It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: California Atheist Sues Over "In God We Trust"

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
When was the last time anyone took a 2nd look at the money they hand over the counter?
Who cares whats on currency as long as I have lots of it in my hand !
God is as real as Little Red Riding Hood but kids still read that story. So if they put Little Red Riding Hood on a $50 bill you dont have to care as long as the bill is legal tender.




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
No one forced this guy to believe in god. Some people just have nothing better to do with their time. There are much better things to do with your time.

I mean does the money burn his hands or something when he holds it?


Troy



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
"In God We Trust" Does not Endorse religion, it endorses the concept of a higher power that we trust in.

To some technology is god and to others money is their god.
To some it's a deity, to Jedi it's "The Force", still to others it's themselves.
(Jedi 'religion' grows in Australia)

"In God We Trust" in no way endorses a particular belief or way of life and as such is not in conflict with the constitution at all in any way shape or form.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Hi Mr Jones

Wouldn't the term "GOD" however in most Americans' mind denote some sort of a "male" entity? Perhaps it should read GOD/GODDESS/ALL THERE IS or something along those lines...to avoid the maleness associated with a "god" (male) as opposed to a "goddess" (female).

Of course the difference between a "god" and a "goddess" is not always clear and is often blurred in the iconography: Dionysius the god of wine, for example, is often shown with breasts and "girly hair" and dressed in womens' garb and the Egyptian "goddess" Isis is often shown with an erect phallus, (i.e. androgynous/ithyphallic) i.e. having the aspects of both male and female...

It all sort of depends what the average American means by GOD, I suppose--many seem him as some kind of "white guy with a long beard" (a kind of ancient of days sitting on some kind of throne, or their impression of "him" is guided by Michelangelo Buonarroti's depiction on the Sistine chapel's ceiling...)

But most of the Americans I have spoken with seem to equate GOD (for some reason) with the "clan god of the Jews" in the Bible (i.e. the same god of Israel that "Jesus" worshipped). For whatever reason.

But as the 1st Ammendment states "Congress shall make No Law respecting the Establishment of Religion or the Free Exercise thereof..." so the "god of the Jews" cannot be specifically mentioned on American coins or paper specie.

From what you are saying, however, is that GOD is open to personal interpretation of some sort: and that the "clan god of the Jews" (YHWH) is not NECESSARILY meant by the words IN GOD WE TRUST (so therefore, I take it, that this argument would ipso facto have NOTHING to do with the OTHER lawsuits having to do with the posting of the socalled 10 Commandments on US Govt Bldgs--since the 10 Devrim ("Words") are a Yahwistic priestly-religious collection of apodeictic commands).

In other words, IN GOD WE TRUST may refer to Dagon or Amun-Ra, or Bacchus or Ba'al or Brahman or Baphomet (Abu Fiahmet) or Jabulon or even Satan, I suppose, to follow your logic...

In terms of the gender of the god in question I assume by your post you mean the word GOD is to be considered sexually neuter in the minds of the Americans. And therefore not related in any way shape or form to the "god" of the Jews in the Bible with all that master race/chosen people Weltanschauung built into it?

Certainly YHWH the god of the Jews in the "bible" is referred to in the masculine in the Hebrew texts: since after all, after the Babylonian exile of Judaen priests (post 520 BC) the goddess Asherah, the female consort goddess to YHWH, was excised from the canon...and relegated to daemon status. So much for the role of women in post Exilic Judaism.

The other common divine name in the Hebrew Bible ("ELOHIM" a plural masculine of the feminine ELOAH found in the book of Job) seems to be Bi-sexual/Androgynous with both male and female parts, though governing a singlular male verb (Heb. bara) :

"MALE and FEMALE created he them in his own Image and he called THEIR name Adam": Gen 5:1-2) : Rabbi Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jeezuzz") tended to refer to the clan god of the Jews as "Abba" (lit. Daddy).

But are you allowing perhaps that the Americans can regard the term GOD as bi-sexual/androgynous, having both sexual parts if they want to relate GOD to "the god of the Jews in the Bible" in some way, but not necessarily?

I'm a little unsure of what you meant exactly...



[edit on 15-11-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
marg - whats so disgusting about money???


Well to me I have not problem with it just no enough of it


But even in the bible greed and money or wealth was seen as something that gone unchecked could bring evil, occurs that was not what went on when the church became rich and powerful it was plenty of evil link to it.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones
"In God We Trust" Does not Endorse religion, it endorses the concept of a higher power that we trust in.

"The concept of a higher power that we trust in" is, itself, the very definition of religion, so endorsing that "concept of a higher power" is indeed endorsing religion.


"In God We Trust" in no way endorses a particular belief or way of life and as such is not in conflict with the constitution at all in any way shape or form.

As I just demonstrated, it does endorse religion, and it specifically endorses any religion wherein the object of worship is named "God." That pretty much limits it to Judaeo-Christianity, and even exempts some branches of that. It is very clearly an endorsement not only of religion, but of one particular form of religion.

It really is that simple.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
You have throw a dash of originalist thinking into this.

Obviously the authors of the First Amendment were writing in opposition to the establishment of state church like the Church of England. Putting "In God We Trust" on our money and other generic references to God do not rise to the level of establishment in this sense.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Perhaps we should change the Declaration of Independance as well while we are at it to make this guy happy.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Isnt that endorsing religons with Creator gods? There is no creator god in Buddhism. Think of the poor Buddhist and Atheist people



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
There is just no way. One atheist is angry because atheism doesnt get any holidays(i.e. days off work). Sorry I'm being silly. In all seriousness, one man can't do away with something that has been practiced in the US since its inception. If he doesnt like it, he leave or learn to live with it, cause I mean come on, were not forcing him to celebrate it anyway. It is definately a very selfish thing to do. He is only looking at it from the perspective that it is an inconvenience for him and his non belief in the purpose of the holiday.

Oh and P.S.- wouldnt it be imposing on freedom of religion if we did take away the holiday, seeing as most of the country celebrates it in some way or another. (sorry if someone already brought this up)

[edit on 11/15/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Those whose version of the Constitution won the day, specifically rejected various attempts to have some sort of reference to God included in the document. I doubt they would have wanted it on our money, or in our pledges either (imho, of course)

And I recognize that these men had various beliefs in "God".



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
What's the difference between this man and some religious peachers? How many lawsuits are filed in a god's name? I see no difference between th athiests and the group of gods. You believe in a god and will fight for what you believe in at all costs. He does not believe in your god and will fight for what he believes in at all costs. Where is the difference?


The difference is that you believe that you're right!

[edit on 15-11-2005 by I See You]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
You have throw a dash of originalist thinking into this.

Obviously the authors of the First Amendment were writing in opposition to the establishment of state church like the Church of England. Putting "In God We Trust" on our money and other generic references to God do not rise to the level of establishment in this sense.


That's what's most commonly known as "incrementalism," or maybe more accurately, "if we do it a little at a time, you won't notice it until it's too late to stop it."

THAT is the specific reason why the Bill of Rights didn't set a standard to which establishment had to rise in order to be prohibited.

The simple and unavoidable (logically at least-- if one views it through their own biased desire to maintain a reference to their religion, then it's easy for them to avoid it) truth is that any government-sanctioned reference to "God" is axiomatically not only a government sanction of religion, but of Judaeo/Christianity in particular.

You might applaud such a sanction, and I'm not even particularly offended by it, but that's not the point. It clearly is a specific reference to a specific deity that represents a specific religious tradition.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
One of the first acts of the U.S. government was to declare a national day of prayer and thanksgiving to God. This act was carried out by many of the same people who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights.

Obviously they didn't mean for this type of oblique references to God to be banned.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hollyjo
I'm not marg, but..
perhaps not money itself is disgusting, just the love of money.
..which, in my opinion, seems to be encouraged and celebrated..


Nothing wrong with that. The world needs money-grubbers, too.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
One of the first acts of the U.S. government was to declare a national day of prayer and thanksgiving to God. This act was carried out by many of the same people who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights.

Obviously they didn't mean for this type of oblique references to God to be banned.


I submit that if the reference was to any other than your God, you wouldn't so casually accept it.

I've yet to see any defender of such official sanction view the concept objectively-- it's always, in the end, colored by the fact that the god that's being sanctioned is their god, and that, and not the underlying logic of the arguments on either side, is what ultimately decides their opinion. That bias is specifically why state sanction of any religion is dangerous.

The fact that you (and those who believe as you do) think that it's harmless is exactly why it should not be allowed. The potential harm is obvious to all who do not believe as you do. No tyranny (and a theocracy is certainly a tyranny) ever comes to be without a sizeable number of citizens who think that the actions of the government are perfectly reasonable.

I'm sure that many, if not most, of the citizens of Saudi Arabia (as only one example) think that their nation's religious references are perfectly harmless as well. Would you argue that their belief that it's harmless makes it so, or that their belief is nothing more than the reason that they fail to see the harm?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
You know, I've just about had it with political correctness and specious arguments over the separation of church and state. This country was founded by diverse sets of christians, all of whom believed in GOD. Their concern was that the state might endorse one particular religion over others; therefore, the separation of church & state. They never intended, nor wanted, GOD to be expunged from government. If people want to change the word GOD to something like "Our Almighty Father," to accomodate religions who use a different word to refer to the same thing, then so be it. Atheists can kiss my ________!

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
You know, I've just about had it with political correctness and specious arguments over the separation of church and state. This country was founded by diverse sets of christians, all of whom believed in GOD. Their concern was that the state might endorse one particular religion over others; therefore, the separation of church & state.


Are you actually suggesting that their only concern was that one form of Christianity might take precedence over another, but that Christianity taking precedence over all other forms of belief would be okay? Seriously?

Again, I submit that if the reference was to any other than your God, you wouldn't be so supportive of it. You aren't defending a reference to a god, but to your God. You can't see past your own bias.


Atheists can kiss my ________!


Thank you for demonstrating my point.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Are you actually suggesting that their only concern was that one form of Christianity might take precedence over another, but that Christianity taking precedence over all other forms of belief would be okay? Seriously?


I'm not suggesting anything, I was making a statement of fact.


Again, I submit that if the reference was to any other than your God, you wouldn't be so supportive of it. You aren't defending a reference to a god, but to your God. You can't see past your own bias.


Apparently you didn't read my post, or else you misunderstand. The portion about using the phrase "Our Almighty Father," instead of the word "GOD" was exactly what you claim it wasn't.

Atheists can kiss my ________!

I meant every single word of that last statement. This country was founded upon a belief in GOD and whether or not someone does, or does not share that belief is their concern; however, it has absolutely no relevance to historical fact and should not even be considered as the basis for future actions designed primarily to abolish one of the bedrock founding principles of this country. Most of the people in America believe in a Supreme Being under one name or another, if you don't, that is your right, but do not expect us to accomodate your belief--or lack therof by striking all reference to ours. You did not found this country, Christians did--get over it.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Its a waste of time, but not too bad when you consider the insane amounts of religous nuts trying to ban this, ban that, force teaching ID in schools, ect.

Its no different really, just from another point of view.

I dont really care what my cash says, so long as it pays the bills. The feds may trust their gods, but I dont trust them. Money gets spent anyway.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
And isn't the absence of religion a religion of itself? Should the govt. be permitted to indireclty endorse athiesm by eliminating all mention of God altogether?


No, the absence of religion isn't a religion in and of itself, it's the absence of religion. Atheism can never be considered your religion, just your lack of religious beleif. Atheists don't have a church they go to in order to congregate with the other Atheists, they don't have a religious dogma that they as a group accept. They don't share a general consensus on moral issues such as gays getting married. Of course a larger percentage of Atheists would support gay marriage than Christians, but this is because of Christianity being against it, not Atheism being for it. There are still plenty of homophobes amongst Atheists even though Atheism doesn't call for homophobia. The same applies for any moral issue.

If anything our government should be Atheist. Our government, though not necessarily the people who make up our government, should be considered as free of any religious beleif. This is not to say that we should be actively promoting Atheism just that the government should be without religion, or in a word Atheist. You know, seperation of church and state?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join