Lawsuit to remove "In God we Trust" from currency

#101
#101
Gramps said:
matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

Of course. Most everyone thinks or justifies their own behavior and the wrongness of others. However, when one does it and attaches eternal glory for themselves while having eternal damnation of others, then it crosses the line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#103
#103
VolStudent19 said:
My problem with this is catering to the whims of a vocal minority.
Click to expand...

You are more comfortable with catering to the beliefs of the majority, which is what happened in 1956 when the decision was made to place these words on paper money?

I also believe I asked you a series of questions. Instead of answering said questions, you have chosen to call individuals bullies for doing nothing more than asserting that the government ought to represent all individuals (not simply the majority) and that "In God We Trust" does not represent all individuals under the US Government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#106
#106
govols/cc said:
Freedom of religion means tolerance of religion & no religion. It being on there or not shouldn't be worth the breath to complain about it.
Click to expand...

First Amendment forbids any law respecting religion, no?

I don't complain about it, but it is their Constitutional right to complain about it whether you think it's worth it or not.

Honestly, the only problem I see with it is that it is blatantly disrespectful to a portion of the people in the United States that choose not to believe in the majority's "god."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#107
#107
Hopvol said:
There is nothing wrong with a Christian being wealthy. Wealth in itself is not evil, it is the love of money and putting money before God.
Click to expand...

You responded to the wrong post.

At any rate, the sentiment of the NT is pretty clear to me that one should live modesty and give any extra wealth to help those without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#109
#109
Hopvol said:
Uhhmm, ok. I believe there is only one God and his statements implied he does not believe that. How is stating my beliefs arrogant?
Click to expand...

You have no idea if there is a supernatural deity; let alone how many supernatural deities exist or their will.

To pretend differently is the height of arrogance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#110
#110
therealUT said:
"In God We Trust" has not always been on US currency. If some find it offensive and it can be replaced at virtually no cost (just replace the printing for the new bills and coins when old bills and coins are going out of circulation), then why not replace it?

Why replace it? Why is it offensive? And for that matter, because something is offensive it should be removed?

Do you want your religious attitudes to offend others? Do you need "In God We Trust" on your currency to reaffirm your faith?

Whether my personal beliefs offend others or not in no way matters to me. I do not need it on money to affirm my faith.

Do you believe that the US ought to be a collective of individuals, that is a collective that is one out of many (maybe in line with the original motto of the US)? If so, then speaking for the collective and saying "We as a collective trust in God" is ostracizing and rendering some individuals of the collective unimportant; that their beliefs and opinions are not equal to the rest who do trust in God.

Hell, the neat thing about the American Experiment is that is what not about trusting in God; Europe trusted in God, that God would, by divine right, provide good and benevolent Kings. The American Experiment was about trusting in man.
Click to expand...

So someone feels unimportant because of four words on paper currency? Well I personally hate stars. I think I will found the freedom from stars foundation. As a member of the collective the stars on the US flag offend me and make me feel unimportant. I demand that henceforth all American flags be printed without stars. Why is this claim any less valid then the demand of changing what is printed on currency?
 
#111
#111
therealUT said:
Nobody is saying that violent crimes and crime do not occur today; what is being asserted is that the probability that one will be a victim is much less today than it was 40-50 years ago; yet, the perception is reversed (hence, today, when it is much safer, everyone locks their doors, while 50 years ago, when it was much less safe, everyone left their doors unlocked). I place most of that perception on national news cycles.
Click to expand...

I was alive 50 years ago and I can truthfully say things were much safer in my town than they are now.

I am not saving there was no crime then. There has always been people doing things they should not be doing. There is zero way I would let my grandchildren roam around by themselves the way I did when I was a child. Anyone that says we are safer now was not around 50 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#112
#112
therealUT said:
You are more comfortable with catering to the beliefs of the majority, which is what happened in 1956 when the decision was made to place these words on paper money?

I also believe I asked you a series of questions. Instead of answering said questions, you have chosen to call individuals bullies for doing nothing more than asserting that the government ought to represent all individuals (not simply the majority) and that "In God We Trust" does not represent all individuals under the US Government.
Click to expand...

Does our political system not cater to the beliefs of the majority? If the majority believed that Barack Obama should be President and I don't then why does the majority win?
 
#113
#113
Gramps said:
That is a good question LG.

I believe the Bible teaches morals. I heard a preacher say one time and this is very true. He said "Show me a a couple getting a divorce and I will show you a couple that one member or both are out of fellowship with God"
Click to expand...

So two non-Christians or nonreligious people are incapable of having a successful marriage?

Furthermore, all Christians who do get a divorce do so because they not in fellowship with God?

Gramps said:
I firmly believe that most of our morals come from religious teachings. I do also know there are millions of people with good morals that has never darkened the doors of a church.
Click to expand...

Surely, you see the contraction here.
 
#114
#114
therealUT said:
These stats do not come from surveys; they come from actual criminal numbers. Per capita, crime against persons and property was much higher in the 1950s than it is today, and even higher in 1900. That is not spinning anything.

If you disagree, you disagree with reality.
Click to expand...

I don't believe so. I think the flaw is in the per capita portion. I have seen the national statistics and I see what is going on in the world and in my community. I don't care that there are more people in my city, I care that we have averaged 6 murders and over 1000 burglaries in the past 5 years when these things were extremely rare 25 years ago. The police chief will say "yes but the population has tripled in that time". I don't care about that, I care that my city has gotten more violent while the media is telling me it is getting safer.
 
#117
#117
PKT_VOL said:
Of course. Most everyone thinks or justifies their own behavior and the wrongness of others. However, when one does it and attaches eternal glory for themselves while having eternal damnation of others, then it crosses the line.
Click to expand...

Have I done that, IYO?
 
#118
#118
VolStudent19 said:
Why replace it? Why is it offensive? And for that matter, because something is offensive it should be removed?
Click to expand...

I do not know why it is offensive, I am not even sure that it is. There are some claiming that it is, though, and I fail to see why one would not change something that costs them nothing which would remove offense from others. If it is offensive and it costs nothing to change, then why keep it? Just because you believe that it is not really offensive to these people?

VolStudent19 said:
Whether my personal beliefs offend others or not in no way matters to me. I do not need it on money to affirm my faith.
Click to expand...

Then, why are you against removing such words from the currency?

VolStudent19 said:
So someone feels unimportant because of four words on paper currency? Well I personally hate stars. I think I will found the freedom from stars foundation. As a member of the collective the stars on the US flag offend me and make me feel unimportant. I demand that henceforth all American flags be printed without stars. Why is this claim any less valid then the demand of changing what is printed on currency?
Click to expand...

If the stars on the flag offend you and it costs nothing to change, then I would support changing the flag (or getting rid of national flags).
 
#119
#119
Gramps said:
Wow, What did Clinton do to start that massive downturn in violent crime. It must have been Hillary's "It takes a Village" book.

Thanks for posting. I feel safer already.

There are many crimes that are not considered violent.
Click to expand...

Abortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#122
#122
VolStudent19 said:
Does our political system not cater to the beliefs of the majority? If the majority believed that Barack Obama should be President and I don't then why does the majority win?
Click to expand...

No, our political system was not set up to cater to the beliefs of the majority; this is why the majority was only represented in one part of one branch of government when the nation was founded (the House of Reps) and the majority was not directly involved, if involved at all, in the other branches.
 
#123
#123
TRUT: I do not need that statement to affirm my faith. But I would bet there are some that feel it is important. I'm sure there are some (more then likely a lot) that would be offended by a change. Would their sensibilities not be given equal weight?
 
#124
#124
Hopvol said:
Negative, it is called faith.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody that understands the Bible would claim to know the will of God, yet many act like they do know his will. I think that is the main factor in the "height of arrogance" comment made by PKT. Probably shouldn't speak for him, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top