Remove "In God We Trust?"

[ANAV]

The guy who lobbied to have "One nation under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance is not trying to have "In God We Trust" removed from US currency. Of course all of this with the blessing of the ACLU.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47387

How about the ACLU show there conviction to this cause and give away all there unrighteous money. Hurry up, confirm Alito before this reaches the Supreme court.

 

[debate_junkie]

The guy who lobbied to have "One nation under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance is not trying to have "In God We Trust" removed from US currency. Of course all of this with the blessing of the ACLU.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47387

How about the ACLU show there conviction to this cause and give away all there unrighteous money. Hurry up, confirm Alito before this reaches the Supreme court.

Wow, you hit the crux of the dilemma in one fell swoop. I find it a bit hypocritical that this gentleman and the ACLU are trying to have it removed from the Pledge, but our currency isn't even a blip on their radar. I think if someone truly believes in a cause, everything would be included. But don't count on the ACLU giving up all it's dough. That would defeat their own purpose, and they know it.

 

[Kandahar]

Frankly I think that the words "In God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the money. Much like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, there appears to be no reason for it other than to establish a national religion of theism. Would we suddenly become Sodom and Gomorra in the eyes of your god if we DIDN'T include these phrases on money and in the pledge? No one is asking that they be replaced with "In no god do we trust" or "one nation under no god," just that the federal government should remain neutral on questions of religion.

With that said, I'm not one who goes into conniptions at the sight of Christmas decorations on government buildings, or opposes the idea of an optional elective class in public schools on the history/beliefs of various religions. But these phrases are BLATANTLY promoting theism, which the federal government should not do.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The guy who lobbied to have "One nation under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance is not trying to have "In God We Trust" removed from US currency. Of course all of this with the blessing of the ACLU.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47387

How about the ACLU show there conviction to this cause and give away all there unrighteous money. Hurry up, confirm Alito before this reaches the Supreme court.

I believe you mispoke err um mistyped you said not instead of now.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Frankly I think that the words "In God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the money. Much like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, there appears to be no reason for it other than to establish a national religion of theism. Would we suddenly become Sodom and Gomorra in the eyes of your god if we DIDN'T include these phrases on money and in the pledge? No one is asking that they be replaced with "In no god do we trust" or "one nation under no god," just that the federal government should remain neutral on questions of religion.

With that said, I'm not one who goes into conniptions at the sight of Christmas decorations on government buildings, or opposes the idea of an optional elective class in public schools on the history/beliefs of various religions. But these phrases are BLATANTLY promoting theism, which the federal government should not do.

Yes you heathen bastard, fire, brimstone, sulfur, and lava would rain down from the clouds, four horsemen of the apocalypse, cats and dogs living together, the Democrats would win an election, rain would fall up, you get the picture.

Actually I see this as really something of a non-issue just another way for morons to waste tax payer money on idiotic causes.

 

[aps]

Originally Posted by Kandahar
Frankly I think that the words "In God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the money. Much like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, there appears to be no reason for it other than to establish a national religion of theism. Would we suddenly become Sodom and Gomorra in the eyes of your god if we DIDN'T include these phrases on money and in the pledge? No one is asking that they be replaced with "In no god do we trust" or "one nation under no god," just that the federal government should remain neutral on questions of religion.

With that said, I'm not one who goes into conniptions at the sight of Christmas decorations on government buildings, or opposes the idea of an optional elective class in public schools on the history/beliefs of various religions. But these phrases are BLATANTLY promoting theism, which the federal government should not do.

Well stated, Kandahar. I wholeheartedly agree. I do think that the words "under God" should be removed. They were not there in the first place and were ADDED to the pledge decades ago.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well stated, Kandahar. I wholeheartedly agree. I do think that the words "under God" should be removed. They were not there in the first place and were ADDED to the pledge decades ago.

To bad this isn't a discussion about the pledge.

 

[aps]

To bad this isn't a discussion about the pledge.

Really? I see posts that address "under God" in the pledge. Need some coffee this morning, Trajan?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Really? I see posts that address "under God" in the pledge. Need some coffee this morning, Trajan?

actually it's about in god we trust on currency.

 

[aps]

actually it's about in god we trust on currency.

Awwwww, did I break some rule against bringing up a side issue that has been addressed by other posters in this thread? OMG--I am devastated if I did break a rule.

NOT.

Don't you have anything more intelligent to post about, Trajan? You know, like how Bush is a veteran? :2funny:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Awwwww, did I break some rule against bringing up a side issue that has been addressed by other posters in this thread? OMG--I am devastated if I did break a rule.

NOT.

Don't you have anything more intelligent to post about, Trajan? You know, like how Bush is a veteran? :2funny:

O.K. speaking of off topic

Presidents who never served in the military:

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Grover Cleveland
William Taft
Woodrow Wilson WW1
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt WW2
Bill Clinton Kosovo

Presidents who served but never saw action:
James Madison
James Polk
Millard Fillmore
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan - kept out of combat due to bad eyesight
George W. Bush

So being in the military or serving in combat are prerequsites now for leading your country, being on t.v., or supporting the war effort?

Notice the two presidents who led us during the two most important wars in history were never in the military let alone see any action.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Anyway, first off, the Pledge was developed by an avid socialist: Faramak Zahraie. Second "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" were adopted and added as TOKENS in the 1950's to differeniate between the Godless Soviets and Americans, not for any true Faith the in Lord.

The whole daily reciting of the pledge by school schildren should be dropped anyway, it is socialist indoctrination after all. But then again, token recitation of alligiance is better than actual patriotism, at least to the people who simply feed off the country like parasites. Just like the token alligience to God, by stamping God on the medium of earthly concerns, is better than faith. well, if not better, easier... lazier

If people love God, like I do, no reminder is necessary on money used to buy guns and crack.

If people love there country, like I do, they'd realize the millions of kids that say the pledge every day, without one iota of understanding behind it's significance, nor the congnitive resources to apprciate it (I mean, if they could, why not let them vote, drink, drive, and serve time in regular prisons).

It's simple: plain socialist indoctrination and useless tokens to true faith and Worship. If I were God, I'd be pretty offended myself. Good thing God is beyond that huh? at least I think so, for the sake of people's whose faith is so weak they need to be reminded of God when they pay for lunch.

Then again, since the whole idea was to differentiate the USA from the USSR, now that we are more like the soviets than ever, let's keep the socialist pledge, get rid of God.

Love of coutry does not come from sayings, but actions. Patriotism does not come from indoctrination, but choice. Trust and love of God does not come from words, but faith.

 

[Deegan]

talk about being off topic...


Anyway, first off, the Pledge was develop by an avid socialist. Second "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" were adopted and added as TOKENS in the 1950's to differeniate between the Godless Soviets and Americans.

the whole daily reciting of the pledge by school schildren should be dropped anyway, it is socialist indoctrination after all. But then again, token recitation of alligiance is better than actual patriotism. Just like token alligience to God, by stamping God on the medium of earthly concerns.

If people love God, like I do, no reminder is necessary on money used to buy guns and crack.

If people love there country, like I do, they'd realize the millions of kids that say the pledge every day, without one iota of understanding behind it's significance, nor the congnitive resources to apprciate it (I mean, if they could, why not let them vote, drink, drive, and serve time in regular prisons).

It's simple plain socialist indoctrination and useless tokens to true faith and Worship. If I were God, I'd be pretty offended myself. Good thing God is beyond that huh? at least I think so, for the sake of people's whose faith is so weak they need to be reminded of God when they pay lunch.

Then again, since the whole idea was to differentiate the USA from the USSR, now that we are more like the soviets than ever, let's keep the socialist pledge, get rid of God.

Love of coutry does not come from sayings, but actions. Patriotism does not come from indoctrination, but choice. Trust and love of God does not come from words, but faith.

Well said, and I agree, I just wonder why it's become so important these days, it's been tested and approved, we are not going to turn in to a theocracy, ever!

 

[ddoyle00]

This is an addendum to Knights post. He beat me to it, but I did the research and Im damn well going to type it.

The Rev. Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in Aug, of 1892 as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In Oct. 1892, the word "to" was added in 'and to the Republic."

In the 1920's, the pledge's words were changed from "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America." Then in McCarthy era admin. of fear of Communism in 1954, the words "Under God" were added to help differentiate between the U.S. and Russia. Thus, the pledge essentially became a forced pledge and patriotic oath.

Since "Under God" was not part of the original oath, why do we want to return to something that has roots in a response to Communism or has the potential to offend those not a follower in the Judeo-Christian religion?