Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 09:23 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103424/

Can't we ban HIM to say, Cuba or something, where he won't have to tolerate that horrible person whom we know as God?

Railroader · Nov 19, 2005, 09:25 AM

I wonder what the cost would be to replace all US currency?

It's historical. For that simple fact it should stay.

Goldfinger · Nov 19, 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

I wonder what the cost would be to replace all US currency?

Not more than the "maintenance" costs right now. Every once in a while they take used money out of circulation and they put in new freshly printed money. They could inject the new money in small quantities untill all the old money is replaced. The only extra cost would maybe designing the new money but hey...

nredman · Nov 19, 2005, 09:37 AM

quit your whining - if you dont like it just give me all your money

wdlove · Nov 19, 2005, 09:40 AM

I feel sorry for him. He is here on this earth to test our faith as Christians. Jesus said this many times.

tooki · Nov 19, 2005, 09:41 AM

All references to god need to go. They are clear violation of the tenet that there shall be no government-sponsored religion.

As an atheist, I do not like having all the god references shoved down my throat. And anyone who thinks they belong there "for historical reasons" needs to be reminded that they were only added in the 1950s to counter the "godless" commies.

Do I think we need to immediately melt all the money and shred all the bills? No. But the god references should be removed from all future mintings and printings.

tooki

Goldfinger · Nov 19, 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

All references to god need to go. They are clear violation of the tenet that there shall be no government-sponsored religion.

As an atheist, I do not like having all the god references shoved down my throat. And anyone who thinks they belong there "for historical reasons" needs to be reminded that they were only added in the 1950s to counter the "godless" commies.

Do I think we need to immediately melt all the money and shred all the bills? No. But the god references should be removed from all future mintings and printings.

tooki

Hear, hear

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

All references to god need to go. They are clear violation of the tenet that there shall be no government-sponsored religion.

As an atheist, I do not like having all the god references shoved down my throat. And anyone who thinks they belong there "for historical reasons" needs to be reminded that they were only added in the 1950s to counter the "godless" commies.

Do I think we need to immediately melt all the money and shred all the bills? No. But the god references should be removed from all future mintings and printings.

tooki

So do you spend the same money in the interim?

dav · Nov 19, 2005, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

So do you spend the same money in the interim?

of course. just phase out the motto - new printed bills won't have it on them.

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 10:14 AM

Why does he spend it if the word God offends him?

Goldfinger · Nov 19, 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Why does he spend it if the word God offends him?

tooki · Nov 19, 2005, 10:24 AM

Mostly plastic!

I pay by check card probably 95% of the time. I pretty much only use cash for going out.

tooki

tooki · Nov 19, 2005, 10:26 AM

Besides, while I can't speak for the guy filing the lawsuit, the WORD god doesn't offend me. But I don't like this government endorsement of religion (especially since it conveniently specifies a monotheistic religion, so it's not even as if it were just sponsoring religion in general: it's specific).

It's unconstitutional and it should go.

tooki

ReggieX · Nov 19, 2005, 10:29 AM

I was annoyed that they changed the words to "O Canada" to include the line "God keep our land/glorious and free" back in 1980-ish. Before that we had a perfectly secular anthem, and I can't see why it was added.

The Pledge of Allegiance itself should go completely.

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

Besides, while I can't speak for the guy filing the lawsuit, the WORD god doesn't offend me. But I don't like this government endorsement of religion (especially since it conveniently specifies a monotheistic religion, so it's not even as if it were just sponsoring religion in general: it's specific).

It's unconstitutional and it should go.

tooki

Well, how about "In Allah we trust"?

dav · Nov 19, 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

Besides, while I can't speak for the guy filing the lawsuit, the WORD god doesn't offend me. But I don't like this government endorsement of religion (especially since it conveniently specifies a monotheistic religion, so it's not even as if it were just sponsoring religion in general: it's specific).

It's unconstitutional and it should go.

tooki

exactly. it's not offensive, just wrong. remove it from future prints, no problem.

tooki · Nov 19, 2005, 10:34 AM

How about 'In Allah We Trust'

Same difference. There should be no references to any god, be it God, Allah, Ra and Osiris, or the Pah-Wraiths (sorry, I couldn't help myself!). The Constitution makes it very clear that the government is not to endorse any religion.

It doesn't say that private citizens can't endorse any religion they want -- it just says the government may not do so. References to any god on products of the Federal Government are clear violations of this.

tooki

effgee · Nov 19, 2005, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Well, how about "In Allah we trust"?

How about this turd of a thread be moved to where it belongs - the political lounge? Why do you feel the need to force your incoherent ramblings on people who made a conscious choice not to read the PL? Post your sh*t where it belongs or don't post it at all.

In the meantime, I'll be more than happy to pay for your one-way ticket to Havana.

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 10:46 AM

Well, isn't the Government in this country made of the same private citizens? And having the word God on currency doesn't endorse any religion. I could understand if the Government MANDATED that everyone be a Catholic or a Southern Baptist, but the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, so you can pick and choose for yourself.

When was the last time the Government made you go to a specific church or pray to a certain God? Now that would be unconstitutional.

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by effgee

How about this turd of a thread be moved to where it belongs - the political lounge? Why do you feel the need to force your incoherent ramblings on people who made a conscious choice not to read the PL? Post your sh*t where it belongs or don't post it at all.

In the meantime, I'll be more than happy to pay for your one-way ticket to Havana.

Who said I wanted to go to Havanna?

tooki · Nov 19, 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Well, isn't the Government in this country made of the same private citizens?

In theory? Yes. In practice? No. It's an organization with a mind of its own. Regardless, the Constitution says the government shall not endorse any religion. Clearly this is a violation of it.

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

And having the word God on currency doesn't endorse any religion.

Oh, but it does: it's "God" singular, already ruling out all polytheistic religions. And regardless of whether it's endorsing Christianity or not, it is endorsing religion, not giving a choice to atheists.

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

I could understand if the Government MANDATED that everyone be a Catholic or a Southern Baptist, but the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, so you can pick and choose for yourself.

When was the last time the Government made you go to a specific church or pray to a certain God? Now that would be unconstitutional.

Luckily it doesn't.

tooki

[edit: Woo! 10,000th post!!!]

effgee · Nov 19, 2005, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Who said I wanted to go to Havannnnnnnnna?

You know, it's always a good idea to use that spell checker before attempting to make fun of people so you don't come across like the uneducated dung-kicker that you are.

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by effgee

You know, it's always a good idea to use that spell checker before attempting to make fun of people so you don't come across like the uneducated dung-kicker that you are.

An uneducated dung kicker!?

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 10:59 AM

I take offense to that! I think I'm a bit educated after 17 and a half years in the Navy, and almost all the way around the world. Maybe you should heed your own advice, my man.

Kevin · Nov 19, 2005, 11:01 AM

Why wasn't this moved to the political lounge? And a mod even posted in it.

Cheese and rice people.

And this really has nothing to do with what our founding fathers talked about when they said that congress shall pass no law for or against religion.

But the God haters can't stand it, so they throw tantrums like the guy in said article.

Just like Bush can talk about God all he wants to. It is NOT Unconstitutional.

Well yet anyhow.

Free speech and such.

effgee · Nov 19, 2005, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

I take offense to that! I think I'm a bit educated after 17 and a half years in the Navy, and almost all the way around the world. Maybe you should heed your own advice, my man.

17 and a half years in the Navy might have gotten you respect from me if you had been intelligent and considerate enough to post your drivel where it belongs - the PL. As it stands, you're doing little more than providing ample evidence that nearly two decades in any profession don't guarantee anything - least of all an education.

Btw, what's with the "veteran card", cutie? You think that gets you some extra brownie points? You always do that when the vacuum inside your skull becomes overbearing?

His Dudeness · Nov 19, 2005, 11:15 AM

Oh GOD, sue me! I put it in the wrong thread, all HELL is going to come down now!!

And why are you calling me cutie? You cruising?

James L · Nov 19, 2005, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

I wonder what the cost would be to replace all US currency?

It's historical. For that simple fact it should stay.

Slavery and segregation are historical in your country too. Should these stay also?

Kevin · Nov 19, 2005, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

All references to god need to go. They are clear violation of the tenet that there shall be no government-sponsored religion.

There is no gov sponsored religion. If it said "In Jesus we shall trust" you'd have a point .

As an atheist, I do not like having all the god references shoved down my throat.

Nothing is shoved down your throat tooki. If you think having that on a bill is shoving God down your throat, I want them to take pyramids off it too. I HATE EM! Those darn pyramid people!

And anyone who thinks they belong there "for historical reasons" needs to be reminded that they were only added in the 1950s to counter the "godless" commies.

No, that was something else all together. November 13, 1861 was the first time such thing was put on money.

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.

Do I think we need to immediately melt all the money and shred all the bills? No. But the god references should be removed from all future mintings and printings.

tooki

Does it really bother you that much? I would say that says more about you than the words.

tooki · Nov 19, 2005, 11:18 AM

You're right, Kevin: my brain categorized this as "religion", which isn't in the title of the PL. Indeed, this is miscategorized, and in my spirit of not condoning misplacement of threads, I'll close it, not move it.

tooki

tooki · Nov 19, 2005, 11:24 AM

And I'll take one executive perk here: the ability to post in closed threads:

Yes, it bothers me (only slightly, admittedly) that money and the pledge contain references to a god (any god), because I do not believe in any gods. Thus "In God We Trust" excludes me, because I don't trust in any higher power, be it your god or someone else's.

This country is supposed to be a melting pot. It should also include a place for atheists, but currently, that's rather frowned upon.

tooki