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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I'm not following you. In constitutional monarchies (like Canada) we elect our leaders democratically. The monarch is an essentially powerless figurehead who does ceremonial stuff, not a political leader. What's the difference? We could abolish the monarchy tomorrow in Canada and it would change nothing of real consequence.

The same could be said if we changed most of our politicians.

Right, but changing politicians is what happens all the time in democracy. I'm saying we could get rid of the constitutional monarchy tomorrow and our system of government would be unaffected. So I'm not sure what you see as the advantage of constitutional monarchy when it has approximately zero impact on how our democratically elected government functions.

I would also bet that Justin Beiber has a higher approval rating than Stephen Harper, but I'm not sure what the point of such comparisons would be. The Queen is a celebrity, not a political leader.

I didn't say she was. I believe legally, she could intervene if for instance, a dictator tried to take power through a coup, she could dismiss him. That would be done through your Governor-General.

Are you serious? Explain to me this scenario you're imagining where a dictator takes control of Canada and then stops because the Queen asks them to.

The Queen does technically have some power. However, if she ever actually used these powers to interfere in Canadian affairs I can assure you that there would be protests in the streets and the monarchy would quickly be abolished.

Apparently lots of your countrymen disagree with you:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/ne ... bf538fb5c6

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/11/ ... archy.html

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I found both of these articles pretty agreeable:

If Canada's monarchical head of state were causing serious problems and there was much to be gained by scrapping it, one might argue that Canadians should have the guts to risk a stormy season of constitutional politics.

...exactly what I've been saying. People are only content with the Queen having "power" so long as she never uses it.

I would disagree with this:

But the head of state has one important power: to protect the integrity of the parliamentary system. This is true of all parliamentary systems whether they are republican or monarchical. There has to be a person who is not a player in partisan parliamentary politics to ensure that the principles of parliamentary government are observed.

Among other things, this means that the head of state in a parliamentary system must ensure that following an election the government that takes office has the confidence of a majority in parliament; must decide whether an election needs to be called because no political leader can secure majority support in parliament; and, yes, must decide if and when a prime minister's request to prorogue parliament should be accepted.

While this might be the case in theory, the Queen doesn't actually "do" anything that I'm aware of to ensure that the principles of parliamentary government are observed. That is the role of the people, the media, nonpartisan election agencies, etc.

[East of Eden]

I'm not following you. In constitutional monarchies (like Canada) we elect our leaders democratically. The monarch is an essentially powerless figurehead who does ceremonial stuff, not a political leader. What's the difference? We could abolish the monarchy tomorrow in Canada and it would change nothing of real consequence.

The same could be said if we changed most of our politicians.

Right, but changing politicians is what happens all the time in democracy. I'm saying we could get rid of the constitutional monarchy tomorrow and our system of government would be unaffected. So I'm not sure what you see as the advantage of constitutional monarchy when it has approximately zero impact on how our democratically elected government functions.

I would also bet that Justin Beiber has a higher approval rating than Stephen Harper, but I'm not sure what the point of such comparisons would be. The Queen is a celebrity, not a political leader.

I didn't say she was. I believe legally, she could intervene if for instance, a dictator tried to take power through a coup, she could dismiss him. That would be done through your Governor-General.

Are you serious? Explain to me this scenario you're imagining where a dictator takes control of Canada and then stops because the Queen asks them to.

The Queen does technically have some power. However, if she ever actually used these powers to interfere in Canadian affairs I can assure you that there would be protests in the streets and the monarchy would quickly be abolished.

Apparently lots of your countrymen disagree with you:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/ne ... bf538fb5c6

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/11/ ... archy.html

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I found both of these articles pretty agreeable:

If Canada's monarchical head of state were causing serious problems and there was much to be gained by scrapping it, one might argue that Canadians should have the guts to risk a stormy season of constitutional politics.

...exactly what I've been saying. People are only content with the Queen having "power" so long as she never uses it.

But her power isn't causing serious problems, it would only be used to address a serious problem.

I would disagree with this:

"But the head of state has one important power: to protect the integrity of the parliamentary system. This is true of all parliamentary systems whether they are republican or monarchical. There has to be a person who is not a player in partisan parliamentary politics to ensure that the principles of parliamentary government are observed.

Among other things, this means that the head of state in a parliamentary system must ensure that following an election the government that takes office has the confidence of a majority in parliament; must decide whether an election needs to be called because no political leader can secure majority support in parliament; and, yes, must decide if and when a prime minister's request to prorogue parliament should be accepted. "
While this might be the case in theory, the Queen doesn't actually "do" anything that I'm aware of to ensure that the principles of parliamentary government are observed. That is the role of the people, the media, nonpartisan election agencies, etc.

She has the legal power to do something if needed. Think Juan Carlos in Spain when he stood down the 1981 coup attempt.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Apparently lots of your countrymen disagree with you:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/ne ... bf538fb5c6

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/11/ ... archy.html

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I found both of these articles pretty agreeable:

If Canada's monarchical head of state were causing serious problems and there was much to be gained by scrapping it, one might argue that Canadians should have the guts to risk a stormy season of constitutional politics.

...exactly what I've been saying. People are only content with the Queen having "power" so long as she never uses it.

But her power isn't causing serious problems, it would only be used to address a serious problem.

Yes, exactly. We tolerate her "power" only because she never uses it. The fact that she has even theoretical power is troubling enough. Fortunately the possible scenarios where she would have reason to use that power are rather hilariously remote.

She has the legal power to do something if needed. Think Juan Carlos in Spain when he stood down the 1981 coup attempt.

You're talking about this?

An attempted military coup, known as 23-F, occurred on 23 February 1981, when the Cortes were seized by members of the Guardia Civil in the parliamentary chamber. During the coup, the king gave a public television broadcast calling for unambiguous support for the legitimate democratic government. The broadcast is believed to be a major factor in foiling the coup. Certainly, in the hours before his speech, he personally called many senior military figures to tell them that he was opposed to the coup and that they must defend the democratic government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain

I am struggling to imagine a comparable scenario being possible in Canada. You're suggesting that constitutional monarchy is useful because if there was a military coup in Canada the Queen could come on TV, tell everyone democracy is awesome and save the day? If that is the purpose of constitutional monarchy I think we could get by without it. Just make Wayne Gretzky head of state, people would actually listen to him. Actually, putting the best hockey player of every generation on our money makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than having the Queen on there...

[East of Eden]

Apparently lots of your countrymen disagree with you:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/ne ... bf538fb5c6

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/11/ ... archy.html

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I found both of these articles pretty agreeable:

If Canada's monarchical head of state were causing serious problems and there was much to be gained by scrapping it, one might argue that Canadians should have the guts to risk a stormy season of constitutional politics.

...exactly what I've been saying. People are only content with the Queen having "power" so long as she never uses it.

But her power isn't causing serious problems, it would only be used to address a serious problem.

Yes, exactly. We tolerate her "power" only because she never uses it. The fact that she has even theoretical power is troubling enough. Fortunately the possible scenarios where she would have reason to use that power are rather hilariously remote.

She has the legal power to do something if needed. Think Juan Carlos in Spain when he stood down the 1981 coup attempt.

You're talking about this?

An attempted military coup, known as 23-F, occurred on 23 February 1981, when the Cortes were seized by members of the Guardia Civil in the parliamentary chamber. During the coup, the king gave a public television broadcast calling for unambiguous support for the legitimate democratic government. The broadcast is believed to be a major factor in foiling the coup. Certainly, in the hours before his speech, he personally called many senior military figures to tell them that he was opposed to the coup and that they must defend the democratic government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain

I am struggling to imagine a comparable scenario being possible in Canada. You're suggesting that constitutional monarchy is useful because if there was a military coup in Canada the Queen could come on TV, tell everyone democracy is awesome and save the day? If that is the purpose of constitutional monarchy I think we could get by without it. Just make Wayne Gretzky head of state, people would actually listen to him. Actually, putting the best hockey player of every generation on our money makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than having the Queen on there...

The main reason is a continuation of your country's cultural roots, and to have an example of service who is above politics. I'm sure non-sports fans don't care about who Wayne Getzky was.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The main reason is a continuation of your country's cultural roots, and to have an example of service who is above politics. I'm sure non-sports fans don't care about who Wayne Getzky was.

This is Canada we're talking about. Hockey is a way bigger part of our culture than monarchy ever was, and Gretzky is way more popular than the Queen. If constitutional monarchy is meant to preserve our cultural roots, all the more reason to replace it with something more relevant to our culture! That said I do like the historical aspect of it, I think the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a cool name and all that. It's just functionally pointless.

[East of Eden]

The main reason is a continuation of your country's cultural roots, and to have an example of service who is above politics. I'm sure non-sports fans don't care about who Wayne Getzky was.

This is Canada we're talking about. Hockey is a way bigger part of our culture than monarchy ever was, and Gretzky is way more popular than the Queen. If constitutional monarchy is meant to preserve our cultural roots, all the more reason to replace it with something more relevant to our culture! That said I do like the historical aspect of it, I think the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a cool name and all that. It's just functionally pointless.

OK, that's reasonable, I'm pretty partial to the Chicago Blackhawks myself. Canada has always seemed keen to differentiate herself form the US, it seems the current systems does that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 163:

...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.

3rd challenge.

[McCulloch]

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

Except the Declaration has no force of law.

I will note your coinage has on it DG, short for Dei Gratia, or 'By the Grace of God'.

My nation is not constitutionally secular. Our Head of State, is also titular Defender of the Faith. I wait for the formality to catch up with the reality.

Your own supreme court disagrees.

Are they infallible?

No, but they are authoritative.

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?

No, I am not for book banning. You misunderstand. I do not believe that the authority of the public school system should be co-opted by religions as a means to distribute religious instruction to children. When teacher hands out a Bible to all the students, there is significant peer pressure to accept. If anyone wants a Bible, a Qu'ran, or any other religious book, they can contact a church, temple or mosque. I know of very few who would turn away someone who is seeking empty handed.

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."

Would this be the same Jefferson who produced the Jefferson Bible? From Wiki: The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.

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

Yes, we have progressed some in over two hundred years.

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.

No you are not. You are currently a nation with a majority of nominal Christians, but there have been Jews, Deists, Unitarians and Agnostics in America since the Revolution. They are not there at the suffrage of the Christians, they are fully and completely citizens. Why should any government favor certain religions over others?

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.

I agree. If you are not going to raise a child properly, don't have one. But I think that applies evenly to all parents, not just to mothers.

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

50,000 Americans a year die from illegal drugs.

How many die from marijuana, an illegal drug classified as Schedule I? How many die from alcohol, a legal drug?

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.

Yet you still have significantly and consistently higher murder rates than we do. And ours would be lower still, if our border were not quite so porous to gun trafficking.

[Nickman]

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.

We shouldn't have "in God we trust" on our money. The reason is not atheistic in nature. It has to do with the definition behind this message. First, the government shall not give respect to one over the other religion. The government shall not endorse a belief in the supernatural, especially any specific deity. The government's main goal is to protect the rights of those they govern. The government shouldn't be impartial to any one group. When a new group is introduced as citizens, the government is supposed to ensure they are also taken care of. When the government sides with a specific group then we are in our rights to overthrow it even if that means by violence. The government works for us, not the other way around. They know we can overtake them.

[East of Eden]

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.

We shouldn't have "in God we trust" on our money. The reason is not atheistic in nature. It has to do with the definition behind this message. First, the government shall not give respect to one over the other religion.

What religion is being favored by saying 'God'?

The government shall not endorse a belief in the supernatural, especially any specific deity.

How is mentioning God endorsing Him, as the Declaration did?

The government's main goal is to protect the rights of those they govern.

And those rights, according to the Founders, come from God.

The government shouldn't be impartial to any one group. When a new group is introduced as citizens, the government is supposed to ensure they are also taken care of.

The citizenship oath mentions God.

When the government sides with a specific group then we are in our rights to overthrow it even if that means by violence.

It shouldn't side with minority atheists on this.

The government works for us, not the other way around.

Exactly, which is why theists need to stand up on this issue.