2
   

scary little changes

 
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:50 pm
Ah, this getting rid of "In God We Trust" ain't so scary. We haven't had "In God We Trust" on our British money for a very long time.

I wonder when the US will start to print different colours of money, to help make counterfeiting its money slightly more difficult?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:03 pm
spendius wrote:
With my own money of course.I wouldn't dream of betting any grandchildren of mine's hopes on paeleolithic carbon dated granite structures when there's a tried and tested method right under my nose.


What good is tried and tested if you have no test results?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:17 pm
Ok, I am going to attempt to reply to each of these posts. I will do them one at a time. I'm fitting them in between fixing supper and cleaning my kitchen.

Green Witch Wrote:

Quote:
Momma that is the very reason why church and state should be separate - if they are separate government cannot make it illegal to worship as you chose.
When gov't is involved you end up with groups like the Taliban or the Soviet Communist party telling to you how to worship, or if you even can worship. Freedom of religion equals freedom from government interference- which equals keeping religion out of government.


We already have the freedom to worship as we choose. Everyone of us has that freedom. So, are we to go tear down every public/government building that has some sort of Biblical carving, etc.? I can agree with separation of church and state to a certain degree. I cannot agree to it when it conflicts with the laws of God. So, we have in place a system where we can lobby to change laws the way we think they should be. However these laws end up being is how it is. I don't have to agree with them but I do have to abide by them.

I don't think there can ever be 100% separation of church and state. Everyone votes their conscience, their ethics, their morals, their religious beliefs, etc. How can you have complete separation of church and state if even one person votes because of their religious beliefs? You can't expect those with religious beliefs to cast them aside.

Yes, God is mentioned in The Pledge of Allegiance, or on the money, as in God We Trust. But, that is not religion in my view. Maybe it is in others. I have said before that I can agree to certain things when it comes to this and to other things I can't and won't.

And, as far as someday it being illegal to worship God? Yes, it will happen. There will be a one world government and a one world religion. I believe that with all my heart. And that one world religion is not going to be based on Christianity. That is my belief and I in no way expect anyone to accept it as their own.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:18 pm
J_B Wrote:

Quote:
I'm waiting for someone to post the 11 references to God in the Constitution. I just checked again and can't find a single one.


J_B, I remember reading that too in one of these threads but it was not posted by me.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:25 pm
Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:
And you wonder why people run from religion and God.

You are irrational and stubborn people. Green Witch and DrewDad both made the point that seperation of church and state ensures that you will be allowed to worship whomever or whatever you want.

This country was not founded on God. It was founded on solid principles that apply to all people. Not just Christians.

I couldn't care less if they remove the "In God We Trust" from our money because no matter what you do, you can't take God from my heart or my life.

You all see to think that when he disappears from public sight, he's gone for good and you are all doomed.

The truth of the matter is the Christians are the ones wanting to "take over" this country. If the Buddists wanted to have "In Budda We Trust" on our money, you'd flip out and say it wasn't fair to the Christians and why can't the Christians have THEIR god on the money.


Bella Dea, while I am not fond of being called irrational and stubborn, I will just try to take it that I stick to what I believe in and leave it at that.

Our country was founded on principles yes. The principles of the Bible. That is what I believe. I believe those principles are for all mankind and not just Americans.

No, I don't think taking God off the money or out of the Pledge of Allegiance will make Him disappear. I do believe it is an attack against God and, as a Christian, I will do my best to see that it doesn't happen.

I don't know about it being Christians that want to take over this country. I know I don't want to take over the country. I just would like to see more of the laws God laid out in the Bible followed. Like I said, we all have the right to lobby LEGALLY for those laws. I, in no way, condone bombing abortion clinics, etc., which I believe is in direct conflict with what Christ teaches.

No, actually if the Buddhists wanted to have in Buddha they trust on the money, I wouldn't fight against it because it was unfair to Christians. I would fight it because I believe there is only one True God and I don't believe Buddha is that God.

Next....
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:28 pm
Quote:
And, as far as someday it being illegal to worship God? Yes, it will happen. There will be a one world government and a one world religion. I believe that with all my heart. And that one world religion is not going to be based on Christianity. That is my belief and I in no way expect anyone to accept it as their own.


Momma- How did you come to this conclusion? How do you believe that this government will work? What would be the nature of this world religion? Very honestly, I am a bit surprised , and I am very curious as how you came to these beliefs. If you want to discuss this, I would be very interested in your "take" on the subject.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:32 pm
Ok, I think I addressed what everyone asked me up until now. If I missed anyone, please point it out to me and I will address it.

Phoenix, hmmmm. With you, I would discuss anything. However, I would prefer this to be a private conversation. If that is acceptable with you, just let me know.

If you would rather it wasn't private, I would still discuss it with you.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:33 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
And, as far as someday it being illegal to worship God? Yes, it will happen. There will be a one world government and a one world religion. I believe that with all my heart. And that one world religion is not going to be based on Christianity. That is my belief and I in no way expect anyone to accept it as their own.


Momma- How did you come to this conclusion? How do you believe that this government will work? What would be the nature of this world religion? Very honestly, I am a bit surprised , and I am very curious as how you came to these beliefs. If you want to discuss this, I would be very interested in your "take" on the subject.
Actually, it will be an attempt by a single political entity to remove all religion, as I indicated in this post:

United Nations to ban religion
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:35 pm
Momma, with all due respect, your repetitions of the fact that you believe something do not further a discussion. I can say that I believe that all cats are emissaries of the devil, and point to a website to support my assertion. If people point out the flaws in that website and ask me to provide other support for my position, either with reputable cites or a logical construct of my own, and I just repeatedly state that I believe that cats are emissaries of the devil, that you can believe what you want, we can agree to disagree, but I still firmly believe they are Satanic and that's that... there just isn't much room for rational discussion.

Do you see that?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:39 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
I can agree with separation of church and state to a certain degree. I cannot agree to it when it conflicts with the laws of God.


Many people believe in different gods, and many have laws which you may not agree with (you don't like muslim gods who marry 6 year olds). Luckily for you, the laws of the society you live in, trump the laws of their gods and every other, but they trump yours just the same.

You may feel yourself rightious in following your beliefs above and beyond the laws of the land, but that won't help you if you run into a conflict. And the law of the US is the Constitution, and rule number one is Separation of Church and State.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:40 pm
Sozobe,

I understand what you are saying. The reason I put IMO, or I believe in there is because when I first came to A2K, I didn't do that and I was accused of saying how others felt by not indicating it was my opinion or my beliefs, or I was shoving it down someone's throat. So, out of respect to those that felt that way, I try to make it clear that it is my opinion only or my beliefs only I am talking about. I am more than happy to just agree to disagree. That's what it is all about.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:41 pm
Quote:
Phoenix, hmmmm. With you, I would discuss anything. However, I would prefer this to be a private conversation. If that is acceptable with you, just let me know.

If you would rather it wasn't private, I would still discuss it with you.



Momma- Whatever is most comfortable for you. I am going offline in a few minutes, but I will catch up with you tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:43 pm
sozobe wrote:
I can say that I believe that all cats are emissaries of the devil, . . .


But, but . . . this is true, this is so true. The truly enlightened have known for millenia that cats is the spawn of SATAN . . .
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:44 pm
MA, i guess you missed me, so i'll quote myself:

yitwail wrote:
MA, since you wrote,

Momma Angel wrote:
Just suppose that what is in this link is the way it was intended to be?

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

What if that was what was truly intended?


i think it's natural that people would write about whatever they saw in the webpage that they felt strongly about. if you want a reaction to something in particular on that page, why not quote the part you have in mind?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:51 pm
Hmmm. That's fine, as far as it goes, it's just not quite what I see here.

For one, if this cats-are-emissaries-of-the-devil person showed up repeatedly on many threads that had anything to do with cats, repeating her strongly-held belief, and every time someone challenged it retreating to "It's just what I believe", mightn't you start to get a bit irritated? Especially if you disagree?

Note, I don't think you are shoving your beliefs down anyone's throat -- I think that's too strong for what you're doing. I do think that you are a bit disingenuous in your attempt to portray yourself as not having a part in the discord that results. If you strongly believe that cats are NOT emissaries of the devil, this person saying that they are over and over again, semi-debating with the aid of biased websites, and then retreating to "it's what I believe" -- no possible rebuttal there -- could get a bit trying, no?

I think that you would find you made more headway if you would either stick to logical debate or if you would say "this might not be rational but it's what I believe", and leave it at that.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:02 pm
yitwail,

Sorry I missed you. Ok, let me finish supper and I will quote from that. See you in a bit.

Sozobe,

Point taken. Oh believe me, I know very well I have been a part of some discord. I won't deny that. I will take responsibility for what I do, but not for what I don't do. I will apologize and correct my behavior when I am wrong. But, I am just as stubborn when it comes to someone accusing me of something I did not do as I am with my beliefs.

And no, sorry, I won't ever say this might not be rational. I will say, it might not sound rational to you, but it's what I believe.

Will that work?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:07 pm
Not quite. :-)

If you claim it's rational, you have to provide some back up. What makes it rational, besides the fact that you believe it? Why is it rational?

You only get to use the "it's what I believe" get out of jail free card if you also say it's irrational. If you're claiming rationality, too, the onus is on you to show WHY it's rational.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:10 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Ok, I am going to attempt to reply to each of these posts. I will do them one at a time. I'm fitting them in between fixing supper and cleaning my kitchen.

Green Witch Wrote:

Quote:
Momma that is the very reason why church and state should be separate - if they are separate government cannot make it illegal to worship as you chose.
When gov't is involved you end up with groups like the Taliban or the Soviet Communist party telling to you how to worship, or if you even can worship. Freedom of religion equals freedom from government interference- which equals keeping religion out of government.


We already have the freedom to worship as we choose. Everyone of us has that freedom. So, are we to go tear down every public/government building that has some sort of Biblical carving, etc.? I can agree with separation of church and state to a certain degree. I cannot agree to it when it conflicts with the laws of God.


We have been down this road before I believe, but would you mind enumerating which in particular laws attributed to God that you have in mind here?
Momma Angel wrote:
So, we have in place a system where we can lobby to change laws the way we think they should be. However these laws end up being is how it is. I don't have to agree with them but I do have to abide by them.

I don't think there can ever be 100% separation of church and state. Everyone votes their conscience, their ethics, their morals, their religious beliefs, etc. How can you have complete separation of church and state if even one person votes because of their religious beliefs? You can't expect those with religious beliefs to cast them aside.


It is called respect for others beliefs. i.e. if you believe that women should wear a burqa, wear one, but do not require others to do so.

Momma Angel wrote:
Yes, God is mentioned in The Pledge of Allegiance, or on the money, as in God We Trust. But, that is not religion in my view. Maybe it is in others. I have said before that I can agree to certain things when it comes to this and to other things I can't and won't.


Certain things? How about sharing the banner space amongst different Dieties on different bill and coin denominations, and for us atheists and agnostics we could have "We Trust No Gods".

Momma Angel wrote:
And, as far as someday it being illegal to worship God? Yes, it will happen. There will be a one world government and a one world religion. I believe that with all my heart. And that one world religion is not going to be based on Christianity. That is my belief and I in no way expect anyone to accept it as their own.


I'll give you this. With the current loonies in charge, things are headed that direction.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:17 pm
Ok, let me do these one at a time again.

Yitwail, this is the particular part of the article I agree with.

Quote:
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.


I bolded the part I particularly agree with .
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:25 pm
Sozobe Wrote:

Quote:
Not quite.

If you claim it's rational, you have to provide some back up. What makes it rational, besides the fact that you believe it? Why is it rational?

You only get to use the "it's what I believe" get out of jail free card if you also say it's irrational. If you're claiming rationality, too, the onus is on you to show WHY it's rational.


What makes it irrational? The fact that there are many that disagree with it? I can show you plenty of places in the Bible that back it up, but how often has that been accepted in these threads?

So, who decides what is rational and irrational here?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.04 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 01:43:23