• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religious people try to force god onto children in school

Lursa said:
Of course they are...people that dont believe in the Christian God.

(The motto has a history itself and it is Christian)
Click to expand...

God by whatever name is universal to all people of whatever religion, not only Christians. And the history behind the motto is the history of all Americans, not just those who adhere to a religion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
God by whatever name is universal to all people of whatever religion, not only Christians. And the history behind the motto is the history of all Americans, not just those who adhere to a religion.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Even American-born, several generations, Muslims do not refer to Allah as God. it's disrespectful to assume they would.

And yes, history applies to all Americans but continuing to promote things that are not inclusive is not a positive thing. Hence removing the Confederate flag from govt-based establishments. It's an affront to many blacks. Harmless to many and part of our history? Sure. But non-inclusive, even offensive.

In the case of "In God We Trust", to knowingly move forward and post that is not only non-inclusive, it's being done intentionally with the knowledge that it IS non-inclusive.
 
Lursa said:
No, it's not. Even American-born, several generations, Muslims do not refer to Allah as God. it's disrespectful to assume they would.

And yes, history applies to all Americans but continuing to promote things that are not inclusive is not a positive thing. Hence removing the Confederate flag from govt-based establishments. It's an affront to many blacks. Harmless to many and part of our history? Sure. But non-inclusive, even offensive.

In the case of "In God We Trust", to knowingly move forward and post that is not only non-inclusive, it's being done intentionally with the knowledge that it IS non-inclusive.
Click to expand...

Muslims had no part in establishing the USA as a nation. It is not part of their history as Muslims but it is part of the history that allows American Muslims to be American.

And I don't accept your interpretation of what the motto means or what is intended. If you don't like it don't say it, don't read it, pay attention to something else. But don't presume your dislike of it should override the appreciation that most of us have for it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Muslims had no part in establishing the USA as a nation. It is not part of their history as Muslims but it is part of the history that allows American Muslims to be American.

And I don't accept your interpretation of what the motto means or what is intended. If you don't like it don't say it, don't read it, pay attention to something else. But don't presume your dislike of it should override the appreciation that most of us have for it.
Click to expand...

I think you just made my point.

This country was founded by mostly (but not all) believers of Christian faith. But some had none. And ALL signed on to a goal of America providing religious freedom for all. So every single American learns that in school, it's part of ALL our histories. So it does not 'pre-date' their presence in the US...it enabled it.

And regarding the last part of your post, so then you'd be ok with "Satan will reward good grades?" How about "Allah akbar!' I mean, if you or your kids dont have to read it or interpret it or care?

I'm a Christian, I have no problem with the motto. I have a problem with it being unConstitutional and being paid for with taxpayer $ since it is exclusionary.
 
FreeWits said:
Obviously the courts have ruled that it's not. I thought I made that obvious in my post, but apparently for you, it wasn't. However, when one uses this motto, which is religious in nature, and then tries to push it onto other people, including children where they are legally forced to go and are punished for not going, then hopefully the courts will reconsider the decision about allowing the religious motto. I mean, I don't trust God as no atheist does, so how does it even make sense for that to be our national motto? It doesn't.
Click to expand...

"religious in nature" and whats a qualifier for that? If you don't trust God, are you afraid your money will jump up your asshole? Hey, you might like it, why complain?
 
Lursa said:
I think you just made my point.

This country was founded by mostly (but not all) believers of Christian faith. But some had none. And ALL signed on to a goal of America providing religious freedom for all. So every single American learns that in school, it's part of ALL our histories. So it does not 'pre-date' their presence in the US...it enabled it.

And regarding the last part of your post, so then you'd be ok with "Satan will reward good grades?" How about "Allah akbar!' I mean, if you or your kids dont have to read it or interpret it or care?

I'm a Christian, I have no problem with the motto. I have a problem with it being unConstitutional and being paid for with taxpayer $ since it is exclusionary.
Click to expand...

"Satin will reward good grades" and "Allah Akbar" are not part of our history and therefore would be inappropriate to post as such. Just as it would be inappropriate to post a sign that "Jesus Saves" or "Repent and be saved." Neither slogan was instrumental in the foundational documents or concepts or principles that make up our national history.

I also have a problem with the U.S. taxpayer paying for posting the motto in schools because our Constitution does not grant the authority for that to the federal government nor did it intend that the federal government would have ANY say in the public schools.

As a taxpayer in your state or district you have a voice, you can petition, you can vote your conscience, etc. etc. etc. in these matters. And if the majority or the legal authority overrides your point of view, well that is how a democratic system works. And you have every right to move into another area or state that is more to your liking. But a small minority or oligarchy should NEVER be able to ride roughshod over the rights of others who prefer to do things differently. As a widely diverse nation, we will never have 100% agreement on much so except in matters that violate the rights of some, the majority will generally decide. A motto "In God We Trust" violates nobody's rights so the issue is actually who should be responsible for paying for it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
"Satin will reward good grades" and "Allah Akbar" are not part of our history and therefore would be inappropriate to post as such. Just as it would be inappropriate to post a sign that "Jesus Saves" or "Repent and be saved." Neither slogan was instrumental in the foundational documents or concepts or principles that make up our national history.

I also have a problem with the U.S. taxpayer paying for posting the motto in schools because our Constitution does not grant the authority for that to the federal government nor did it intend that the federal government would have ANY say in the public schools.

As a taxpayer in your state or district you have a voice, you can petition, you can vote your conscience, etc. etc. etc. in these matters. And if the majority or the legal authority overrides your point of view, well that is how a democratic system works. And you have every right to move into another area or state that is more to your liking. But a small minority or oligarchy should NEVER be able to ride roughshod over the rights of others who prefer to do things differently. As a widely diverse nation, we will never have 100% agreement on much so except in matters that violate the rights of some, the majority will generally decide. A motto "In God We Trust" violates nobody's rights so the issue is actually who should be responsible for paying for it.
Click to expand...

In God We Trust isnt NOW either, except that we chose to adopt it because it promoted a Christian belief, so it was a reflection of social values at the time.

And how do you know that "In God We Trust" doesnt violate anyone's rights? Which precedents have proven that? (And btw, the feds arent paying for the plaque in question, it's local govt)

And since when does the 'majority' get to vote on things that affect a true minority? (as in a recognzied group of people, not just numbers.) We didnt vote on keeping Jim Crow laws, did we?

I see you have retreated, defensively, to the same place as most others trying to push your idea...'if I dont like it, leave,'

I dont mind the sign, as I wrote. I'm a Christian. I do mind the implications for the Constitution and the social ramifications of exclusion on minority groups that 'you, the majority', seem to easily dismiss.
 
doxygen said:
I have my doubts about that as well, but the precedent (of "in God we trust") is established at this point. I think the use of "God"/"Creator" in the Declaration also tends to push for allowing it.
Click to expand...

True, but the context is different, as one can reasonably expect a national motto to appear on nationally issued currency, along with other national symbols, like former presidents, founding fathers, national, governmental buildings, an eagle, and none of those symbols appearing with the stand alone phrase of “In God We Trust” in the public schools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
Was there a sign on your school that said, "Thor will strike you with a lightning bolt if you dont learn?"

We learned about the Nazis in school too, we were smart enough to understand we were being educated about something, the teachers made the message clear.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think “In God we trust” means?

BTW Thor is a Norse god not a Greek one. I think you were looking for Zeus
 
Crovax said:
Is that what you think “In God we trust” means?

BTW Thor is a Norse god not a Greek one. I think you were looking for Zeus
Click to expand...

No, it's not what I think it means. It was a different expression.

Did you not comprehend that? However if Americans following the ancient Norse religion wanted that sign on the school, would you object to it if the govt put it up?
 
FreeWits said:
That's simply not true, though. Who is the "we" in "In God We Trust"?
Click to expand...

Except it is true. No matter of stamping your feet and demanding otherwise changes the fact that they are merely words you disagree with, words that to not respect any specific establishment of religion, and that no action is being taken with regards to those words that in any way affect your life other than you choosing to ‘feel’ ‘oppressed’.
 
Lursa said:
So....it would be ok for your kids to see a sign saying "Satan bless our learning here?"
Click to expand...

I, and many others, actually don’t find the current state of governance, and specifically the schools, very far off from that statement.
 
Aberration said:
Except it is true. No matter of stamping your feet and demanding otherwise changes the fact that they are merely words you disagree with, words that to not respect any specific establishment of religion, and that no action is being taken with regards to those words that in any way affect your life other than you choosing to ‘feel’ ‘oppressed’.
Click to expand...

Another fact is that they (those words) do indeed promote only one religion. (History shows this is a Christian phrase and it also tells us why the govt started using it).

How is promoting a single religion that different from establishing one as a 'govt-sponsored' religion?

Why should taxpayer $ be spent on a sign that speaks to one specific group? Why are they only speaking to one specific group?
 
I am just curious on why "In God We Trust" is such an issue today. The motto has been in place for years. How would removing the phrase from schools, money, etc make a difference in peoples lives?

Shouldn't we be working on more important issues?
 
FreeWits said:
There has been a push to have public schools display "In God We Trust". In 4 states, displaying this is mandatory, and in 2 states, optional. Public schools in 6 states allow 'In God We Trust' motto | On Air Videos | Fox News

I see this as a violation of separation of church and state, especially given that atheist children are forced to go to school. Even in this video, the woman admits this is an expression of religious liberty. I'm hoping that this eventually backfires, and instead of the national motto acting as a loophole to violate church and state, one day courts will decide that the national motto itself is a violation of church and state given how it is being used. I think it's a possibility, but I doubt that change happens anytime soon. We'll see. It's not like the biggest deal in the world at least.
Click to expand...

Ummm. The money in your wallet says, "In God We Trust".
 
FreeWits said:
Obviously the courts have ruled that it's not. I thought I made that obvious in my post, but apparently for you, it wasn't. However, when one uses this motto, which is religious in nature, and then tries to push it onto other people, including children where they are legally forced to go and are punished for not going, then hopefully the courts will reconsider the decision about allowing the religious motto. I mean, I don't trust God as no atheist does, so how does it even make sense for that to be our national motto? It doesn't.
Click to expand...

Actually, God transcends religion. God is not actually a religion. There is no religion "God". So, this is not really a religious issue.
 
mike2810 said:
I am just curious on why "In God We Trust" is such an issue today. The motto has been in place for years. How would removing the phrase from schools, money, etc make a difference in peoples lives?

Shouldn't we be working on more important issues?
Click to expand...

I agree with your last sentence.

But this isnt about removing the phrase, it's about adding it "now" to places. It's not a big deal (to me) but it is paid for by all taxpayers and yet, 'includes' only one specific group, those practicing Christianity. Why move forward with something that excludes people? Why not add a sign that communicates the same sentiment (and no one has yet told me what they think the purpose of the sign is) to all Americans?
 
Moderate Right said:
Actually, God transcends religion. God is not actually a religion. There is no religion "God". So, this is not really a religious issue.
Click to expand...

And what if people dont believe in this myth you just claimed as fact?

Is there a reason they should be subjected to something, that literally, some atheists see as delusional and ludicrous? And that the FF's specifically called out should NOT be forced on non-believers? And that costs (in the case of monuments, signs, etc) all taxpayers $$, not just those that 'believe?'
 
Bassman said:
Freedom to worship the Sovereign God of Creation without interference from government. Nowhere does it say people of faith are to park it at the doors of the public square.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with sanitizing society in the public square. Education is compulsory. In God we trust isn't.
 
Lursa said:
I agree with your last sentence.

But this isnt about removing the phrase, it's about adding it "now" to places. It's not a big deal (to me) but it is paid for by all taxpayers and yet, 'includes' only one specific group, those practicing Christianity. Why move forward with something that excludes people? Why not add a sign that communicates the same sentiment (and no one has yet told me what they think the purpose of the sign is) to all Americans?
Click to expand...

It would seem to me if the local community supports it, then what is the big deal? imo, you can't satisfy everyone.

" Why move forward with something that excludes people?" is an interesting question. Especially if you apply it beyond the "In God We Trust". Many Americans are excluded from government paid programs for one reason or another. Companies are included in some contracting because they are not minority based. Some people are excluded from benefits because they are above some dollar threshold. Some are excluded from grants because they are not the target of the grant.

If you choice not to believe "In God We Trust", that is your choice. People who do believe also have that choice.
 
It should be modified to "In a 'certain' God We Trust',as there have been over 40,000 god claims through out history.NONE of which have ever been proven to actually exist.
 
d0gbreath said:
This has nothing to do with sanitizing society in the public square. Education is compulsory. In God we trust isn't.
Click to expand...
The cases that the American Center for Law and Justice that were filed on behalf of Evangelical Christians say otherwise.
 
Lursa said:
And what if people dont believe in this myth you just claimed as fact?

Is there a reason they should be subjected to something, that literally, some atheists see as delusional and ludicrous? And that the FF's specifically called out should NOT be forced on non-believers? And that costs (in the case of monuments, signs, etc) all taxpayers $$, not just those that 'believe?'
Click to expand...

Just saying, God is not a religion. There is no religion called God. Therefore, this is not a religious issue of separating church and state.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just saying, God is not a religion. There is no religion called God. Therefore, this is not a religious issue of separating church and state.
Click to expand...

Yet Buddhists have NO god.

And Hindus have many.

So it is definitely a nod to monotheism. I'm sure it isn't referring to Thor or Osiris or any other "god".

And I don't trust jahweh as far as he could throw himself.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just saying, God is not a religion. There is no religion called God. Therefore, this is not a religious issue of separating church and state.
Click to expand...

That is completely ridiculous. A belief in a god is a religious concept.

What context can you offer for 'god' that is not based in religion? Besides swearing or an exclamation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom