Remove 'in god we trust'

[Richard81]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

[Clownboat]

Was Noah a righteous man like the Bible claims?

Righteous, not perfect.

Genesis 9:21 (Noah) One day he drank some wine he had made, and he became drunk and lay naked inside his tent.

right·eous [rahy-chuhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law.
2.
morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3.
acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
4.
Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful

Thanks for proving my point, it doesn't say perfect. Nobody earns their salvation.

Now you are just attempting to move the goal posts.
You said: "Any mind-altering substance is a sin, just as drunkenness."

I pointed out that Noah got drunk, but the Bible still claims that he was "acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous", or characterized by "uprightness or morality": a "righteous observance of the law" No where did I make the claim that Noah was perfect.

Is coffee use a sin, or are you inconsistent?

Why would it be, anymore than thousands of legal drugs that have an effect that isn't mind-altering?

Because it is mind altering, and because you said: "Any mind-altering substance is a sin". (I'm not talking about decaf by the way).

[East of Eden]

Was Noah a righteous man like the Bible claims?

Righteous, not perfect.

Genesis 9:21 (Noah) One day he drank some wine he had made, and he became drunk and lay naked inside his tent.

right·eous [rahy-chuhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law.
2.
morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3.
acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
4.
Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful

Thanks for proving my point, it doesn't say perfect. Nobody earns their salvation.

Now you are just attempting to move the goal posts.
You said: "Any mind-altering substance is a sin, just as drunkenness."

I pointed out that Noah got drunk, but the Bible still claims that he was "acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous", or characterized by "uprightness or morality": a "righteous observance of the law" No where did I make the claim that Noah was perfect.

You seem to be making the claim that righteous = perfect.

Because it is mind altering, and because you said: "Any mind-altering substance is a sin". (I'm not talking about decaf by the way).

This is a denfinition of mind-altering:

Adj. 1. mind-altering - producing mood changes or distorted perception; "hallucinogenic drugs are mind-altering substances"
psychoactive, psychotropic - affecting the mind or mood or other mental processes; "psychoactive drugs"

Is that what you call coffee? You're just playing word games.

[Clownboat]

You seem to be making the claim that righteous = perfect.

Incorrect, I even gave the definition for righteous. You are the one that brought "perfect" to the table.

Because it is mind altering, and because you said: "Any mind-altering substance is a sin". (I'm not talking about decaf by the way).

This is a denfinition of mind-altering:

Adj. 1. mind-altering - producing mood changes or distorted perception; "hallucinogenic drugs are mind-altering substances"
psychoactive, psychotropic - affecting the mind or mood or other mental processes; "psychoactive drugs"

Is that what you call coffee? You're just playing word games.

A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, or psychotropic is a chemical substance that crosses the blood–brain barrier and acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it affects brain function, resulting in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, and behavior.

Caffeine is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive substance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_drug

When you consume any form of caffeine, it changes how the chemicals in your brain communicate to the rest of your body, and this is called a physiological effect.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/42415 ... hysiology/

Do you stand by your claim that any mind-altering substance is a sin?

[East of Eden]

You seem to be making the claim that righteous = perfect.

Incorrect, I even gave the definition for righteous. You are the one that brought "perfect" to the table.

Because it is mind altering, and because you said: "Any mind-altering substance is a sin". (I'm not talking about decaf by the way).

This is a denfinition of mind-altering:

Adj. 1. mind-altering - producing mood changes or distorted perception; "hallucinogenic drugs are mind-altering substances"
psychoactive, psychotropic - affecting the mind or mood or other mental processes; "psychoactive drugs"

Is that what you call coffee? You're just playing word games.

A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, or psychotropic is a chemical substance that crosses the blood–brain barrier and acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it affects brain function, resulting in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, and behavior.

So if it's so mind altering, why isn't it illegal to drink coffee and drive?

Do you stand by your claim that any mind-altering substance is a sin?

The meaning was in mind-altering as in intoxicating, getting high. Again, why do you care what is a sin?

[McCulloch]

I may have pointed out before, the first amendment to the US Constitution makes no mention of church. It refers only to religion. The government is not to promote nor prohibit religion. Employing teachers to lead students in prayer is the promotion of religion.

So what, military chaplains do that, and I reject your interpretation of the 1A.

Military chaplains provide a service to those who, in service to their country, may be away from their community and religious rites. Their services are provided only to those people who request those services, are adults and are denied those services due to their duty to their country. You may reject my interpretation of the first amendment, but that is of no relevance. Thomas Jefferson, who did have a hand in writing the first amendment, himself declared that the removal of religion from the business of government created a wall of separation between church and state. He clearly stated that the USA is not a Christian nation. Your own Supreme Court, also disagrees with your interpretation of the first amendment with regard to school prayer.

Oddly enough, the Supreme court agrees with the inclusion of In God We Trust, but not for the reasons that most Christians wish to include it. The courts view this phrase as an expression of what they call ceremonial deism, that is an expression which through rote repetition has lost all significant religious content. I would think that any true follower of the Jesus represented in Matthew 5 would oppose such empty and meaningless use of religious expressions.

The Bible doesn't say the earth is flat.

Not in so many words. Some of the writers of the Bible use descriptions which only make sense with a flat earth understanding.

Where the Bible did address slavery, it was in a more humane direction.

[font=Georgia]Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.[/font]

Yes, thanks for that.

I will add that the NT does clearly condemn slave-trading.

Where? Chapter and verse.

1 Timothy 1:8-10
New International Version (NIV)
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

[row]21st Century King James Version (KJ21); American Standard Version (ASV); Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA);1599 Geneva Bible (GNV);King James Version (KJV);Young's Literal Translation (YLT) [col]menstealers [row]Common English Bible (CEB); Contemporary English Version (CEV); Darby Translation (DARBY); GOD’S WORD Translation (GW); Good News Translation (GNT); Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB); Lexham English Bible (LEB); New English Translation (NET); New King James Version (NKJV); Revised Standard Version (RSV)[col]kidnappers [row]Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) [col]those who sell slaves, [row]English Standard Version (ESV) [col]enslavers [row]Knox Bible (KNOX); The Voice (VOICE) [col]slave-dealers [row]New Century Version (NCV) [col]who sell slaves [row]New International Reader's Version (NIRV) [col]people who buy and sell slaves. [row]New International Version (NIV);New Living Translation (NLT);New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); World English Bible (WEB) [col]slave traders [row]New Life Version (NLV) [col]people who steal other people

You appear to be right on this one.
Do any of the writers of the Bible explicitly condemn the owning of slaves or is it just the trading or capturing of slaves that is condemned?

[Clownboat]

So if it's so mind altering, why isn't it illegal to drink coffee and drive?

Because being mind altering does not mean you can not drive while under its influence.
Also, being mind altering does not make something illegal.
Legally Stoned: 14 Mind-Altering Substances You Can Obtain and Use Without Breaking the Law

Do you stand by your claim that any mind-altering substance is a sin?

The meaning was in mind-altering as in intoxicating, getting high. Again, why do you care what is a sin?

I don't care what you consider a sin and I never said that I did.

Are you saying that god gave us the use of all seed bearing plants, even mind-altering ones, and he just forgot to mention that we can't use the ones that are mind'altering and also intoxicating even though we have examples of righteous people like Noah and Lot getting wasted drunk (so drunk Lot's daughters raped him two nights in a row without his knowledge)?

Let's get our morals from the Bible!

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 163:

>edit to remove information not directly related to the following challenges from this section<

...mine fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

...
Any intentional mind-altering substance is a sin, just as drunkenness.
...

I challenge you to show a god considers such to be a "sin".

1st challenge.

>snip<

2nd challenge.

[McCulloch]

Was He offended when you left Him out of your Constitution? When you did not think to add this reference to your paper money until 1957?

The Founding Fathers undoubtedly assumed that we naturally understood this principle and decided it was not important to state the obvious.

The Founding Fathers deliberately left God out of the Constitution. The knew what they were doing. A number of Christian advocates at the time and at various times in the 1800's tried by political means to rectify the oversight. They feared that the Nation that ignored God would face His wrath.

We put it on our currency in 1957 as a reminder to people and now people, it probably goes without saying but I'll say it anyway, infidels, have stepped out and in an effort to destroy our nation of faith are attempting to have it removed.

It was put on your currency as a propaganda move against Godless Communism. The Communist countries had established atheism, therefore, the American reactionaries, who could not be happy with secularism, religious neutrality and freedom, put this phrase on the money in an effort to further distinguish yourselves from the evil godless communists.

Your constitution keeps religious instruction out of the publicly funded schools.

The Constitution does not keep religion out of schools. The Supreme Court is doing that. Until the mid-late '70s Bibles were handed out in most schools to Fifth Graders and many public schools allowed Bible instruction in the school. Evil, godless communists sought to have God removed from our schools in an effort to undermine the youth of our society and sadly, its working.

Your own supreme court disagrees. There are no communists on the Supreme Court. Bible instruction in public schools violates the principle of separation of church and state. The Bibles we were given in school in the seventies (as I recall, it was just a NT and Psalms), violates the rights of people of those religions that do not accept that Bible as scripture: Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, Satanists, yes and atheists. Why should the governments favor certain religions over others? Government should be neutral towards religion.

Women in the workplace began to ask for equality and lost their sense of Godly ordained submissiveness and upended the natural order of things. Another sign of our moral decadence and decline.

I agree. The writers of the Christian Bible do teach that women should be submissive, that they should be subject to the leadership of the men. According to them, women are more easily deceived. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket ever since you allowed women to vote independently without the guiding hand of their parent or husband. Thank you for clearing that up.

What does the criminal status of a mild drug, less addictive than alcohol and less deadly than tobacco, have to do with God?

Decriminalizing drugs will give license for people to use and abuse them. The body is the temple of the Lord and should be treated with reverence and respect, meaning no drugs.

Because your religion has a problem with them, then all recreational drugs should be outlawed. The Twenty-first Amendment repealing the Prohibition of Alcohol was a great mistake.

In Canada, we allow same-sex marriage. God is not demonstrating His wrath upon us.

I'm not convinced of that. Your country has socialized medicine, cold winters, and the scourge of ice hockey, not to mention your country has gun control and high taxes. Our media is so focused on our own issues that we don't hear much about Canada but I suspect you're experiencing more calamity than you realize.

Our single payer, almost universal medical coverage is enjoyed and appreciated by our population so much that even our right-wing parties are reluctant to go on record to want to abolish it. Our cold winters are not any colder than before we accepted same-sex marriage. Our murder rate is significantly less than that of our American cousins and we feel much safer in our own neighborhoods. Gun regulation is a small price to pay for that. Our taxes are higher because we have a sense that some things should be payed for communally. An unfettered free market is not the universal answer to the social problems of a modern society. I experience very little national calamity; certainly no more than before same sex marriage was made legal.

Its as obvious as the nose on a person's face. Evil has consequences. We allow it, even sanction it and it is visited upon us. Kind of like an eye for an eye... How to explain the suffering of people who did not participate in the sinfulness is a question of theodicy but as a nation, its pretty clear.

Not to me. Please explain.

George Bush did not eloquently put anything.

It may not have received much play in your country but during the 2000 Presidential Debates, George W Bush eloquently stated that his favorite philosopher was Jesus. How can one speak more beautifully than that?

I rest my case.

No. You cannot make God happy. Potential immigrants are not swarming to get in because of a phrase on the money. Really!

Its not the phrase itself causing immigrants to swarm to the United States, its the fact that as a Godly nation trusting in God, the blessings of prosperity are obvious for the world to see and they want to partake. Take God out of the equation and the entire house of cards will collapse.

God was removed from the equation by the Founders. My country has the blessings of prosperity and freedom, yet is more godless than yours. When will our house of cards going to collapse. You are scaring yourself with God-talk.

[East of Eden]

I may have pointed out before, the first amendment to the US Constitution makes no mention of church. It refers only to religion. The government is not to promote nor prohibit religion. Employing teachers to lead students in prayer is the promotion of religion.

So what, military chaplains do that, and I reject your interpretation of the 1A.

Military chaplains provide a service to those who, in service to their country, may be away from their community and religious rites.

You could argue the same for school prayers for children away from home, just like we feed them.

Their services are provided only to those people who request those services, are adults and are denied those services due to their duty to their country. You may reject my interpretation of the first amendment, but that is of no relevance. Thomas Jefferson, who did have a hand in writing the first amendment, himself declared that the removal of religion from the business of government created a wall of separation between church and state.

Where is that line in the Constitution? Why is it the very same men who wrote the 1A the next day declared a day of prayer?

He clearly stated that the USA is not a Christian nation.

Nobody is arguing we are not a de jure Christian nation, we are quite obviously a de facto Christian nation, being more Christian than India is Hindu or Egypt is Muslim.

Your own Supreme Court, also disagrees with your interpretation of the first amendment with regard to school prayer.

And they were wrong, just as they were wrong with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. They usually do what the elites want.

Oddly enough, the Supreme court agrees with the inclusion of In God We Trust, but not for the reasons that most Christians wish to include it. The courts view this phrase as an expression of what they call ceremonial deism, that is an expression which through rote repetition has lost all significant religious content. I would think that any true follower of the Jesus represented in Matthew 5 would oppose such empty and meaningless use of religious expressions.

It isn't empty and meaningless for myself and millions of other Christians.

Not in so many words. Some of the writers of the Bible use descriptions which only make sense with a flat earth understanding.

What does the shape of the earth have to do with the Bible's main message of salvation for mankind through Jesus Christ? You're nit picking.

Do any of the writers of the Bible explicitly condemn the owning of slaves or is it just the trading or capturing of slaves that is condemned?

Not that I know of, for the NT writers to do that would have required a revolution against the Roman Empire. Changes from Christians against Roman policies came later when they were more influential, another area being the ending of gladitorial combat. The NT writings were aimed at personal conduct, not government policy. Jesus never told Caesar to do anything. The OT version of slavery was far different that the brutal US race-based version, and was often voluntary to pay off debts, with freedom after seven years. If someone wanted to do this, why do you care?

I will note that Biblical principles were behind the ending of slavery in the Roman Empire and later up to our own history. As you have acknowledged, there has never been an anti-slavery movement outside of the Christian West.

[East of Eden]

Was He offended when you left Him out of your Constitution? When you did not think to add this reference to your paper money until 1957?

The Founding Fathers undoubtedly assumed that we naturally understood this principle and decided it was not important to state the obvious.

The Founding Fathers deliberately left God out of the Constitution.

But not out of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is the 'why' document, the Constitution is the 'how' document.

It was put on your currency as a propaganda move against Godless Communism. The Communist countries had established atheism, therefore, the American reactionaries, who could not be happy with secularism, religious neutrality and freedom, put this phrase on the money in an effort to further distinguish yourselves from the evil godless communists.

That's funny, something like 90% of Americans today support that phrase, and there isn't much Godless Communism around, it having failed so badly since the 1950s. Perhaps your theory isn't actually true. The phrase can be found as early as the writing of the Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem. I will note your coinage has on it DG, short for Dei Gratia, or 'By the Grace of God'.

Your own supreme court disagrees.

Are they infallible?

There are no communists on the Supreme Court.

There are a few too many liberal activist judges who believe in making up law as we go along rather than adhering to the Constitution. We would have a nine-person dictatorship if they had their way.

Bible instruction in public schools violates the principle of separation of church and state.

No it doesn't, any more than when Congress or the Supreme Court start with a benediction.

The Bibles we were given in school in the seventies (as I recall, it was just a NT and Psalms), violates the rights of people of those religions that do not accept that Bible as scripture: Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, Satanists, yes and atheists.

You appear to be for book banning. Did they force those groups to take a Bible? What if some in those groups wanted to have a Bible?

Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. He said:

"I have always said, always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."

Apparently your idea of separation goes further than Jefferson's, a bit of a flake among the Founders when it came to religion.

Why should the governments favor certain religions over others?

Because we are a de facto Christian nation. That is no violation as long as a state church is not established.

Government should be neutral towards religion.

That's not what the Founders believed.

I agree. The writers of the Christian Bible do teach that women should be submissive, that they should be subject to the leadership of the men. According to them, women are more easily deceived. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket ever since you allowed women to vote independently without the guiding hand of their parent or husband. Thank you for clearing that up.

I do think it was better for children when their mothers raised them full time rather than dumping them in day-care, which are little more than day time orphanages. If you're not going to raise a child, don't have one.

Because your religion has a problem with them, then all recreational drugs should be outlawed.

50,000 Americans a year die from illegal drugs.

In Canada, we allow same-sex marriage. God is not demonstrating His wrath upon us.

Yet.

Our single payer, almost universal medical coverage is enjoyed and appreciated by our population so much that even our right-wing parties are reluctant to go on record to want to abolish it.

So why do some of your politicians come to the US for medical care?

Our murder rate is significantly less than that of our American cousins and we feel much safer in our own neighborhoods.

Your crime rate has gone up since 1960 just like US rates.

Gun regulation is a small price to pay for that.

There is no correlation between gun control and less crime.

God was removed from the equation by the Founders. My country has the blessings of prosperity and freedom, yet is more godless than yours.

There are clearly things about Canada our failed president should be copying:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminite ... ut-canada/