Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

You've lost me, nk4e.

The question was where the specific word "god", or any concept of a deity, occurs completely separate from a religious setting. As far as I can tell only religions have deities, so any reference to "god" is an instant assumption of religion - validating Duke's point.

OK, which God is it and which religion is it ?

 

[arora]

I've been meaning to come back to this and make some direct response but I've not thought it out well enough yet for mindwise and duke. I do have something to say real quick though.............

Religion has nothing to to with god, has nothing to do with money, has only to do with what you choose to make your religion be, we all have a religion, atheists included of course. I don't put one above another, I'm pointing out that something as simple as routine could be considered 'religion' ie......... he is religious about his morning coffee 👍

 

[Famine]

OK, which God is it and which religion is it ?

Could be any and any - it's your contention that god != religion and I disagree. Which god and which religion is unimportant. The concept of a deity automatically implies a religion - which deity isn't linked to a religion? So the concept of "god", "God" or "GOD" is tied inextricably with that of religion (though the reverse isn't necessarily true).


The First Amendment isn't specific with regards to which religion either. Just that Congress shall not make a law with respect to the "establishment of religion"...

 

[zujo 19]

I belive in God.
I am Christian and Catholic.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Could be any and any - it's your contention that god != religion and I disagree. Which god and which religion is unimportant. The concept of a deity automatically implies a religion - which deity isn't linked to a religion? So the concept of "god", "God" or "GOD" is tied inextricably with that of religion (though the reverse isn't necessarily true).


The First Amendment isn't specific with regards to which religion either. Just that Congress shall not make a law with respect to the "establishment of religion"...

GOD doesn't ="an establishment of religion"
It may imply, but it doesn't establish.
As discussed in the prior posts not one of Dukes examples are in violation with the first amendment since there is no respect for "an establishment of religion".

A "Deity" cannot be a religion. A religion is the system by which the deity is worshiped, believed upon, etc., etc. They are two seperate entities.

 

[Famine]

GOD doesn't ="an establishment of religion"
It may imply, but it doesn't establish.

You misunderstand. "The establishment of religion" isn't the creation of one. It's the entire ethos of one. The Catholic Church is an establishment. Sunni Islam is an establishment.


The Amendment says that Congress shall not pass a law "with respect to THE establishment of religion". This means no laws shall be passed which give any special favours, recognition or deference to ANY religion.

As discussed in the prior posts not one of Dukes examples are in violation with the first amendment since there is no respect for "an establishment of religion".

This misunderstanding is the source of your issue. It's not that the law is establishing a religion - it has been created with respect to a religious establishment (in this case any monotheistic one).

A "Deity" cannot be a religion. A religion is the system by which the deity is worshiped, believed upon, etc., etc. They are two seperate entities.

Deity means religion. There is no deity that is not part of a religion. As soon as you refer to a deity, you immediately reference the religion of which that deity is part. As soon as a law refers to a deity, it's breaking the First Amendment.

 

[mindwise]

Religion has nothing to do with god

If you wrote that the other way around, like:
"god has nothing to do with religion", i would have agreed ;p
Just messing with you

I can see how we can all "be religious" about things, using 'being religious about' as the expression... Heck, if you'd claim i'm an "evangelical atheist", i'd have to agree with you
Saying atheists have a religion is taking it a bit too far i think, but i can be religious about discussing religion, if that makes any sense.

For the 'money and pledge' thing, i think Famine laid it out quite well...
I think most atheists actually don't care all that much about it (i hope i don't get toasted for saying that, since speaking for other atheists is a slippery path.
(because atheism is just a position on a single question)
I think what we (or at least i) find annoying, is that the 'money and pledge' etc are often brought as evidence the US was founded on christian values or something.
I'm not an American, yet it interests me very much.

It's like the passage in Darwins "on the origin of species" where he talks about the complexity of the eye.
it is often recited out of context (only the first part).
The passage is beautifully written, but of no particular interest to me.
But when i hear someone taking it out of context, it "gets me started"

Here's an example of just that
(I'm just bringing the example for your (and others) enjoyment arora, i have no reason or feeling this passage is in any way applicable to you, quite the contrary actually)

 

[-Cheezman-]

God implies, in this case, a divine creator. An omnipotent being who created man.

That in it's self implies that the government is saying they endorse the belief in God ("One nation under God" or "In God we trust"), there for they endorse any religions there of, specifically ones that worship "God." Which, in my opinion seems like a violation of separation of Church and State.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You misunderstand. "The establishment of religion" isn't the creation of one. It's the entire ethos of one. The Catholic Church is an establishment. Sunni Islam is an establishment.
The Amendment says that Congress shall not pass a law "with respect to THE establishment of religion". This means no laws shall be passed which give any special favours, recognition or deference to ANY religion.

This is the correct wording:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This misunderstanding is the source of your issue. It's not that the law is establishing a religion - it has been created with respect to a religious establishment (in this case any monotheistic one).

In my example what I was saying is if the Deity was not "an establishment of religion" (an exsisting) then it would have to establish one. (new)

Deity means religion. There is no deity that is not part of a religion. As soon as you refer to a deity, you immediately reference the religion of which that deity is part. As soon as a law refers to a deity, it's breaking the First Amendment.

While these last few statements are compelling, I don't agree that a "Deity" means religion, or they would not be defined as two seperate entities. However they are inexplicably linked. I don't agree an open ended reference is specific enough to meet the wording as it is written. IMO it calls for something more. The reason I say that is because the wording is singular and asks for, again something more specific. While the "Deity" might be the object of a religion its not the religion its self. If you drop the difference between the two your argument makes perfect sense. However I don't see how you can do that, since they are two different things. At any rate I see your point and it is a good one.

 

[Duke]

OK, I'd really like to believe that this is a discussion, but it's not. You have hung your beliefs on this topic on a logical fallacy, and I'm tired of banging my head against that wall. Whether you're doing this as a form of stonewalling or you genuinely don't understand, I do not know. But it's neither fun nor thought-provoking to deal with.

I'll just step out by saying my interpretation maintains your religious freedom. Your interpretation denies my religious freedom.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

OK, I'd really like to believe that this is a discussion, but it's not. You have hung your beliefs on this topic on a logical fallacy, and I'm tired of banging my head against that wall. Whether you're doing this as a form of stonewalling or you genuinely don't understand, I do not know. But it's neither fun nor thought-provoking to deal with.

I'll just step out by saying my interpretation maintains your religious freedom. Your interpretation denies my religious freedom.

I am sincerly sorry you are upset as a result of the previous exchanges.
I tried to lay out my reasoning as clearly and concise as I know how.
I am not mad or upset with you, because of your point of view. I assume you did the same. I don't see how you conclude my interpretation denies you anything, but your certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[nk4e]

You've lost me, nk4e.

The question was where the specific word "god", or any concept of a deity, occurs completely separate from a religious setting. As far as I can tell only religions have deities, so any reference to "god" is an instant assumption of religion - validating Duke's point.

I thought the question was " Is there any specific event that one can know the existence of GOD without any religious clues. Sorry.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Famines post #729 lays out the exact reasoning used in conjunction with the Supreme Court establishment ruling.

However prior to this, acknowledgement of or reference to a "Deity" was never even remotely to be considered a violation of the First Amendment.
While the word GOD is connected to in this case "monotheistic religions", in fact and reality, there is no preverential treatment or favor being extented by the government to one or any of them. A denominational bill of money is of the same value to them as everybody else. Henceforth there is no law involved respecting. Furthermore the establishment clause wording is singular, and it is written and intended that way so no matter which religion you plug in there, it will violate. But likewise you have to specify one.

A good example of this intent is the "charitable contribution deduction".
The government is by law respecting all religions. However because it is not by law respecting "an establishment of religion" or one religion, there is no violation, nor was it even considered to be.

I hope this will help to clarify the basis for the reasoning I have been attempting to point out in my prior posts.

While the reasoning on the establishment ruling certainly appears logical, it is none the less, a departure from all prior interpretations going back almost two hundred years.

Contrary to what you might think , those who have gone before us were not just a bunch of Religious Zealot Nincompoops, trampling all over the First Amendment.

 

[Nicksfix]

In my opinion,this is the best thread on GTPlanet.I read it every time I log onto this site.

1st - Let me say that I do believe in God and Creation....(my opinion)
I value all of your other opinions for those who do not believe in God or Creation.....(your opinion,your entitled to it)

As long as you do not try to pound your thoughts into my head trying to convert my beliefs,I will not do that to you as well.

I do have a question if you do mind me intervening.......THANKS.

The Cross - what does it mean to you who do not believe ? Does it have any bearing on you whatsoever ?

Does a picture like this offend a person who is a non-believer ?

Just a question guys,not trying to stir up anything or start a finger pointing thing,but what are your thoughts ?

 

[Duke]

I am sincerly sorry you are upset as a result of the previous exchanges.
I tried to lay out my reasoning as clearly and concise as I know how.
I am not mad or upset with you, because of your point of view. I assume you did the same.

I'm not mad or upset with you. I just realize that you are not even considering my words, and so there is little point in continuing my half of the interchange. I will make one last attempt here.

I don't see how you conclude my interpretation denies you anything, but your certainly entitled to your opinion.

I'll explain it as concisely as I can:

If the government makes no mention at all of God (interpret as you will) or religion (whether any specific religion or not), then there is nothing denying you your right to believe and excercise your belief in any way. How could there be? If there is no mention of religion at all in government, then it cannot possibly be restricted.

If government does mention the existence of God - as with the wording on our official currency and in our official Pledge of Allegiance - then I, as an atheist, am denied my right to believe that there is no God. The official government policy states that there is a God - it must, because it's right there on the money and in the Pledge!

Therefore I am denied my right to the free excercise of religion. My free excercise is to NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD. Yet official government policy and legislation insist that there is a God, even if they do not specify which God.

Under the current scenario, I have lost my First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Under the first scenario, where the government is totally silent on the subject, you maintain your freedom of religion.

If you cannot understand this reasoning, it is because you refuse to.

In my opinion,this is the best thread on GTPlanet.I read it every time I log onto this site.

1st - Let me say that I do believe in God and Creation....(my opinion)
I value all of your other opinions for those who do not believe in God or creation.....(your opinion,your entitled to it)

And although I am an atheist, I have never maintained any other position than that believers are welcome to believe as they wish. And you're not intervening at all by posting your thoughts here - we're glad for the input.

The Cross - what does it mean to you who do not believe ? Does it have any bearing on you whatsoever ? Does a picture like this offend a person who is a non-believer ?

The Cross is a symbol of the Christian religion in most of its varying forms. It's not offensive in and of itself. I don't cringe or swear every time I drive past a church and I don't give the finger to drivers with Jesus fish on on the backs of their cars. I have no problem with its display. Billboards, vehicles, houses and yards, church properties, private cemeteries; anywhere it is legal to display any advertising or banner or symbol at all is fine, as long as it is private property, not publicly-owned. If it is publicly owned (therefore government-owned) it should not be displayed on that property. I have a problem with a judge putting up the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse (funny how no religious conservatives called him an "activist judge").

I assume that's Arlington National military cemetery in the picture. The cemetery full of Crosses is not exactly offensive, except in the arrogance of assuming that every single one of the people who are buried there was a Christian who would want a Cross to mark his/her grave. If I was killed in service, I would not want a cross placed over my own grave because I am not a Christian. The assumption that there is no other way to be is offensive, not the cross itself.

 

[Nicksfix]

I assume that's Arlington National military cemetery in the picture. The cemetery full of Crosses is not exactly offensive, except in the arrogance of assuming that every single one of the people who are buried there was a Christian who would want a Cross to mark his/her grave. If I was killed in service, I would not want a cross placed over my own grave because I am not a Christian. The assumption that there is no other way to be is offensive, not the cross itself.

Yes,that is Arlington.
You make a very valid point about the Cross being placed over the grave of those who were not of a Christian background,nicely done. Thanks for the input.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm not mad or upset with you. I just realize that you are not even considering my words, and so there is little point in continuing my half of the interchange. I will make one last attempt here.



I'll explain it as concisely as I can:

If the government makes no mention at all of God (interpret as you will) or religion (whether any specific religion or not), then there is nothing denying you your right to believe and excercise your belief in any way. How could there be? If there is no mention of religion at all in government, then it cannot possibly be restricted.

If government does mention the existence of God - as with the wording on our official currency and in our official Pledge of Allegiance - then I, as an atheist, am denied my right to believe that there is no God. The official government policy states that there is a God - it must, because it's right there on the money and in the Pledge!

Therefore I am denied my right to the free excercise of religion. My free excercise is to NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD. Yet official government policy and legislation insist that there is a God, even if they do not specify which God.

Under the current scenario, I have lost my First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Under the first scenario, where the government is totally silent on the subject, you maintain your freedom of religion.

If you cannot understand this reasoning, it is because you refuse to.[/b]

I understand it allright, I just don't agree with it. I would add, that statement is not be construed or assumed in any way that I don't believe you have the right to believe anything you want.

Contrary to what you might have thought, I have read all of your comments and the web site about the money. However when replying it was only in reference to constitutionality, which is what I thought we were discussing.

At any rate, it appears we have two entirely different concepts on Atheism.
I don't know, maybe I'm incorrect on that
To my knowledge, Atheism by definition, is the absence of belief in any GOD or Deity. Consequently I don't see how it could be considered a religion.
Obviously, that is not your train of thought.

To me its like this; If you don't own a car then all the laws involving car ownership are irrelevant to you, so to speak. However if the government mandates that everyone must own a car, you are suddenly being subjected to the laws that previously were of no consequence. That is what I was trying to relate in my replies with reguard to your comments.

I still don't see how having "In GOD we trust" on money denies you anything, except for the priviledge of having the gov. possibly agree with you or show you more respect. It certainly doesn't keep you, or me for that matter, from believing any way you want. Obviously you made it this far with it on there.

Maybe we will only be able to agree to disagree.

And although I am an atheist, I have never maintained any other position than that believers are welcome to believe as they wish. And you're not intervening at all by posting your thoughts here - we're glad for the input.[/b]

Likewise, Welcome. I await your comments.

 

[Famine]

To my knowledge, Atheism by definition, is the absence of belief in any GOD or Deity. Consequently I don't see how it could be considered a religion.
Obviously, that is not your train of thought.

Zero is a very important number - while not being a number at all.

Religious freedom must include the concept of no religion otherwise you have no religious freedom at all. Being free to believe in whatever you wish doesn't mean you have to believe in something...

I still don't see how having "In GOD we trust" on money denies you anything

It denies freedom of religion to those who do not believe in a god, because it's a law passed in contradiction of the First Amendment.

 

[Duke]

Zero is a very important number - while not being a number at all.

Religious freedom must include the concept of no religion otherwise you have no religious freedom at all. Being free to believe in whatever you wish doesn't mean you have to believe in something...

It denies freedom of religion to those who do not believe in a god, because it's a law passed in contradiction of the First Amendment.

Precisely, on all counts.

SCJ, let me ask you this - if the money saying "In God We Trust" has no bearing on peoples' religious beliefs, why would it bother you to remove it?

Let me further ask this - you were offended that someone would sue to remove the crosses from Arlington Cemetery. What if all those crosses were Stars of David? Or Crescent Moons? Would you be happy knowing that Christians were buried under the symbol of a religion that was not theirs?

Why would you imagine that everyone must like the idea of being buried under a cross?

Instead of worrying about who's rights might be getting trampled, and who might be offended by what, and which groups are being shown preferential treatment, how about we solve the problem completely by making government completely neutral and unrelated to the subject of religion?

We are discussing constitutionality. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion". Yet in 1864 Congress made a law establishing that US coins should say "In God We Trust". How is that NOT unconstituional? It is a law made with respect to religion. I know you've been at pains to separate God from religion, but each concept is meaningless without the other, and I believe you are doing that purely as a semantic trick to try to skirt an issue where you are logically incorrect. Either that or someone you trust has taught you to do so because they wanted to skirt the issue.

As I have said many times before: I am not lobbying to put "There Is No God" on the back of the currency. That would also be "making a law respecting an establishment of religion" and would be unconstituional.

But please explain how your free excercise of religion is restricted by the government having no policy whatsoever regarding religion, and no mention of God on any government item like money.

I have clearly explained, as have Famine and others, how having those words there restricts my free excercise of religion. They are an official policy regarding religion - I do not see how you can escape that conclusion except by flat illogical denial.

Here's another example: My last name begins with W. I don't own a motorcycle. Say the government passes a law making it illegal for people whose last name begins with W to own a motorcycle.

That law shouldn't bother me, right? Because I already don't own a motorcycle, it's not relevant to me, so it shouldn't be a problem. That's the logic you're trying to put forth.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Zero is a very important number - while not being a number at all.

Religious freedom must include the concept of no religion otherwise you have no religious freedom at all. Being free to believe in whatever you wish doesn't mean you have to believe in something...



It denies freedom of religion to those who do not believe in a god, because it's a law passed in contradiction of the First Amendment.

I have already clearly explained that is not a contradiction or a violation.
However you have just contradicted yourself.
If it was denying him freedom of religion, as you say it is, it would be impossible for him to be the self proclaimed Atheist that he is.
Tell me in what tangible way is he being denied.

 

[Duke]

No, you have not clearly explained how it is not a violation. You have repeatedly insisted that it is not, but you have never explained that it is not, and certainly not clearly.

My religious freedom is denied because I am forced - by the official currency of my country, and the official wording of the Pledge of Allegiance to my country's flag - to acknowledge the existence of a God. At the absolute minimum, I am forced to acknowledge that my country is subservient to (although trusting of) God.

How is YOUR religious freedom denied in any way - tangible or otherwise - if reference to God is removed from the money and the Pledge? Remember, all I've ever said is that the government should say nothing for OR against religion or God.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Precisely, on all counts.

SCJ, let me ask you this - if the money saying "In God We Trust" has no bearing on peoples' religious beliefs, why would it bother you to remove it?

Because as I have pointed out over and over again, it is not an infringement.

Let me further ask this - you were offended that someone would sue to remove the crosses from Arlington Cemetery. What if all those crosses were Stars of David? Or Crescent Moons? Would you be happy knowing that Christians were buried under the symbol of a religion that was not theirs?

I am more offended that it is being requested under the bogus notion that it infringes the establishment clause. Especially when it is protected under the free expression clause.

Why would you imagine that everyone must like the idea of being buried under a cross?

To my knowledge they will bury you with any headstone you so desire.
It just so happens that at Arlington the overwhelming vast majority are Christians.
There are military cemetaries all over the this country as well as the world with multiple marked headstones just as you describe.

Instead of worrying about who's rights might be getting trampled, and who might be offended by what, and which groups are being shown preferential treatment, how about we solve the problem completely by making government completely neutral and unrelated to the subject of religion?.

There is a process for that. It's called "Amending the Constitution" which you are free to pursue.

We are discussing constitutionality. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion". Yet in 1864 Congress made a law establishing that US coins should say "In God We Trust". How is that NOT unconstituional? It is a law made with respect to religion. I know you've been at pains to separate God from religion, but each concept is meaningless without the other, and I believe you are doing that purely as a semantic trick to try to skirt an issue where you are logically incorrect. Either that or someone you trust has taught you to do so because they wanted to skirt the issue.?[/b].

I'm getting the impression you are the one not reading my comments.
I've explained it over and over again.
I'm not doing it as a semantic trick. There is no trick to it.
I am being taught by someone I trust, but not for the purpose you describe.

As I have said many times before: I am not lobbying to put "There Is No God" on the back of the currency. That would also be "making a law respecting an establishment of religion" and would be unconstituional..?[/b].

I don't think that it would be but I'm not 100% sure.
BTW you are free to lobby the Treasury to have it put on if you so desire.

But please explain how your free excercise of religion is restricted by the government having no policy whatsoever regarding religion, and no mention of God on any government item like money.

I think what you are desribing here is a utopian concept. You have to deal with it on some level sooner or later because it is an exsisting dynamic institution.

I have clearly explained, as have Famine and others, how having those words there restricts my free excercise of religion. They are an official policy regarding religion - I do not see how you can escape that conclusion except by flat illogical denial.

In what tangible way does it infringe your right to be an atheist.

Here's another example: My last name begins with W. I don't own a motorcycle. Say the government passes a law making it illegal for people whose last name begins with W to own a motorcycle.
That law shouldn't bother me, right? Because I already don't own a motorcycle, it's not relevant to me, so it shouldn't be a problem. That's the logic you're trying to put forth.

No not exactly. Maybe we should just drop this. It seems to get more confusing as we go along.

 

[Duke]

In what tangible way does it infringe your right to be an atheist.

My religious freedom is denied because I am forced - by the official currency of my country, and the official wording of the Pledge of Allegiance to my country's flag - to acknowledge the existence of a God. At the absolute minimum, I am forced to acknowledge that my country is subservient to (although trusting of) God.

I really tried to explain. I just cannot bang my head against the implacable, arrogant, inconsiderate, logic-proof argument that you are using. I'm sorry, I really am done this time.

 

[Joey D]

Having God on the money and on the pledge does infringe on the rights of those who are Atheist, Agnostic, and just non-religious because God does imply religion. The US government is not supposed to establish a religion and even if you believe Atheism is a religion the government is still singling out those who are Agnostic and non-religious. There is really no reason to have God on anything, we really should be touting freedom because ultimately freedom is far more important to this country than a god is.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No, you have not clearly explained how it is not a violation. You have repeatedly insisted that it is not, but you have never explained that it is not, and certainly not clearly.

See post 733

My religious freedom is denied because I am forced - by the official currency of my country, and the official wording of the Pledge of Allegiance to my country's flag - to acknowledge the existence of a God. At the absolute minimum, I am forced to acknowledge that my country is subservient to (although trusting of) God.

I addressed this in a prior post. Something you deem "offensive" does not necessarily make it unconstitutional.
Your only option if it isn't and you want it to be is to pursue amending it.

How is YOUR religious freedom denied in any way - tangible or otherwise - if reference to God is removed from the money and the Pledge? Remember, all I've ever said is that the government should say nothing for OR against religion or God.

If it is removed from the money and the pledge under the false pretense that it is a violation of the First Amendment, then all of my, yours and everybody elses rights are in jeopardy, because the Government has irreverently disreguarded the Supreme Law of the land. This is the major point and bigger concern. Post #703
However if it is was removed for ligitimate lawful reasons then no I don't see how it would.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No, you have not clearly explained how it is not a violation. You have repeatedly insisted that it is not, but you have never explained that it is not, and certainly not clearly.

I apologize in advance if this becomes a double post, but I think Duke is right in that I have been saying it, but I have not been explaining it clearly enough.

So I will attempt to clarify it this way:

Duke has said or claimed he is an Atheist and there is a law that says " no citizen shall be respecting an establishment of religion". That being the case, the Government brings a charge against Duke claiming he has broken or violated this law. Therefore the burden of proof is on the Gov. to show evidence which will substantiate this charge. If examination of Duke's deeds and actions do not show that he is in someway adhering to, participating in support of, or otherwise worshiping the Atheist religion in a real or genuine way, then he cannot be ligitimately convicted since there is no real tangible evidence or proof to, again, substantiate the charge.

Just because you say you are an Atheist doesn't equate to there being enough evidence to convict you of it.

By the same token, in reality Duke is bringing the same charge against the Federal Government. It is up to him to provide genuine proof or evidence that the Gov. is in fact by deed and action, not just reference or acknowledgement of a "Deity" by word, respecting(tangibly) an establishment of religion, to substantiate the charge.


That is not trickery or semantics its just basic "Juris Prudence".

Lastly the USA is a Nation born of, steeped in, surrounded by, and saturated with, the Christian Religion. Naturally, those that founded it were of like
belief. It is interwoven through out. Our whole system is derived from its influence. Like it or not, it is our Heritage.

The First Amendmend was added to the Constitution, in fact and truth, as a"wall of seperation between the Federal government and the individual Christian religions", because several States already had official sponsored and endorsed variations of the Christian religion. Therefore the Federal government could not allow itself to become entangled in favoritism toward any of them.
That power was left unto the states, by the Constitution, to exercise as they so desired.

Duke fortunately for you the framers were open minded with the wording, otherwise you propably really would have a tough go of it.

As to the policies of the government, or amending the Constitution, at this point I will reserve comment on.

 

[Famine]

otherwise worshiping the Atheist religion

Err... What?

I should add that there are several actual religions which have no figurehead deity. Buddhism springs to mind, but there's also some more exciting and kooky ones like Raelism and Taoism. Like atheists, it's religiously discriminatory to them to pass a law which involves Federal recognition of any deity (whether a specific one or not - they do not believe in any deity).


I should also point out that you're misunderstanding the nature of the word "respect". In this instance it doesn't mean "to honour", but "with regards to". You're reading the First Amendment as:

"Government shall not pass any law which respects the creation of a religion."

The correct reading ought to be:

"Government shall not pass any law regarding any religion."

The fact is that the law passed to place the word "GOD" on currency was made contrary to the First Amendment - the law added a putative deity to currency by Federal decree, and deities imply religion. Thus a law has been passed with regards to a religion, breaking your First Amendment rights.

 

[Duke]

Lastly the USA is a Nation born of, steeped in, surrounded by, and saturated with, the Christian Religion. Naturally, those that founded it were of like belief. It is interwoven through out. Our whole system is derived from its influence. Like it or not, it is our Heritage.

If you sincerely believe this, then nothing else I say or do will ever penetrate that wall of institutional arrogance.

Duke fortunately for you the framers were open minded with the wording, otherwise you propably really would have a tough go of it.

UNfortunately, people who believe this was founded as a Christian nation are not as open-minded as the framers of the Constitution.

The correct reading ought to be:

"Government shall not pass any law regarding any religion."

The fact is that the law passed to place the word "GOD" on currency was made contrary to the First Amendment - the law added a putative deity to currency by Federal decree, and deities imply religion. Thus a law has been passed with regards to a religion, breaking your First Amendment rights.

Precisely and accurately put. It can't be made any more clear than that, and this is exactly what I have said numerous times. However, it cannot penetrate the continual stonewalling of the argument you chose to present.

 

[mindwise]

i'm starting to believe....


...Believe that the discussion of whether; 'in god we trust' on money is constitutional or not, needs it's own thread that is

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Err... What?

I should add that there are several actual religions which have no figurehead deity. Buddhism springs to mind, but there's also some more exciting and kooky ones like Raelism and Taoism. Like atheists, it's religiously discriminatory to them to pass a law which involves Federal recognition of any deity (whether a specific one or not - they do not believe in any deity).

"Practicing" would propably be a better word, but concerning the point it doesn't matter much.

Again, it may be offensive, or even insulting, but it is not discriminatory.

Concerning that last statement, what do they believe in? I equate Atheism with "unbelief".

I should also point out that you're misunderstanding the nature of the word "respect". In this instance it doesn't mean "to honour", but "with regards to". You're reading the First Amendment as:

"Government shall not pass any law which respects the creation of a religion."

The correct reading ought to be:

"Government shall not pass any law regarding any religion."

The fact is that the law passed to place the word "GOD" on currency was made contrary to the First Amendment - the law added a putative deity to currency by Federal decree, and deities imply religion. Thus a law has been passed with regards to a religion, breaking your First Amendment rights.

The correct reading is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The word "respecting", to be interpreted ligitimately, as does the rest of the document, must incorporate "intent" of the writers, examining past rulings and most importantly the exsisting attitude and practices at the time it was written.

The point is, you cannot apply a contemporary interpretation to a 200+ year old document.

Even if you could clear "law respecting" which ligitimately is doubtful, you still have to clear "an establishment of religion". The deity in question can imply all it wants, because it is implying several different religions and not one in particular.

If it was as simple as you try to make it sound, it would have been removed along time ago.