in a society where the value of science is appreciated and applied in decision making, and I'll do what I can to head off any substitution in favor of religious doctrine (e.g. evolution over creationism).
IMO, preventing other people from Imposing themselves onto Others is not Imposition. Those people had no Right to Impose in the first place.
IMO, preventing other people from Imposing themselves onto Others is not Imposition. Those people had no Right to Impose in the first place.
you really need to read carefully what PE said. He and I will often disagree, but he is honest in his discussion as I try to be though my patience may be somewhat less.
There seems to be an almost visceral disgust (hatred??) towards Christianity not necessarily reserved for other religions. I am not sure why that is. In today's world Christians are doing good works the world over and in many places being severely persecuted for their beliefs - even killed.
Are there "bad" Christians; of course there are. They do not represent the rest of us, the vast majority who try to live by God's Word every day.
I know you reject this but God does love you. And because He does, I do too. I want the best for you and help you seek a path that fulfills your life as I found in God. Perhaps that path will be different for you.
Peace brother.
no, just you. You're not interested either
Now I understand why dphantom does not want to discuss this with you!!
It`s quite obvious that you have no desire to really discuss this matter as a discussion per say....
It appears that you just want to make snappy one liners that are meaningless and useless in a discussion!!