Printable View
Fine one to talk, eh Leo?Quote:
Originally posted by Leo Volont
The Road to Stupid, Distructive and Idiotic Bigotry goes on without end.
Anyway, I'm not too sure that there are any references to god on English money, ah well, I can just try this if and when I go to the US. :D
That's a good point, Nirvana. Our country is very polarized towards 'everything is of nature' or 'there is a creator'. Of course, these two thoughts enable our political parties to pretty much get away with whatever they want to.
As long as you aren't advocating that everyone should be an atheist (now!), and it's just sharing, there is nothing wrong with sharing your personal belief on the back of a dollar bill. It's not like a prayer at school or a moment of silence, in which it's obviously segregating a community. Power to the atheists/secular humanists!
A little bit of history: the US gov added "in God we trust" to the bill (it was already on the coin) at the same time it added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance.
Leo--you're making a very incorrect assumption.
There's a difference between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
We have the right to build religious buildings. The monuments in Rome would certainly be allowed in the USA right now. That's part of the free exercise clause--we can do what we want in terms of religion. Even build massive buildings in tribute (So long as we don't steal the materials for said buildings or otherwise break the law).
But the government doesn't have the right to print 'God' onto our currency. Since not everybody in the US believes in a God (IN ANY FORM NIRVANA, NOT JUST THE CHRISTIAN GOD OR YOUR ONENESS [DUMBASS.]), so the government doesn't have the right to embody the entire nation in saying, "IN GOD WE TRUST". THAT is violating the establishment clause. When the government is printing money with God's name written on it, it's establishing a religion that believes in God. Since not everybody believes in God, they ought remove it so nobody's rights are being infringed upon. Athiests don't want to have the name of a God they don't believe in written on their money any more than Christians want Shiva's written upon theirs.
The education system is not perfect either, or the health system. But I don't see you complaining about your rights in this manner. Alot more important things could be improved to increase freedom and quality of life. I consider your education and health for example much more important. You must also realize any collective attempt to work together in unification aspires through what is defined as a religion regardless. Spirituality is just part of the human experience. Athiesm is a religion too. And you are assuming to much from this statement [In god we trust] It's your belief system that is extreme here. That's why you highly object that which is not even harmful. You should just realize it's not that big a deal or that dangerous, or even that damaging to your rights, what you are preaching against. You merely disagree with the use of the term "god" because you are an atheist. I say less winging and more doing something useful.
Also consider many people get married in a church when they are not christians. And they are interested in getting married, not the temple or the pope that is helping them celebrate this. In the same way you are concerned more with what is written on the dollar bill, then serving your country. You are being trivial and missing the point. Serve the country and the people. Don't let beliefs divide you from what matters and distract you. Imagine what you could learn and achieve, if you were this passionate about serving others and the country, as you are about this.
Also If you think that is America's biggest problem you have a long way to go. The way governments go about things could be improved. Alot. But now we are getting into politics.
Personally I'm glad that if any country trusts anyone it is "god" Atleast that is aspiring or trusting, towards something that is generally known as 'good'. The truth is a belief in god is not even that relevant here. The main point is to trust in that which is the highest good. And that is, well a good thing don't you think?!
We should be more concerned with the use of money than what is printed on it. We should also be concerned about what is lived out in practice, in regards to what is working and not working. Not just what is spoken or written.
If you want to do something that is useful, instead of writing on dollar bills. You should write to your congressmen and tell them you want to change the job description of those in government to managing the budget, so they don't feed you rubbish social programs that you then have to involuntary pay tax on. They are not there to impress the public with attractive social programs, that don't even work, and then winning elections with the idea of them. They are there to serve the people and manage the budget. One who is doing this does not become popular. This is what needs to be changed, tell them if they do this we are willing to give individuals a money reward incentive for managing the budget properly. And recognize what they are doing! Don't be so stupid about it and be attracted by mere short term illusonary fixes that are not in the interest of the country, or in the long term. This way they can benifit from helping the country, and get something for themself, while knowing they have done a good job. Everyone will benifit. But no-one will benifit much if you keep writing on the money. Spend it wisely, save it even. But try not to write on it.
I say all this and I am not even American. But I don't need to be to understand this much.
So, Nirvana. If the notes said "In No God We Trust" you wouldn't have any problem?
Quote:
Originally posted by brady
If the notes said \"In No God We Trust\" you wouldn't have any problem?
It's difficult to imagine a country with that slogan. To start I'd surely keep them away from the weapons of mass destruction at the least. I wouldn't consider them mature enough to be harmless.
So in other words, yes you would have a problem.
If you are in grade 6 you don't have a problem with a class in grade 4. I would be working on a way to give them the best opportunity. It's not until something damaging is happening that you need to do something. Overall Negative effects need to be prevented. The goal is a maximun positive effect for the whole.
Just think for a second about hitler. We had a problem with hitler because he was doing something damaging. You can't let ignorance walk over what's true. There is a point where you disempower them, and if needed fight them. You are in effect fighting for what is right and true. And using discernment to realize the maximun positive effect achieved for the whole.
Actually, based on those statements, I think the one most similar to Hitler is you. Labelling an entire portion of the population as 'ignorant' and on a lower level.
I did not label anyone. It was a hypothetical generalization for the country that supposely supported the notion "in no god we trust". I don't see how this accessment of such a people makes me like hitler.
The path you choose will not become a problem or be fought against unless you begin to effect our goals of service to the whole. In this case we do have a problem and seek to destroy the negative effects and obstructions to these goals.
In that example I was also not saying athiest are similar to hitler. I was explaining how protecting freedom is different to having a problem with someones beliefs or level of understanding.
Here you imply that the "In God We Trust" note is "right and true" and the "In No Good We Trust" note is ignorant and needs disempowering.Quote:
Originally posted by NirvanaStalinseed
You can't let ignorance walk over what's true. There is a point where you disempower them, and if needed fight them. You are in effect fighting for what is right and true.
Second, your "maximum possible effect for the whole" is called Utilitarianism. If you subscribe to this mode of thinking, let me ask you this..
Is it right to let one child suffer for all eternity if it means the rest of the world lives in complete peace and harmony?
Please re-read what I posted and understand what I am talking about. \"In no god we trust\" does raise concern for several reasons. \"In god we trust\" can also raise just as much concern, and be just as ignorant. It just depends to what extent people are in touch with the truth.Quote:
Originally posted by brady
Here you imply that the \"In God We Trust\" note is \"right and true\" and the \"In No Good We Trust\" note is ignorant and needs disempowering.
There rest of the world can not live in peace and harmony knowing that child is suffering.Quote:
Originally posted by brady
Is it right to let one child suffer for all eternity if it means the rest of the world lives in complete peace and harmony?
You're really bad at answering questions.Quote:
Originally posted by Chronically Smokesweed
There rest of the world can not live in peace and harmony knowing that child is suffering.
well it's true.
honestly, Sorry I called you bonehead before.
I was stupid. I know it was a mistake. I intend not to make one like it again. I just took the wrong approach and didn't want to admit it.
.....Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
well it's true.
honestly, Sorry I called you bonehead before.
I was stupid. I know it was a mistake. I intend not to make one like it again. I just took the wrong approach and didn't want to admit it.
........!
Really? Are you serious? You're not being sarcastic, are you?
If you really mean that... That's very good of you to admit that. I accept your apology... Don't worry about that bonehead comment, it really didn't hurt... I must say, I'm quite shocked by this. It's OK to make mistakes, but you’ve got to be honest about it. If you make an error, just come out and say it. Acknowledge that you were wrong, move on, and make it a point not to repeat the error. It’s not hard... Honestly, I don't think you're stupid, though.
Wow... I’m really surprised by that post.
It wasn't sarcastic. Glad you accept the apology.
Ok, that's cool. I'm relieved to see that you were serious. You’ve earned yourself a little respect in my books.
Now that we’ve got that cleared up; why not restate for us your opinions on crossing out the word god on currency, and answer this question:
Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
Is it right to let one child suffer for all eternity if it means the rest of the world lives in complete peace and harmony?
It is not right to do this because it's not in the best interest of the whole. To have one person/child suffering eternally while the rest live in luxury or whatever. They cannot be complete since one person is suffering. This means the whole is also suffering Because that person is part of the whole. This will make no-one happy knowing that Since everyone is one.
Nirvana: brady you think that now because you see some of the illogic associated with it. But back then whatever religion wether it be of jewish or christian you would have probally preached passionately as you are with your atheism today.
Good point.
I have a pet theory (I'm not at all saying this is the case at all...just a funny thought is all) that God, to manage and dynamically balance the whole Muslim/Jew thing, will selectively pick Jews and incarnate them into Muslim bodies and visa versa. If there is a powerful bigot in the Jewish political machine, he'll become the next Ayatolla. Just joking around, but it is interesting to wonder.
There was some dude at Edge.org who wanted to take the negative social connotations of the word "atheist" out and create a new word.
He explicitly compared his intention to how gays took the word "gay," which had normally denoted AND connoted happiness, and absorbed it into their culture.
He then suggested the word "bright." When someone asks you what religion or philosophy you are, you say that you are a "bright," which is so much more than saying atheist, which depends on "theist" for its meaning.
I'd have started it already. But, you know. I don't want to send the wrong message and have people think I'm gay.