One Nation "Under God" [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Armistead

09-04-13, 09:24 PM

Here we go again. Not sure how I feel about the issue, more where it will lead. What's next, we have to move God off money? Course that can't happen, because it's impossible, so I think that leaves other possibilities open.

I think it was a mistake to add "under God", but now that's it's there, tough call. I guess soon when we get to that part of the pledge it will be
"insert your God here".

Not sure how we totally seperate church and state, should we or do we leave options open, you don't want to say it, don't. Anyway, legally, I don't see how a school official can lead anything with God in it.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20327848-pledge-of-allegiance-challenged-in-massachusetts-supreme-court?lite

Stealhead

09-04-13, 09:30 PM

http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

It used to be back in the day..
E pluribus unum. Out of many,one that was the founding ideal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum

Takeda Shingen

09-04-13, 10:47 PM

The "one nation under God" and the changing of the national motto are holdovers from the hyper-nationalism of the Cold War, where it was considered super important to distinguish ourselves from the godless communists. It was silly, unconstitutional and archaic then, and it is silly, unconstitutional and archaic now. So we want people to be happy, proud Americans. Super. Keep the Pledge, lose the under God. Problem solved.

As for In God We Trust on the currency, that was the result of a petition from Reverend M. R. Watkinson shortly after the start of the American Civil War, where he thought it was super important for the Union to recognize Almighty God on it's currency, regardless of the separation of church and state. Frankly, it should never have been put there in the first place. Take it off too.

Think about all the fun you collectors will have. Stuff will be worth a fortune. Frankly, I'll probably save some too.

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 12:29 AM

I go further than that. I think the pledge itself is unAmerican. We swear an oath when we take public office or commit ourselves to military service, but swearing an oath just because we're Americans? I was happy to see this, as I wasn't aware of this case:

Rassbach added that it has been illegal to force someone recite the pledge since 1943. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ruled that students could not be forced to salute the American flag or say the pledge in school. It was considered a huge victory for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who cannot salute or pledge to symbols, according to their religious beliefs.

Skybird

09-05-13, 02:47 AM

Complementing Steelhead:

LINK: Knights of Columbus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Columbus#United_States)

Several decades later, in 1954, lobbying by the Order helped convince the U.S. Congress to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. President Dwight Eisenhower wrote to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart thanking the Knights for their "part in the movement to have the words 'under God' added to our Pledge of Allegiance."[92] Similar lobbying convinced many state legislatures to adopt October 12 as Columbus Day and led to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's confirmation of Columbus Day as a federal holiday in 1937.

Symbols are payed too much attention to, they are not the thing they should just point at, but many take them as the only point, centering their lives on it and wanting to make or even force others doing so, too. Religion is one such example, and that is why it was wise by the founding fathers to to keep it separate and not declare the state to be in duty towards any religion there is. That religious lobbies do not like this and tried - sometimes successfully - to change this, comes without saying.

I am with Steve. Having a mandatory pledge of allegiance, in my opinion belongs to the toolkit of totalitarian regimes with according cults. I cannot bring it into conformity with the highly valuable ideals of the founding era of America.

The bigger problem with the currency than just having some theistic magical formula on it, is that it is not a value-currency, not a "covered" currency, but is an uncovered paper token only. That has far greater problems than atheists like me having to touch banknotes with the word "God" on them.

Give us back real money. If that would happen, some atheists may even feel tempted to start believing in the magical formula printed on it. :)

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 05:02 AM

Isn't the song "Proud to be an American", Lee Greenwood, the national anthem? One would think at M and T stadium. :doh:

Oberon

09-05-13, 05:45 AM

Hmmm, the interaction between finance and religion, I'm sure that there was something in the bible about this...

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/118/a/e/jesus_smash_by_oddlynormalone-d4xw5j2.jpg

Ducimus

09-05-13, 06:53 AM

Personally i think the "under god" thing is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I recited the pledge as it is every day as a kid in school and it didn't bother me at all. The only time it bothered me was after I was living in California as an adult and i became acutely aware and angry at evangelical Christians for ramrodding their crap down my throat. If it were not for evangelicals, things like "under god" wouldn't have bothered me in the least.

Now, while my views on evangelicals hasn't changed, what has changed for me in recent years is my level of tolerance. Living in Utah, the happy land of the LDS church (aka Mormons), I've become quite a bit more tolerant. But that's probably due more to the fact that Mormons are not evengelicals. They don't seem to have this obession for smearing Jesus feces in your face and raising ancient world capital punishment devices everywhere ( aka crucifixes ). But I digress...

Anyway, I think there are FAR FAR more important things to worry about in this day and age. But if i were to make a stand on the issue, I'm inclined to leave it as is, and furthermore to have it recited in school every day just like when I was a kid if it currently is not. I think this not because I think any better of evangelicals and bible thumping in general, but because I think there is an issue of moral decay in this country.

Why do I think moral decay? I just sat here for a few minutes asking myself that same question. I think this because I'm in a situation where I can compare and contrast. I've noticed that here in Utah (where morals are held very high), kids here can play, and do things just like when I was a kid in California. They don't have to worry too much about being kidnapped, drive by shootings, gangs, etc. Contrast this to today's California (the progressive utopia), and you have to worry about all manner of things. Kids there, cannot go out and play like kids in Utah. I noticed this very quickly after moving here. While I know this sounds like a political dig, its not really meant to be. But in my mind, the difference between a place where moral values are held and maintained and a place where they are not, is quite stark.

I also believe that while I am of strong enough character to where I don't need the "Jesus crutch" to tell me whats right and wrong in life, many people however, do. I think there are far too many people who are far too malleable. So i'd argue that religion actually plays an important part in society in keeping these people from acting like complete jackwagons.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 07:39 AM

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 07:42 AM

Ducimus:
So i'd argue that religion actually plays an important part in society in keeping these people from acting like complete jackwagons.

This should be interesting.

(I do agree Ducimus.)

Wolferz

09-05-13, 08:20 AM

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 08:29 AM

Two words come to mind that make both arguments moot...

FREE WILL

Any attempts to nullify those two words are tantamount to brainwashing and dictatorship. A flag is a symbol for the symbol minded. A graven image. A false idol.
I pledge my allegiance to the people of my country, not its flag or the republic for which it stands.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." Isn't the united states comprised of people who live there? The flag represents the people of the states that are united or just the land?

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 08:35 AM

It was silly for what reason? Silly for who?

I would think that the silliness mentioned in the second sentence would be evident for the reasons mentioned in the first sentence.

Willful obtuseness aside, it is all part of the slow march of the right. One of their major pet projects over the last century or so is the dissolution of the barrier between church and state. The changing of the national motto, the altering of the Pledge of Allegiance, the assault on education and learning, the insistence that creation be taught alongside evolution, the redrafting of history to portray the United States as a Christian nation, the governmental financing of religious institutions; these are all signs of a singular, concerted effort. It is one of the reasons that these are dangerous, dangerous people. They're by and large out of power, at least for now. However, they'll get back into office someday. They always do. And then it starts again.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 08:42 AM

I would think that the silliness mentioned in the second sentence would be evident for the reasons mentioned in the first sentence.

I would think it was not silly at that particular time the change was made.

Willful obtuseness aside, it is all part of the slow march of the right. One of their major pet projects over the last century or so is the dissolution of the barrier between church and state. The changing of the national motto, the altering of the Pledge of Allegiance, the assault on education and learning, the insistence that creation be taught alongside evolution, the redrafting of history to portray the United States as a Christian nation, the governmental financing of religious institutions; these are all signs of a singular, concerted effort. It is one of the reasons that these are dangerous, dangerous people. They're by and large out of power, at least for now. However, they'll get back into office someday. They always do. And then it starts again.

And willful obtuseness aside, where does the march of the left fit in? There are no dangerous, dangerous people in this group?

Takeda
It was silly, unconstitutional and archaic then, and it is silly, unconstitutional and archaic now.

According to who?

AndyJWest

09-05-13, 08:47 AM

Possibly the U.S. should adopt the British approach. Have an official State Religion. Then ignore it entirely...

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 08:49 AM

I would think it was not silly at that particular time the change was made.

And there's where we disagree.

And willful obtuseness aside, where does the march of the left fit in? There are no dangerous, dangerous people in this group?

I thought that this thread was about the under God thing. Or are you only interested in tit for tat?

Takeda

According to who?

According to my view based upon the First Amendment of the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, etc. I thought that this is what we were doing here, no?

Wolferz

09-05-13, 08:52 AM

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." Isn't the united states comprised of people who live there? The flag represents the people of the states that are united or just the land?

Do we really know what we pledge our allegiance to anymore? The republic has become something unrecognizable compared to what it was intended to be. "A government of the people by the people and for the people" Today we elect our representatives to work on our behalf and what do they do? They ignore us for their own benefit from lobbies and multinational corporate interests. They shroud all their dealings in secrecy and they spy on us. WTF? The people can't make informed decisions if it's all hidden behind a veil of secrecy.
Secrecy is the first refuge of the incompetent. Freedom the first casualty.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 08:52 AM

Possibly the U.S. should adopt the British approach. Have an official State Religion. Then ignore it entirely...

Bottom line, America affords the freedom to not have to state, "Under God" that is in the Pledge. In fact, one does not have to say the pledge at all. One can sit there if they like. Happens all the time. I witness this a ballgames. More people at a Ravens game stand for the song "Proud to be an American" then the National Anthem. Why this crap ends up in court is beyond me. For those offended pledge to a Twinky for which it stands. At the end of the day it just does not matter anymore.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 08:54 AM

Willful obtuseness aside, it is all part of the slow march of the right.

Personally, I don't see the left as being any different, nor any better in their marching orders. While the right may be trying to break down the barrier between church and state (a barrier that i happen to agree with) as you say, the left is on a slow march against our Natural (or god given if you prefer) rights. Going to extremes on generalities, the extreme right wants a theocracy, and the extreme left wants an authoritarian police state. Personally I want neither. Of course, i've already professed my Libertarian tendencies as of late, for whatever that's worth.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 08:54 AM

Bottom line, America affords the freedom to not have to state, "Under God" that is in the Pledge. In fact, one does not have to say the pledge at all. One can sit there if they like. Happens all the time. I witness this a ballgames. More people at a Ravens game stand for the song "Proud to be an American" then the National Anthem. Why this crap ends up in court is beyond me. For those offended pledge to a Twinky for which it stands. At the end of the day it just does not matter anymore.

If it doesn't matter, then take the words out and restore the original pledge. Problem solved. Just stop trying to run the end-around on the First Amendment.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 08:56 AM

And there's where we disagree.

I thought that this thread was about the under God thing. Or are you only interested in tit for tat?

According to my view based upon the First Amendment of the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, etc. I thought that this is what we were doing here, no?

1. I did not disagree. I asked who thinks this is silly? I would believe you do. Others take the pledge to heart.

2. Not interested in tit for tat. Being called obtuse is not necessary.

3. Constitution not with standing and not inquestion . It is the "silly" portion I can not grasp.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 08:57 AM

Hmmm, the interaction between finance and religion, I'm sure that there was something in the bible about this...

"Whose image is this? And whose inscription?"

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 08:59 AM

If it doesn't matter, then take the words out and restore the original pledge. Problem solved. Just stop trying to run the end-around on the First Amendment.

Who is end rounding the 1st? Anyone can stand there and recite anything they like without recourse. Period. Yet, this Under God ends up in court. Here it is again just yesterday an article in Time about it.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/04/court-debates-whether-pledge-of-allegiance-under-god-is-form-of-discrimination/

Get's old brother. The way society is going soon it will be determining that everything is discrimination.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 09:01 AM

1. I did not disagree. I asked who thinks this is silly? I would believe you do. Others take the pledge to heart.

So we are arguing semantics

2. Not interested in tit for tat. Being called obtuse is not necessary.

I said willful obtuseness, not obtuseness. The latter means that you do not understand, the former that you do understand but are playing obtuse for the sake of polemics. As this is exactly what you were doing, I make no apology for pointing it out.

3. Constitution not with standing and not inquestion . It is the "silly" portion I can not grasp.

As if putting God on and in everything was going to bring down the Soviets. No, it was in an era where fear of reprisal compelled Americans to show how they could be more American than their neighbors. You know, part of those good old days and all.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 09:02 AM

Do we really know what we pledge our allegiance to anymore? The republic has become something unrecognizable compared to what it was intended to be. "A government of the people by the people and for the people" Today we elect our representatives to work on our behalf and what do they do? They ignore us for their own benefit from lobbies and multinational corporate interests. They shroud all their dealings in secrecy and they spy on us. WTF? The people can't make informed decisions if it's all hidden behind a veil of secrecy.
Secrecy is the first refuge of the incompetent. Freedom the first casualty.

Simple answer sir....no. A majority of people today do not know or do not care. Like I said, "Proud to be an American" would probably be the answer if what is the National Anthem of the US is asked.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 09:09 AM

So we are arguing semantics

I said willful obtuseness, not obtuseness. The latter means that you do not understand, the former that you do understand but are playing obtuse for the sake of polemics. As this is exactly what you were doing, I make no apology for pointing it out.

As if putting God on and in everything was going to bring down the Soviets. No, it was in an era where fear of reprisal compelled Americans to show how they could be more American than their neighbors. You know, part of those good old days and all.

No one is arguing. You state it was silly to put these two words in. That is your opinion. At the time those that put the words in did not see it as silly. I have not opinion other than it does not matter today. People can say what they like during the pledge. The dream police will not materialize and haul anyone off. Yet, this ends up in court every year.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 09:17 AM

No one is arguing. You state it was silly to put these two words in. That is your opinion. At the time those that put the words in did not see it as silly. I have not opinion other than it does not matter today. People can say what they like during the pledge. The dream police will not materialize and haul anyone off. Yet, this ends up in court every year.

The police certainly used to haul people off, but I would argue that there wasn't anything very dreamy about them. And it should end up in court. In fact, I hope it continues to end up in court until the words are removed and the Pledge reverted to it's original form. It won't kill the movement; like the hydra another head will rise to take the place of that which was severed, but it will be a step in the right direction for those that care about the nation's founding ideals.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 09:21 AM

The police certainly used to haul people off, but I would argue that there wasn't anything very dreamy about them. And it should end up in court. In fact, I hope it continues to end up in court until the words are removed and the Pledge reverted to it's original form. It won't kill the movement; like the hydra another head will rise to take the place of that which was severed, but it will be a step in the right direction for those that care about the nation's founding ideals.

"Used to", not anymore. Statement stands. The police will not haul anyone off.
Keeping it in court year after year is a waste of time and tax payers money. If someone does not care for it then sit quietly. Anyone can recite the original. As for moving towards nations founding ideals again that is a pipe dream.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 09:27 AM

"Used to", not anymore. Statement stands. The police will not haul anyone off.

Have it your way.

Keeping it in court year after year is a waste of time and tax payers money. If someone does not care for it then sit quietly. Anyone can recite the original. As for moving towards nations founding ideals again that is a pipe dream.

So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. -- James 4:17

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 09:36 AM

Have it your way.

So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. -- James 4:17

My way? When was the last time in the most recent history that anyone was hauled off for not reciting the pledge? Remember the good old days were not so good. Have they gotten better?

Abraham Lincoln:

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Tchocky

09-05-13, 09:41 AM

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 09:42 AM

My way? When was the last time in the most recent history that anyone was hauled off for not reciting the pledge?

Then, again, we should have no problem in removing this final stain of the McCarthy era, right?

Remember the good old days were not so good. Have they gotten better?

For a lot of people, yes I think they most certainly have. In fact, I don't think that an honest argument could be made that they haven't for the people. Minorities can eat and sit where they like, homosexuals are not rounded up and arrested, men and women are not put on trial for not being American enough, women are paid equally for equal work. I should remind you that Leave it to Beaver was not a documentary series.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 09:46 AM

Reciting the pledge always seemed strange to me. When we moved back to Ireland nobody believed that it was a real thing.

It's strange for a nation that is supposed to pride itself on freedom of expression and religion-free government keeps a rote-learned expression of theistic nationalism.

Thank you. See, I knew that, eventually, somebody was going to get it.

Then again, what do I know. We had prayer in schools and that was bloody weird too

They had that stateside too. In fact, the Regent's Prayer was said in New York City Public Schools up until 1962:

Almighty God,
we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee,
and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our country.

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 10:00 AM

The original pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
-Francis Bellamy, 1892

Bellamy was a Christian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialist) and Baptist minister, yet he didn't see fit to put in "Under God". Of course he also changed his mind about putting in "equality and fraternity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

My way? When was the last time in the most recent history that anyone was hauled off for not reciting the pledge?
Four years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 10:05 AM

Four years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html

Huh. I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.

CaptainHaplo

09-05-13, 10:15 AM

As for In God We Trust on the currency, that was the result of a petition from Reverend M. R. Watkinson shortly after the start of the American Civil War, where he thought it was super important for the Union to recognize Almighty God on it's currency, regardless of the separation of church and state. Frankly, it should never have been put there in the first place. Take it off too.

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 10:25 AM

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

Regardless of the technicality, it still is the central bank of the United States of America, and it should still be religiously neutral. Someone told this "private institution" that it should put the words on the currency, I can tell it to take it off. Door swings both ways.

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 10:33 AM

Huh. I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.
I wasn't either. I just stumbled on it while looking up the original pledge.

Armistead

09-05-13, 11:08 AM

So i'd argue that religion actually plays an important part in society in keeping these people from acting like complete jackwagons.

Historically, religion usually promoted a more advanced culture. One big issue was the majority of common people were uneducated. Great philosophers, usually non religious, believed religion, using tools of great fear and guilt were needed to control the masses. Great doctrines were created to terrorize people into following the creeds of the church. Course, the elite didn't want to educate the masses as a whole, so they needed other tools. Take the early christian church, hell wasn't a doctrine and hardly believed except for a few groups that had great pagan influence. When Rome decided it best go christian, it implemented the more pagan hell of eternal torture, made it doctrine and people lived right because they lived in great fear. I guess one could argue cultures of wealth and education have little need of religion.

Many of us here can remember growing in a more religious culture. I didn't grow up in a religious family, but culture taught us God was always watching us and we never got by with anything. This constant eye in the sky did have some effect even on non religious. We prayed in school, the 10 commandments were posted.

I think it's clear that as we've become secular, morals have terribly decayed. Even if religion is a mere placebo effect, it does work keeping people in line.
Lacking religion, the US education system failing, poverty growing, morally we seem to have gone to new lows. Course, we also know from the past, those that have great beliefs can sink to moral lows against people they disagree with. I had a very religious grandmother, can remember her spanking me hard with a switch saying in "in Jesus name" Can remember often her saying I would go to hell for being a bad boy.

Another big reason for govts to promote God is too promote their righteous God given justice, such as the US vs. the USSR during the cold war, Iraq war, etc. People are more willing to fight and die if they have the right God.

Anyway, my beliefs are best protected when the beliefs of others are protected. If I can't pray or acknowledge my God, then you can't either, if I can, then so should you. That's why I believe in total separation of church and state.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 11:20 AM

Then, again, we should have no problem in removing this final stain of the McCarthy era, right?

For a lot of people, yes I think they most certainly have. In fact, I don't think that an honest argument could be made that they haven't for the people. Minorities can eat and sit where they like, homosexuals are not rounded up and arrested, men and women are not put on trial for not being American enough, women are paid equally for equal work. I should remind you that Leave it to Beaver was not a documentary series.

There should be no problem removing it. I have no issue with that. Just the issue of drumming it up year after year. But I think I'm more so tired of hearing how someone is offended.

You look at the good old days in a different way then myself. No doubt the individual freedoms of all walks of life are better off. (women claim there is not equal pay but that is another thread). When I refer to the good old days I speak of summertime lemonade and rope swings over the pond. Lynching blacks is not what I speak of when referring to the good old days.

I don't need be reminded Leave it Beaver was not a documentary series. The comment was not necessary nor pertinent to the conversation.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 11:36 AM

http://rlv.zcache.com/perspective_make_a_mountain_out_of_a_molehill_mous epad-r8147d082c4034ca78934a6a7224dde9e_x74vi_8byvr_512. jpg

Just sayin'. What great shape our country must be in when we have time to debate a decades old pledge, that a good portion of the nation has probably ceased to recite anyway. In this day and age being a constitutionalist is bad, and puts you on a DHS watch list, so discussing the pledge is futile after a certain point anyway. :shifty:

Armistead

09-05-13, 11:38 AM

Archie Bunker

"God Bless America"

You gotta love Archie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYK35krSATs

Oberon

09-05-13, 11:48 AM

Could elect Glenn Beck and have "One nation under Gold" :hmmm:

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 12:02 PM

Could elect Glenn Beck

Please no....

CaptainHaplo

09-05-13, 12:04 PM

Regardless of the technicality,

A private entity doing what it wants with what it controls is hardly a "technicality". Someone breaking into your home, eating your food, loading your stuff into your car and driving away with it is stealing only because of the "technicality" that they don't have a right to do so. What private rights - based on ownership of property - do you really think should not apply?

Internet use in the US is used by almost every citizen - perhaps it should be purged to make it religiously neutral? Heck, streets are public - should churches not be allowed to be seen from the street, otherwise a public road with only a protestant church on it are no longer "neutral". How far will you go to eradicate the rights of a private entity to be religious in or on its own "property"?

it still is the central bank of the United States of America
That is the technicality.
You choose to use it - that is your choice. Don't like what a private enterprise does, don't use what they own. Or do you, by virtue of owning a car, have a right to tell the car manufacturer how they will advertise, what there logo must be, etc?

Someone told this "private institution" that it should put the words on the currency, I can tell it to take it off. Door swings both ways.

True - and they can choose to listen to you - or not - as they please. They can - and have so far - chosen to NOT be "religiously neutral".

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 12:22 PM

A private entity doing what it wants with what it controls is hardly a "technicality". Someone breaking into your home, eating your food, loading your stuff into your car and driving away with it is stealing only because of the "technicality" that they don't have a right to do so. What private rights - based on ownership of property - do you really think should not apply?

Internet use in the US is used by almost every citizen - perhaps it should be purged to make it religiously neutral? Heck, streets are public - should churches not be allowed to be seen from the street, otherwise a public road with only a protestant church on it are no longer "neutral". How far will you go to eradicate the rights of a private entity to be religious in or on its own "property"?

You dominionists crack me up with your strawman arguments. There is no reason that currency representing the United States of America should be bearing 'In God We Trust'. There was unbridled religious freedom before the words were placed, there will be unbridled religious freedom after they are removed. Enough with this nonsense.

That is the technicality.
You choose to use it - that is your choice. Don't like what a private enterprise does, don't use what they own. Or do you, by virtue of owning a car, have a right to tell the car manufacturer how they will advertise, what there logo must be, etc?

My Lexus does not bear any official seal of the United States of America. Poor argument for a poor position.

True - and they can choose to listen to you - or not - as they please. They can - and have so far - chosen to NOT be "religiously neutral".

And that is wrong. And I have every right to agitate about it until it is changed. Your consent is neither sought nor required. But it does more or less lay your plans bare, does it not? :know:

Tchocky

09-05-13, 12:25 PM

The dollar bill in my wallet has Hank Paulson's signature on it.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 12:27 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 12:27 PM

The dollar bill in my wallet has Hank Paulson's signature on it.

Does it say 'In Hank Paulson We Trust'?

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 12:31 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

Damn you, Ducimus, I was going to get to that eventually. That was going to be my checkmate. :O:

There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don’t necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Crap. Now I am going to have to find elsewhere to have my fun. Or, maybe even get some work done today. Nuts.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 12:45 PM

Well i thought everyone knew that "The fed" is the gov agency that runs the show, but "The federal reserve bank" is not a government entity per say. From everything I have heard, It's an interesting mutually beneficial relationship the two have. I don't pretend to know everything, but I wouldn't doubt it in the slightest if the end goals of the people behind the federal reserve bank lay more in self interest then national interest.

Wolferz

09-05-13, 01:02 PM

mookiemookie

09-05-13, 01:03 PM

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

Classifying the Fed as a "private entity" is wrong. The Federal Reserve is authorized under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It's only private in the sense that the monetary policy decisions of the Fed aren't subject to governmental approval.

However, the Fed is audited by the GAO, it reports to Congress semianually as mandated by the Humphrey Hawkins Act, the Fed Board of Governors and the Fed Chairman are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and all profits made by the Fed are turned over to the Treasury.

So, no, the Fed is not a private entity. QED.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 01:09 PM

Classifying the Fed as a "private entity" is wrong. The Federal Reserve is authorized under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It's only private in the sense that the monetary policy decisions of the Fed aren't subject to governmental approval.

However, the Fed is audited by the GAO, it reports to Congress semianually as mandated by the Humphrey Hawkins Act, the Fed Board of Governors and the Fed Chairman are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and all profits made by the Fed are turned over to the Treasury.

So, no, the Fed is not a private entity. QED.

EVERYONE IS RUINING MY FUN!!!!11ONEONEONE

http://cinedork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/AVGN1-480x330.jpg

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 01:10 PM

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one.
Not so. The Federal Reserve is governed by a group of seven Governors appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. It is an independent Federal Agency, but a Federal Agency nonetheless. The Governors are independent members of the financial community, but they may be removed by the President for specific causes.

An act of Congress dated January 18, 1837 states that only Congress may prescribe the "mottoes and devices" that are placed on US coins.

The earliest use of the phrase appeared in the fourth verse of Francis Scott Key's poem Defense of Fort McHenry (aka The Star-Spangled Banner) as "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"

"In God We Trust" was first used on the battle-flag of the 125th Pennsylvania Infantry at the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862.

In 1864 Congress authorized the Mint to place the motto on one-and-two-cent coins. Historians for the most part believe this was at least partly to claim that God was on the side of the Union. Religious beliefs are used to govern political motivations, a definite mixing of Church and State.

The Coinage Act of 1873 states that the Secretary of the Treasury may place the motto on coins.

In 1956, as has been mentioned, "In God We Trust" became the official United States motto, again as a political/religious statement against the "Godless Communists".

So the slogans that go on our coins are dictated directly by Congress.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 01:12 PM

http://www.memesay.com/memes/angry-Kevin-Malone-Brian-Office.gif

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 01:14 PM

:haha:Forcing one out? :hmmm:

Dowly

09-05-13, 01:14 PM

:rotfl2::rotfl2:

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 01:15 PM

per say.
I know you're going to bite back at this, but it's not about spelling and it's not about grammar. There is no such phrase as "per say". It's "per se", and it's Latin. If you don't know what it means you probably shouldn't try to use it.

Yes, I know I'm a Nazi about this, but it's either say something or grind my teeth down to nubs. Either I can let you annoy me or I can annoy you right back. :O:

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 01:22 PM

Steve is very consistent. Good character trait.

Takeda Shingen

09-05-13, 01:30 PM

Steve is very consistent. Good character trait.

Consistencie isn't a good charactir trait per say, but its good at some thymes.

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 01:33 PM

Consistencie isn't a good charactir trait per say, but its good at some thymes.

its gud al the times. :O:

Ducimus

09-05-13, 02:07 PM

I know you're going to bite back at this, but it's not about spelling and it's not about grammar. There is no such phrase as "per say". It's "per se", and it's Latin. If you don't know what it means you probably shouldn't try to use it.

Yes, I know I'm a Nazi about this, but it's either say something or grind my teeth down to nubs. Either I can let you annoy me or I can annoy you right back. :O:

Honestly man, I really don't care anymore. I've just accepted your going to bust out with the virtual red pen whenever the need hits you. That's fine, really. It's just Steve being Steve. If it ever really bothered me, i think i'm over it. Besides that, while i am very lightly engaged in this topic, it isn't really on my priority list of "pressing issues of the day". I still say there are better things to worry about then this. It's old, it's tired, and it's not going to effect your life.

I'm here, cause frankly, i screwing off at work, not doing my job. :shifty: Speaking of which, time to flip the KVM switch back to my company laptop now and do something resembling work. PAH!

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 02:13 PM

Steve is very consistent. Good character trait.
Consistent? Or Anal?

On the other hand "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 02:24 PM

Consistent? Or Anal?

On the other hand "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

Consistently anal? :haha: :O:

The question is, is this consistent foolishness? Not really. Constructive criticism IMO. Or Steve being Steve as Ducimus stated.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 02:35 PM

Consistently anal? :haha: :O:
.

Oh the mental images. Out! Out foul demons! Out i say!

vienna

09-05-13, 02:37 PM

Good lord, it's starting to sound like a proctologist's convention...

<O>

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 02:40 PM

Has that got you excited?

vienna

09-05-13, 02:44 PM

No, I'm rather disenchanted with the 'hole' idea...

<O>

Ducimus

09-05-13, 02:58 PM

No, I'm rather disenchanted with the 'hole' idea...

<O>

There's another mental image i wish i could get out of my head. goatse, i don't think i need say more.

CaptainHaplo

09-05-13, 03:18 PM

Sadly, you are all apparently misinformed or intentionally trying to make things difficult.

The folks that PRINT money - is the US Treasury Department, specifically the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. That is a governmental agency. The coins and bills they produce have a value founded (but not based) on the collateral held by the Federal Reserve.

Now - the Federal Reserve itself is not owned by, or controlled by the Federal Government. Yes, it is "audited" - but do you have any idea what Congress gets to do if they don't like what they find?

As for the Board of Governors being appointees - so? The board is not mandated to conform to the political will of the government - and there are only certain cases in which a board member may be tossed. The governing board is an independent federal agency - but the Reserve itself is not. As for governmental control, you might ought to check and see what "independent" means - the president can't just "toss em out" if they don't go along with his political wishes....

The Federal Reserve is NOT a governmentally owned entity. No matter how you slice it. As such, it is NOT required to follow constitutional restrictions regarding government and religion. You can be unhappy about that all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. The Federal Reserve is at best a public - private partnership. Privately held but publicly administered. This is why money is lent by the FR to the government - at a specified interest rate! If the FR was government - it wouldn't be charging itself interest.....

For those of you who are real history buffs - did you know this is the 3rd centralized monetary bank this nation has had? The First Bank of the United States had a 20 year charter in 1791.... The Second Bank of the United States was done under James Madison, but I forget the year....

Wolferz

09-05-13, 03:57 PM

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 04:09 PM

Sadly, you are all apparently misinformed or intentionally trying to make things difficult.
No, just pointing out a few salient facts. The Federal Reserve's powers are established by an Act of Congress, and subject to Congressional Oversight.

The Federal Reserve is NOT a governmentally owned entity. No matter how you slice it. As such, it is NOT required to follow constitutional restrictions regarding government and religion. You can be unhappy about that all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. The Federal Reserve is at best a public - private partnership. Privately held but publicly administered. This is why money is lent by the FR to the government - at a specified interest rate! If the FR was government - it wouldn't be charging itself interest.....
The discussion is about the motto printed on the money, and that is mandated by an Act of Congress. The Federal Reserve may control the currency, but they don't print the money. That is the province of the Treasury Department.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 04:16 PM

Wish i could print money. I'd make myself a couple of these: :D
http://www.noveltieswholesale.com/files/millionbill.jpg

Obligatory:
http://www.empowernetwork.com/essetino/files/2013/05/dr-evil-one-million-dollars.jpg

Penguin

09-05-13, 04:49 PM

Been there, done that - 80 years ago:

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2618/es70.jpg
(1 billion = one trillion in American)

One million doesn't cut it, when you can't even buy a bread from it. When the currency was reformed, 4.2 trillion Mark was 1$ US.

Armistead

09-05-13, 05:01 PM

Good lord, it's starting to sound like a proctologist's convention...

<O>

I started a thread about the pledge, God, church and state and it ends up a discussion over the anus..........

only here at Subsim.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 05:03 PM

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/000/408/i02/uranus-planet-profile-101111.jpg?1289858329

vienna

09-05-13, 05:12 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qS3GNjTaRis/ULtRat79AHI/AAAAAAAADxQ/Jgsy4VRWGO8/s320/gas.jpg

<O>

mookiemookie

09-05-13, 06:16 PM

Now - the Federal Reserve itself is not owned by, or controlled by the Federal Government. It doesn't have an "owner" anymore than any other agency has an "owner". One of the membership requirements of being a part of the Federal Reserve system is that you must be a stockholder of a Federal Reserve Bank. This stock cannot be traded, sold, pledged or otherwise transferred. This "stock" isn't like traditional stock shares as there is all one class and every shareholder has one vote regardless of how much stock they own.

Yes, it is "audited" - but do you have any idea what Congress gets to do if they don't like what they find? Cute how you put "audited" in quotes. But here you go - the findings and recommendations of one of the latest GAO audits of the Fed: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654462.pdf. So THAT'S what they can do. Congress can pass laws to alter the Fed's mandate. Congress could also go so far as to abolish the Federal Reserve if it chose to do so by repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

As for the Board of Governors being appointees - so? The board is not mandated to conform to the political will of the government That's the whole point. It's about keeping politics out of the monetary policy of the United States. The governing board is an independent federal agency - but the Reserve itself is not. As for governmental control, you might ought to check and see what "independent" means - the president can't just "toss em out" if they don't go along with his political wishes.... None of what you just wrote makes any sense at all.

This is why money is lent by the FR to the government - at a specified interest rate! If the FR was government - it wouldn't be charging itself interest..... No...just no. You are demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve doesn't lend money to the government. The Fed lends money to its member banks. The Federal Reserve also rebates all interest it earns back to the Treasury.

You are out of your depth in this. Might be time to graciously bow out and appreciate the education you've received here instead of trying to twist and contort things to try and claim you're not completely wrong, which you are.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 06:31 PM

http://trialx.com/curetalk/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2011/05/diseases/Flatulence-4.jpg

Stealhead

09-05-13, 07:27 PM

Are there gaseous clouds surrounding Uranus?

AVGWarhawk

09-05-13, 08:01 PM

I started a thread about the pledge, God, church and state and it ends up a discussion over the anus..........

only here at Subsim.

It's a beautiful thing. :haha:

Father Goose

09-05-13, 10:04 PM

I started a thread about the pledge, God, church and state and it ends up a discussion over the anus..........

Please stop starting threads. :O:

Armistead

09-05-13, 11:53 PM

It's a beautiful thing. :haha:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/siempredescalzo/GIFS/r09f5y.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/siempredescalzo/media/GIFS/r09f5y.gif.html)

Buddahaid

09-06-13, 12:02 AM

I started a thread about the pledge, God, church and state and it ends up a discussion over the anus..........

only here at Subsim.

It's a beautiful thing. :haha:

Please stop starting threads. :O:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/MimePro.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/MimePro.jpg.html)

Betonov

09-06-13, 12:50 AM

Ducimus, Subsim could invest in some mining technologies and we'd start mining Uranus for hydrogen :)

antikristuseke

09-06-13, 03:30 AM

Ducimus

09-06-13, 08:27 AM

http://rexcurry.net/nazi-salute-taipei-times-roc-republic-of-china-government-officials-sworn.jpg

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 08:43 AM

https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/h3ppbbYXMxE/mqdefault.jpg

Armistead

09-06-13, 09:26 AM

https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/h3ppbbYXMxE/mqdefault.jpg

Once I was attracted to Uranus, but it's lost much of it's appeal to me lately.

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 09:58 AM

It is gaseous. I understand.

Ducimus

09-06-13, 10:32 AM

I had broccoli for dinner last night for the first time in weeks, It was quite gaseous. In fact, it was a noxious vapor cloud that upon silently exiting, it was detected from across the room in mere seconds later. TMI? :O:

Sailor Steve

09-06-13, 10:46 AM

...
I've used that as part of my sig in the past.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/CopyofGrammarNazi.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/CopyofGrammarNazi.jpg.html)

...
That brings us right back to the Pledge of Allegiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 10:46 AM

http://drkaayladaniel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/broccoli_gives_me_gas_card-p137350256368285723envwi_400.jpg

Ducimus

09-06-13, 10:49 AM

That brings us right back to the

Shush! Can't you see we're trying to derail this dead horse from the train tracks?

Wolferz

09-06-13, 10:51 AM

Got glue?:arrgh!:

Ducimus

09-06-13, 10:55 AM

Meh.

http://piloseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/beating_a_dead_horse2.jpg

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 11:21 AM

http://www.jesusradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/one-nation-under-god.jpg

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 11:21 AM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NpQEWDE3XBg/TOQXkbMwmMI/AAAAAAAABmo/qqRpGpy1zns/s1600/Under+God.jpg

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 11:24 AM

http://floatingaxhead.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/under-god.gif?w=450

Aktungbby

09-06-13, 12:01 PM

Aktungbby

09-06-13, 12:08 PM

I started a thread about the pledge, God, church and state and it ends up a discussion over the anus..........

only here at Subsim.
This thread is hijacked and gone to the NETHER regions.:arrgh!:

Aktungbby

09-06-13, 12:15 PM

Tribesman

09-06-13, 01:01 PM

One nation under Canada.

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 01:05 PM

One nation under Canada.

Just above Mexico for which it stands.

Madox58

09-06-13, 01:09 PM

With disappearing Liberties and Taxes for all.

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 01:14 PM

With disappearing Liberties and Taxes for all.

Not all. The illegals are gaining liberties and not paying to taxes. Si! :D

Ducimus

09-06-13, 01:32 PM

With disappearing Liberties and Taxes for all.

Not all. The illegals are gaining liberties and not paying to taxes. Si! :D

I feel so happy. :shifty:

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 01:33 PM

I feel so happy. :shifty:

You vote counts! Si! No hablo ingles.

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Takeda Shingen

09-06-13, 01:37 PM

http://nathanbickel.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/separationofchurchandstatejerryfalwellquote.jpg

Ducimus

09-06-13, 01:38 PM

You vote counts!

Only if you vote with your wallet.

Catfish

09-06-13, 01:45 PM

The bible along with common sense tell everyone what money and the golden calf is about, that interest, property etc. is downright unchristian and forbidden yaddah yaddah.. Funny that just of all capitalism goes so well with it.

But then, the governments always used "god" to legitimate their own ruling, and those and the churches certainly have nothing to do with Jesus, and the bible. :yep:

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 01:52 PM

Only if you vote with your wallet.

Wallet? After all the taxing from local and federal I don't have enough to require a wallet. It is called chump change. I keep it in jar buried in the back yard.

Aktungbby

09-06-13, 01:53 PM

Indeed Catfish: ' Gott straf Englund!':arrgh!:

Simmy

09-06-13, 02:26 PM

http://nathanbickel.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/separationofchurchandstatejerryfalwellquote.jpg

The reason they don't mix is that men can never get either correct.

Takeda Shingen

09-06-13, 02:31 PM

The reason they don't mix is that men can never get either correct.

Umm....

Dowly

09-06-13, 02:35 PM

@Tak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

:D

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 02:36 PM

@Tak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

:D

:haha::up:

Takeda Shingen

09-06-13, 02:39 PM

Dowly

09-06-13, 02:45 PM

Catfish

09-06-13, 02:48 PM

Indeed Catfish: ' Gott straf Englund!':arrgh!:

Why that ?

I mean .. ok .. :woot: :O:

[wisea$$ mode] It is "Gott strafe Engeland", please be prceise when quoting. And it was spelled 'Engeland' because it stems from Angeland, or Angel-land, from when a norther germanic tribe (Angeln) invaded that island together with the germanic tribe of saxons, which made it the Anglo-saxons. Until other Normans arrived from the Normandy, but somehow the old word stuck. :O: [/wisea$$ mode]

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 02:49 PM

Well, I'm just trying to play [sort of] nice with people. I can leave if you'd like. I don't consider this my primary community anymore, so I don't think it will be too difficult to stop playing around here if told to beat it.

Well just who the hell am I going to discuss the damn good old days with? Riddle me that Samurai...

A Young Samurai Challenge!
Can you solve the following brainteasers by the Riddling Monk? Or will you go mad trying to think of the answer?
Riddle #1
Which is heavier: a ton of gold or a ton of feathers?
Riddle #2
Where’s the bottom at the top?
Riddle #3
If a grasshopper halves the distance to a wall on every jump, how many jumps will he need to reach the wall if he starts from ten feet away?
Riddle #4
Jin is standing behind Kuzo, but Kuzo is standing behind Jin. How can that be?
Riddle #5
I have no voice yet I speak to you, I tell of all things in the world that people do.
I have leaves, but I am not a tree.
I have pages, but I am not a bride.
I have a spine and hinges, but I am not a man or a door,
I have told you all, I cannot tell you more.
What am I?
Riddle #6
No legs have I to dance, No lungs have I to breathe, No life have I to live or die And yet I do all three. What am I?
Riddle #7
You are in a room with two doors - one leads further into the dungeon, one leads to freedom. There are two guards in the room, one at each door. One always tells the truth. One always lies. What one question can you ask one of the guards that will help you pick the door to freedom?

:O:

Aktungbby

09-06-13, 02:56 PM

Why that ?

I mean .. ok .. :woot: :O:

[wisea$$ mode] It is "Gott strafe Engeland", please be prceise when quoting. And it was spelled 'Engeland' because it stems from Angeland, or Angel-land, from when a norther germanic tribe (Angeln) invaded that island together with the germanic tribe of saxons, which made it the Anglo-saxons. Until other Normans arrived from the Normandy, but somehow the old word stuck. :O: [/wisea$$ mode]
Silent 'e's always escape me. Sailor Steve will be proud of you too! And so would Rollo the Ganger d. 932 AD from whom I claim descent, that's why they call it Normandy! The solution to the Anglo-Saxon infestation if ever! The one-edged saxe (also seax) is still a useful utensil however. Never admit to 'wise-arsen' mode in this forum; It's assumed! AND THAT'S PRECISE not ''prceise" but then you were JUSTE testing me! :arrgh!:

Betonov

09-06-13, 03:04 PM

#1
the same

#2
binge drinking from a bottle

#3
it never gets there (theoretically)

#4
they're standing back to back

#5
book

No idea on #6 and #7 :88)

Oberon

09-06-13, 03:05 PM