Jump to content

Radical Atheists At It Again

Rate this topic


RiverRaider

Recommended Posts

I'm hopping off the circular argument,

I will try to respond to you for as long as we don't start spinning in circles.

 

 

You brought it up.... I commented politely.... why whine and accuse me of a circular argument?  

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. – William James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. why whine and accuse me of a circular argument?  

I will answer one time,

 

circular argument = carousel of stupid = unproductive nonsense you seem to love to engage in,

 

Reasons to make the change were given,

you ignored the facts and dismissed it as a petty and unimportant issue,

I countered by saying if it's unimportant then go ahead and make the change, or change it to Allah,

your replied by saying there was no REASON to do so,

 

this will begin a circular argument of providing facts to do something,

and you claiming it's a non issue,

but then demanding facts to do something,

then saying it's a non issue,

and we can go around and around and around on this for pages,

 

It's exhausting,

and why for the most part I try to avoid talking with you,

because it seems you want to turn every thread into a circular argument of nonsense,

so 

reasons were provided for making the change,

the reasons had to do with recognizing the US citizens that are either atheists or don't believe in the Christian God.

 

if you find the reasons compelling,

then support the change,

if you find making the change is unimportant,

then don't resist the change.

Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am OK with In God We Trust is on the top of the coin.

Maybe we should put along the bottom In All Others We Require Collateral?

Edited by dena

Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.
-Thomas Jefferson
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.
-Soren Kierkegaard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will answer one time,

 

circular argument = carousel of stupid = unproductive nonsense you seem to love to engage in,

 

Reasons to make the change were given,

you ignored the facts and dismissed it as a petty and unimportant issue,

I countered by saying if it's unimportant then go ahead and make the change, or change it to Allah,

your replied by saying there was no REASON to do so,

 

this will begin a circular argument of providing facts to do something,

and you claiming it's a non issue,

but then demanding facts to do something,

then saying it's a non issue,

and we can go around and around and around on this for pages,

 

It's exhausting,

and why for the most part I try to avoid talking with you,

because it seems you want to turn every thread into a circular argument of nonsense,

so

reasons were provided for making the change,

the reasons had to do with recognizing the US citizens that are either atheists or don't believe in the Christian God.

 

if you find the reasons compelling,

then support the change,

if you find making the change is unimportant,

then don't resist the change.

I think I see where you got hung up... I said whining about it was petty.... you twisted that into its inscription on coins being unimportant... and mentioned the Arabic word for God looking for a reaction that you didn't get why? I'm not sure

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. – William James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The impact is subtle. I am forced to use money that clearly states, or at least implies, that I have trust in "God". I don't.

Your money says "In God I Trust"?

 

Mine say "we" - and like it or not, "we" voted to put that on our money, "we" can vote to take it off if there is enough support - apparently, there isn't. If the 3-4% who are atheists can't find a way to get support for their causes, they waste time and money trying to sue for it. You know, because it's such a burden to have stuff written on money while we burn a trillion dollars a year in failed welfare programs. Let's keep our priorities straight :freak:

 

TimS

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your money says "In God I Trust"?

 

Mine say "we" - and like it or not, "we" voted to put that on our money, "we" can vote to take it off if there is enough support - apparently, there isn't. If the 3-4% who are atheists can't find a way to get support for their causes, they waste time and money trying to sue for it. You know, because it's such a burden to have stuff written on money while we burn a trillion dollars a year in failed welfare programs. Let's keep our priorities straight :freak:

 

TimS

I think we can do both,

We seem to be changing our money on a constant basis......

should the latest security enhancement of portrait change be put off till we deal with our failed welfare programs?

 

IMHO it's not just the atheists who have a gripe it's the Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Budhists and Christians like me who see it as an over reach of the separation of church and state.

Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We the people did not insist on the addition, instead, a preacher and some devout of the flock did and then Congress (super scared of commie reds in the 50s) made it all official without consulting the atheists. In light of recent events, I suspect the good reverend was wrong in his assertion that the motto would "place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed..." Yeah, howd that work out?

 

 

"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

 

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

 

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

 

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

 

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

 

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

 

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:

I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

 

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

 

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.

 

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

 

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can do both,

We seem to be changing our money on a constant basis......

should the latest security enhancement of portrait change be put off till we deal with our failed welfare programs?

 

IMHO it's not just the atheists who have a gripe it's the Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Budhists and Christians like me who see it as an over reach of the separation of church and state.

Security enhancements won't cause 40% of the country to light their hair on fire like welfare reform would.

 

Changing the text on our money doesn't register on the givea****ometer except for a teeny, tiny offended by anything/everything minority. If they can get the legislative process to give a ****, go for it :th: Since nobody but a handful give a ****, they have to sue - that's how the democratic process works...if nobody else is offended by the things that offend you, file a lawsuit.

 

TimS

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Security enhancements won't cause 40% of the country to light their hair on fire like welfare reform would.

 

Changing the text on our money doesn't register on the givea****ometer except for a teeny, tiny offended by anything/everything minority. If they can get the legislative process to give a ****, go for it :th: Since nobody but a handful give a ****, they have to sue - that's how the democratic process works...if nobody else is offended by the things that offend you, file a lawsuit.

 

TimS

Not sure where welfare reform fits into this, 

but big picture I agree with you.

 

Intellectually I agree that it should be removed,

But I don't care enough about it to raise a stink,

 

I just have enough empathy to have some understanding for how those who believe in a different deity feel about seeing that WE (the Citizens of the USA) allegedly trust in the Christian God.

Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We the people did not insist on the addition, instead, a preacher and some devout of the flock did and then Congress (super scared of commie reds in the 50s) made it all official without consulting the atheists.

 

The decisions were voted on and passed by "we" - Congress. That's how it works, "they" pass the laws. Atheist representation in Congress was obviously welcome to object. If atheists didn't get the representation in Congress they were happy with, they were welcome to vote for whomever they felt would do a better job. That's how it works. It can be fixed exactly the same way - as soon as enough people are offended, they can lobby for change. Or, one guy can keep suing the government, it's worked so well for him in the past.

 

TimS

 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where welfare reform fits into this, 

You wrote:

"should the latest security enhancement of portrait change be put off till we deal with our failed welfare programs?"

 

"deal with failed welfare programs" = welfare reform

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote:

"should the latest security enhancement of portrait change be put off till we deal with our failed welfare programs?"

 

"deal with failed welfare programs" = welfare reform

yeah, I know,

and I wrote that in response to your statement I quoted,

at some point I was just commenting that I don't know how significant a role welfare reform plays in or ability to make this change.

Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decisions were voted on and passed by "we" - Congress. That's how it works, "they" pass the laws. Atheist representation in Congress was obviously welcome to object. If atheists didn't get the representation in Congress they were happy with, they were welcome to vote for whomever they felt would do a better job. That's how it works. It can be fixed exactly the same way - as soon as enough people are offended, they can lobby for change. Or, one guy can keep suing the government, it's worked so well for him in the past.

 

TimS

I am thinking of the Seminal supreme court cases where ONE guy changed the national law (Miranda, Roe v Wade, Brown v Board Plessy v. etc...). that's how the system works. When one individual brings forth a case wherein they were disenfranchised or their constitutional rights were violated (equal protection, commerce, unlawful punishment, etc.. pick your clause). So yep, Congress can pass laws that may be challenged and overturned, love how the system works. Glad I live under such a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...