Justice

... Uh, no, she's arguing that many obiquous references to God found in government are generally harmless acts of tradition not meant at all to endorse a religion. Again, monotheism isn't a religion. You're seriously dense. What does the word 'God' matter if it isn't some sort of prayer or other praising fashion, what does it matter? Secondly, it doesn't ban 'government recognition' of religion. It bans the sponsor of religion that actively or passively benefits one religion over another, as it is in it's current form. The references above do neither. Just mentioning "God" does not inherently make something religious. The problem is it no longer serves that function. If you actually read what he said, it's no longer recognized as an act praising God, but something that lacks that meaning. Souter is right: It's no longer a prayer or recognition of a 'God' but more of an Affirmation of civic duty. With "In God We Trust", it now forms more of a trust in our own actions and the American Spirit than a literal belief in God. Are you getting this, or do we have to play in the shallow end of the pool still? You do know that Scalia holds a much stronger view of what they just said, right? Perhaps you can point out, then, the clause where "In God We Trust" leads to compulsory church services? Or name the established religion of the United States? If you've read the Constitution, you'd realize that half the stuff you are exposing isn't even in there. Ooooooookay. Sure you are. You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious. You have to understand that not everything involving "God" is necessarily religious, nor that something taken from the bible (The 10 Commandments) is necessarily meant as a religious reference (JotW brings up the original and acceptable reason of historical references). You are determinedly anti-religious. I'll say I was wrong on Ray Moore when he started saying "This is because we are a Christian Nation". In the current case we are talking about: 1) No national religion has been established. 2) No one's free exercise has been prohibited. Where's the problem?

I agree with many of the points you make, though I'm not so sure "under God" still carries that meaning. It's become so diluted, plus the fact that you don't need to say it, has made it pretty much harmless.

Ultimately, there's only one sure-fire Missile Defense.

Okay, I'll cut up all the crap and just get to the point: Like the Supreme Court, I see this as a minor in irrelevant quibble. You can shout "It's an endorsement of religions!", and I'll say "Not any longer, it's only a traditional phrase." Hell, one could consider it now more a reference to American Spirit and how it binds us all together rather than an actual prayer or reference to a specific God. Just because you quote something doesn't mean you understand it. Again, there's nothing about the abolition of religion from the government as you are talking about. Indeed, we try to be neutral in all affairs, but there are minor areas where using it is simply overstretching it: Harmless, meaningless references in procedures are, as a rule, generally protected since while they mention God, they are more of a tradition carried out and they aren't meant to endorse religion, nor are they strong enough to even register on the screen most of the time. I doubt many people, when looking at a dollar bill, instantly think of 'In God We Trust' and scurry off to church. Yes, I know what the slippery slope is. Considering that people haven't been impelled to put monuments in because "In God We Trust" is on money (They'll like do that anyways...), I don't think you understand it much, either. With your version, any reference to God could and likely would be wiped out. "There's a reference to God in the Declaration of Independence! Get it out!" That's what power your precedent would afford. No offense, but your argument reeks of when they changed 'O Canada' because it said "Brothers" and some people couldn't get their head around the idea that that STILL includes everyone, even if it's not explicitly mentioned. But if you don't believe me and try to tout your 'incredible knowledge' of the first Amendment over me, let's check what the SCOTUS Justices have said on a similar subject (Pledge of Allegience). Wow, it's funny how my argument and the SCOTUS's view coincide. Your view is not how the First Amendment is used. It's not a way of getting all religion banned. It's about protecting both sides of the coin, religious and non-religious.

Alright, here's what we're doing. We are going to start putting together DVDs of some of the Hall of Famers, sort of giving them a view of their past career. Here are those up on the block. Trying to get the Golden Age guys taken quickly... Edwin MacPhisto The King of Hearts/The Suicide King The HVille Thugg Sacred Thoth Mark Stevens Chris Raynor That's the first round of them. Think of important matches and promos you would want to include, and perhaps some easter eggs (Like the best of Christian Blackwell for Sacred, Bastion for HVille, etc...). Post all your suggestions here.

Bah. Monotheism is not a religion, just as Atheism isn't a religion. Neither have an overarching organization, and there are huge difference between fanctions between them. To try and pass it off as something like Catholicism I don't want to because I don't see it as a proper use of the 1st Amendment. It firstly upsets balance and sets the precedent that we can literally have no 'religious' reference at all. I respect minority rights, but this goes a bit overboard. I guess you just don't understand the 'slippery slope' concept very well. Can you prove it is actively subverting people to God? Can you prove that religion has actively been gaining anything from this? If not, then the SCOTUS probably won't even look at you. The words have been on there long enough that they've lost that meaning. It's no longer the government telling anyone anything, it's just something traditional. I acknowledge your right not to believe in God, but your rights do not overstretch over everything and everyone. There are limits. Grow thicker skin and come back. No, you haven't. Because if you do, it only guards against a state establishment of a religion or the endorsement of a specific religion. No religion actively gains anything from this, and arguably they gain nothing passively. Nothing gained, nothing lost, nothing wrong.

You're arguing that those crosses should be allowed to stay in as a nod to history, then I agree. How do the words "In God We Trust" acknowledge history? They do not. The words "In God We Trust" promote religion, even if it is not a specific one. Simple. Early Christian Founders, if you really, really want to go into it. Seriously, you haven't proven it as a harmful or an actual sponsoring of a religion. That's what is matter. An ambigious term =/= a religious infringement. No, you are too blind to see that those words do NOTHING. It's too small, in too an unassuming. How many people do you know have actually converted because of that little message? Prove to me the active harm in it. That's what it takes. What you want is an utter abolition of Religion and Government. That's NOT shown in the Consitution at all. They didn't want a state government, that's about all that can be shown in the Amendment, if you've actually read it before. Saying 'In God We Trust' is not the establishment of a religion for the US.

Not true. If that's true, then places like Los Angeles can't keep the little cross on their flag to represent their start as a Spanish Mission. Whether or not you think it's 'religious' means nothing if you can't find some sort of actual promotion of religion. What does putting 'God' in such things actually promote? Nothing. They are in useless and harmless positions, and they are too vague and ambigious to actually do harm. No, this is abhorance of any sort of 'religious' reference. It's nothing else. Eliminating something as useless or harmless as 'God' on currency for the simple reason that it might be religious is exactly that.

No, that's a group of religions, not one specific one. Are you honestly saying that making something plural negates any rules against it? God, let's miss the forrest for the trees... Okay, look: God is a non-specific term. It's so vague and ambigious that you can't really tie it down as helping one religion over another. It's not specific enough for any one to really benefit, nor does it (In it's usage) infringe on the rights of any other people. It's not the plurality, it's the vagueness and it's harmless and minor usage (In the Pledge, on money) that makes it something that doesn't fall under a seperation of church and state. Again, look at the fact that you are trying to single out a 'religious' belief; the same can be said for your reason to get it off. Seperation of Church and State DOES NOT mean that government must abhor religion or religious references. in this case, the term 'God' just isn't enough of a strong endorsement it it's wording or in it's appearance to do anything like promote a religion.

Eh, the 10 Commandments is very specific in terms of what it really is. God, well... God is a fairly ambigious concept when it comes down to it all.

"You can try." Huh. Looks better than the other two, or at the very least more action and story driven the last two. After seeing this, I'd hope to God they don't find some ass-backwards way of screwing up what sounds like a pretty good movie.

Using "God" means that you support the monotheism, which is a religious viewpoint. No, that's a group of religions, not one specific one. Monotheism in itself isn't a religion, but a tenent of some religious beliefs. If we are going by a 'religious viewpoint', then no God is also up for that. It doesn't work, does it? Catholicism is a religion, monotheism is a concept. Doesn't work the same.

Wow. You know you are desperate when you are producing a resolution from a Vermont Townhall Meeting. Dear God, 57 votes! That's obviously a stunning cross-section of America. God, if you weren't a joke before, you certainly are now...

Yeah, because he's really setting himself up for a third term. Am I right? Am I right?

My problem with this is that we are getting bombs in more and more dangerous hands. Iran and North Korea are the types of nations that WOULD make a first strike attack against us, especially NK. We call it being realistic. Disarmament is a sad, hopeless dream when faced with the reality of the world.

I think it's obvious now that INXS is actually Putin in disguise.

I would doubt stuff like that would, in all honesty. The problem is the specific sponsoring of a religion, which can't be the shown through a mere reference to God. God can mean any number of things and isn't religion-specific, so therefore it's arguable that vague references like that aren't under scrutiny. And it's people trying to change dumb things like that that make it that much harder.

I loved your storyline leading up to G3 with Axis. I loved that fucking match, especially the ending. "I'm sorry... I'm so sorry..."

Perhaps it's just me, but even if we admit to mistakes in supporting Saddam against Iran (As minor support as it was), aren't we allowed to correct our mistakes?

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right? That's my personal belief. Again, the whole hangup I have with the 10,000 years thign is that I know a ton of people who would say "A day for God is eons for us". I don't think the whole 10,000 years thing is completely accurate. Alright, so according to them 10,000 years in God's time = 4.55 billion years in ours. Fair enough. Scientific fact still pretty much states the Earth is 4.55 billion years old in 'our time' regardless of the God/Human conversion scale. Well, I meant 7 days as all the time up before human civilization. That'd probably be more accurate to what they mean. But I'm not really a big fan on that, either. And bud, don't compliment Rudo. Seriously, it's below you.

No, it's a strawman. There was always that justification. Read the damn resolution. Agreed that WMDs was the main focus, but there were always multiple reasons. Most Americans believed in that reason long before Bush proposed it. WMDs were to try and get the UN and the World behind it. And why in God's name can no other country be guilty of this? Seriously, your argument doesn't make sense because this is entirely situational, and anything can be claimed when something is as situational as this is. And frankly, you've been more self-righteous than anyone else in this thread so far. This idea that because you aren't an American you are somehow have a more unbiased and better opinion is easily as jingoistic as the guy who wouldn't have a problem bombing France because 'them frogs suck ass!' They are nuclear. Both countries have admitted to it. OMG FEAR TACTICS~! 'Cause we've done that with China already. God damn us and our simple-minded ways! ... A nuclear assault in today's world would anhillate far more than any ground assault, and the effects would last far, far longer. That's a simple fact. Trying to somehow draw a parallel between Operations Olympic and Coronet and a ground invasion today is simply incorrect. But hey, you still haven't told me what you would have done, and where the damn secret report where we definitely knew some sort of better way out. Wow, could we pull anything else out of thin air? Perhaps we can have the Americans start raising swastikas and killing puppies while were at it. I'm sure you obviously think we do. And he calls us self-righteous. You're 'proof' is so based in this idea that Americans so far fucking below you when it comes to considering human life it's truly, truly sickening.

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right? That's my personal belief. Again, the whole hangup I have with the 10,000 years thign is that I know a ton of people who would say "A day for God is eons for us". I don't think the whole 10,000 years thing is completely accurate.

Wow, just what we needed. An article from refuseandresist.org.

This thread is quickly turning into a right-left pissing contest (shock of shocks!) so I'm just going to requote Eric's concise assertion, because I think it's spot-on.