Hades wrote: Is there a particular reason you site MSNBC more often than not? I only notice because they seem to have more annoying ads on their site compaired to CNN.

I don't like the CNN layout, so CNN isn't on my regular news haunt.  ABCNews gives me annoying popunders, so MSNBC gets my vote for most convenient new site.  The ads don't particularly bother me - in fact, it hadn't occurred to me that they even had ads until you just now said so.  I guess I'm pretty good at tuning them out.

BTW - I started this thread 4-5 hours ago, and already on page 3?  I that answers the question of "what's the big frickin' deal?" - Obviously people care.

Snake6 wrote: Believe it or not this country is founded on Christian pricipals

That's both disputable and irrelevant.

Several of the founders were deists.  Others (including Thomas Jefferson, for instance), were a lot further away from being Christians than that.  TJ famously rewrote the Bible to take out all of the silly "god stuff".

Moreover, the First Amendment makes it pretty clear that the government cannot favor one religion over another, and both the founders (Jefferson and Adams) and the Supreme Court have made it clear that there is to be a "wall of separation" between church and state.  So it is in fact irrelevant whether the country was "founded" on "christian principles".

Darur wrote: Rosa Parks got too much credit. Did you know that three other black women did the same thing as her before she did and not one of them was recognized?

Not just three - many black men and women had refused to move over the years, and they were all beaten or jailed.

If anything, that makes Mrs. Parks actions MORE remarkable - would you sit still, knowing that EVERY time somebody else tried that stunt they got jailed or beaten, or both?  She KNEW she would get in serious trouble, and did it anyway.

DBibeau855 wrote: No ones civil rights are being jeopardized.

I disagree.

As always, the test is simple:  Would anybody's civil rights be jeopardized if we changed it "In Allah We Trust"?

If we think it is wrong to put "Allah" (in pledge or money), then it is equally wrong to put "God".  To say anything else would be to favor one religion over another.

Darur wrote: No, the act of removing the words is an endorsment of atheism Had they not been there in the first place it would be fine

From this I extrapolate that you favor REMOVING "under God" from the Pledge?  (Since it wasn't in the original)

But, more to the point:  I conclude that you therefore MUST support removing the phrase from money now, since it wasn't added on money until the http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html - Civil War .

In fact, if you check the history of almost every visible religious tradition like these in this country, you will find that most of them were added/introduced long after the founding of the nation, and usually at the behest of a religious group.

DBibeau855 wrote: I dont like how the government has no backbone anymore.

I think there are many things we can say about the current administration - not having a backbone is not one of them...

High Voltage wrote: crap i ruined the quintuple post string

Doh!

Sorry about the string-posting...   Had to catch up after my lunch/shopping trip.

:)

Darur wrote: So why do we only celebrate her?  Why not the person before her who knew just as well or the person before the last? Give them all the honor of it I say.

And there is some logic to that - but isn't this true of almost every hero?  Heros are mostly people that were in the right place at a right time - very heros were truly unique. 

For every winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor there are 10 other equally worthy heros whose deeds went unseen.

But, to some extent, I believe that the civil rights movement (much like the military) understands this and honors its unspoken heros even as they regale the visible ones.

But your point is certainly well taken.

EDIT - Gatyr:  No, I do not mean to detract at all from the actions of others.  They were all heros of the civil rights movement.  Mrs. Parks' notoriety was somewhat random, but certainly not unearned, as is the case with heros of all kinds.

Gatyr wrote: Anyway, who here is with me when I say we need to remove god from the declaration of independence, constitution, the all seeing eye of god on the religious side of the dollar, nearly all of the latin phrases on said side, etc.?

The Constitution does not mention God anywhere.  The only reference to religion is that the government shouldn't have one.

The Declaration is not a legal document, and it preceded the First Amendment anyway.

As to the Eye - this is a bit more complicated, as it is not only a religious symbol.  But you are correct - the same principle applies. 

The basic rule is that the government has to be areligious.  The Court has allowed some religious displays, but only to the extent that they are "historical" in nature, and carry no particular religious context.  Tricky line to draw at times, given the history of the country.

Devil2 wrote: Well the whole Rosa Parks thing, the reason she didn't move is because she didn't have the energy to. She had just got off of a 12 hour or so shift at her workplace, and got on the bus. When the white man asked her to move, she asked him if he would find another place to sit because she did not want to move (because she was too tired to move). It was not meant to be a movement against segregation, merely fatigue.

I think you need to read more about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks - Rosa Parks .  She was actively involved in civil rights long before the bus incident.  At the time, she was involved in the leadership in the local chapter of the NAACP.  Her grandfather (a former slave) was known for sitting on his porch, shotgun in hand, looking for some Klansmen to shoot.

Moreover, people didn't not move just because they were tired.  Getting beaten and thrown off the bus will overcome "tired" any day.

There is no doubt that her act was deliberate - heck, a good argument can be made that it was set up.  The NAACP (with which she was involved) had been considering a boycott of the Montgomery bus system for more than a year at the time, and they were actively looking for a suitable plaintiff.

Then the artists have to make the dyes. For paper monies, they have to sketch what they want it to look like, and then they trace that onto a dye and cut it out. They have to cut every little detail, line, nook, and cranny out at just the right thickness or else they have to totally restart the dye. It takes an artist months or years of tiring work to make one single dye. And after that, they make copies of the dyes. And then they have to put those dyes in the machines and set it all up to make new monies. Then after they get everything done and set up (which would be years later, most likely), it would take many many years to get all of the old paper bills out of circulation. They take all of the money from federal banks, and it all goes to a sorting place. There they take the old, beat up money and dispose of it, and the money that is still in good condition is counted and put back out into circulation. For every bill that is destroyed, they put a new one into circulation. They cannot put billions of extra dollars into circulation. So even if he does win (which I doubt he will), he will probably be dead before all of the money with "In God We Trust" is out of circulation.

The process might go faster than you think, at least for small bills.  http://www.frbservices.org/Cash/CashQ-A.html#5 - Info .  And that's for "normal" use.  When the government wants to subsitute, they can move pretty fast.  Look for an old $20 (with a smaller Jackson) - very hard to find.  The big-head look was only introduced in 1998, and the substitution is almost complete.

In fact the 20 was redesigned, to some extent, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._twenty_dollar_bill - 14 times in the 20th century.  While there would be some legacy bills floating around for a while, it would not be a major hardship on the government to take out religious references.

Billions of bills are destroyed every year, as a matter of course.  Coins last almost forever, but bills get replaced all the time.

This guy needs to get a life, get laid, or die.

Hades wrote: bluemunky wrote: Jeese, why not just frickin' deal with it? I'm atheist, I don't carethat it says "under god" in the pledge, I just don't say it. It doesn'tmatter if it has religious garbage on money, it works for me. Why didnt Rosa Parks just deal with having to move to the back of the bus? I am all for equal rights but cultural tradition at that time meant that she should have gotten out of my way if I wanted to sit there.

Rosa Parks was in the back of the bus. She was in the "black" section and all other seats were takin. If this happened a white person was allowed to have a "'black" persons seat. The man asked for Rosa Parks seat, she refused to give it up. She was never in the front.

Kristofer wrote: ok lets see how many years its been then... 144 right? after 144 years of being on currency now they want it off? give me a break.

We had legal racism for longer than that - should we have told Rosa Parks that it was too late, she should just get used to it, and just give me a break?

Correcting mistakes has no timeline.

I will take this time to remind once again all people who say the pledge of allegiance, that they are simply reciting a catchy business jingle.

From Wikipedia...

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on 11 October 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day, 12 October

-------------

No court will force you to swear on the Bible (not in this country).  It is still tradition in some parts of the country, but in many other places there are no Bibles in the courtroom. 

And "so help me God" is not part of the inaugural oath - it is just tradition to add the phrase to the end of the oath.  Similarly, the Bible is not required for that either.  The oath would be no less effective if the President swore the oath without Bible or "so help me god".

These are all traditions that the participant (witness/President) may choose to partake in or not.

Because "God Bless the USA" is mostly played by private organizations, not government.

The issue isn't whether there should be religion - the issue is whether the GOVERNMENT should be in the religion business (and the answer is "no").

As to who cares - a lot of people, on both sides of the issue.  If not, we wouldn't be on page 5 already.

DBibeau855 wrote: The constitution says we shall enact no law that favors any religion. The phrase "In god we trust." favors no religion, i dont even think this is a law.

The law established a "wall of separation" between church and state, not merely prohibiting favorable treatment of a particular religion.