Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

For those against gay marriage


DrNova
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Robin:

> Seriously guys, what the fuck is wrong with you?

GOD BLESS AMERICA! DOWN WITH YOU SOCIALIST BASTARDS!!!

:edit:
@Egon:

> Hell, we don't even have separation of church and state **anymore**. Our currency has "In God We Trust" on it.

Anymore? Our currency has always had "In God We Trust" on it; the pledge has always had "under God" in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Winfield:

> Our currency has always had "In God We Trust" on it

How is it that I always seem to know more about your country than you do?

It was added to your notes in 1957\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robin:

> How is it that I always seem to know more about your country than you do?
>
> It was added to your notes in 1957\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)

I had read that article before posting. I had assumed the motto was authenticated in 1957 but had been around before. Not something we're taught in our public schools (at least not mine), I'll assure you that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it a big deal to have "In God we Trust"? I mean, i don't say the pledge anyways, so i don't see how it's a problem. And seeing as the vast majority believe in some higher lord, i think it stands well for the majority. No need to be like a politician and get your panties all in a bunch over something stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zonova:

> Why is it a big deal to have "In God we Trust"? I mean, i don't say the pledge anyways, so i don't see how it's a problem. And seeing as the vast majority believe in some higher lord, i think it stands well for the majority. No need to be like a politician and get your panties all in a bunch over something stupid.

Ironically, a presidential system like America's is supposed to support/protect its minority over its majority. We still have God in everything legal and that reinforces its majority's support.

One of the few factors that makes a state successful is if its paganism is a general embodiment of its people's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zonova:

> I'm sorry, but i thought a democracy revolved around majority rule? Wouldn't that mean that it supports it's majority?

A presidential system is the furthest from any sort of democracy (out of the three democratic systems [1\. Presidential 2\. Hybrid 3\. Parliamentary]). A parliamentary system is the a lot closer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a representative Democracy, in which instead of directly voting for things our selves, we vote for Representatives (eg. president, senators, etc) who make the decisions for us. The point is so that the elected representative Represents the majority of the population, while making decisions in a practical and intelligent way, as compared to the "common people" That is the system in theory anyways, but the economy tends to add a certain level of bias and skews what the "majority" actually says. Still, my point stands that our government stands to uphold the ideals of the majority, and of course try to help the minority as well when their ideas don't negate each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

**@Zonova** Not exactly. The president is not elected by the people, but rather through the electoral college. He doesn't try to represent the majority, he tries to represent whatever his advisers say. Congress is directly voted in by us, the people (the same way parliament works), but in a parliamentary system, the prime minister is elected by parliament (congress, in America's case) and, therefore, acts in a way that reflects parliament's opinions (the people's views[e.g. the majority]).

The United States' three branches are constantly battling each other, keeping one another in "check." Parliamentary systems output political action depending on parliament's say (the people's vote).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robin:

> Because the separation of paganism and state is very important.

…that is only important if the majority of your people do not believe in some sort of higher being. The state is supposed to exist to serve the people(even if it fails much of the time). So in a country like America where the majority of the people whether christi-an, jewish, muslim, hindu, ect. have some sort of "God". You cant seperate paganism from a government when you can assume most of its participants have it active in their everyday life. It would be paramount to serving only atheists which is a very small minority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keebler:

> …that is only important _if the majority of your people do not believe in some sort of higher being_.

Or it is is very important if your people **do believe in some sort of higher being**. If the state overtakes one paganism[church] over any other (like queen Elizabeth had done with Protestantism), then favoritism is subjected among its people and they tend to stray away from paganism in general. The US, not adopting any specific church directly, has saved paganism in order to retain religious freedom.

:edit:
lol@wordfilter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not saying we should adopt one specific view. As for favoritism, one way or the other a group must win. In the case of "In god we trust" it satisfies a overwhelming majority of Americans who believe in many different faiths. Taking it out satisfies one small group who essentially believe in nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keebler:

> Im not saying we should adopt one specific view.

Wasn't implying that I was taking a defensive stance on America's behalf; adopting a single religion as America's own will never happen as long as America wants freedom of religious practice to thrive.

@Keebler:

> As for favoritism, one way or the other a group must win.

Not in terms of federally adopting a "group."

@Keebler:

> In the case of "In god we trust" it satisfies a overwhelming majority of Americans who believe in many different faiths. Taking it out satisfies one small group who essentially believe in nothing.

You're right about this. The intentions of religious freedom imply that religions as wholes should be kept sacred on American soil. If _God_ were taken out of federal context, this would dissolve the embodiment of religious freedom that the U.S. has worked so hard to retain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robin:

> How is it that I always seem to know more about your country than you do?
>
> It was added to your notes in 1957\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)

In God We Trust has been used on money longer than 1957….

![](http://www.coinlink.com/News/images/ham_13-s_qtr.jpg)

Having In God We Trust on our currency does not mean anything. You dont like it igore it. I dont look at a coin or bill and go omg… i better go to church because im using this money.

Hey forward thinking England.... you have the same ducking thing in your government... God save the King/Queen is in your anthem.... and i dont give a duck if its not used by all of england, or only by some... the fact is its there.

Like it or not America was founded on paganism... so yes there will be religious ties to the government, and a lot of the motto's that are found in America. And the people that are forcing seperation of church and state are just as screwed up as the people forcing paganism. No one should have the right to tell ANYONE how they should feel, act, or believe. If someone wants to believe or not believe in paganism that is thier personal right.

Untill all countries/people stop acting like they are better than everyone else, then we will continue to have these problems. People need to stop forcing thier beliefs on others, and just mind their own damn buisness, and respect that everyone is different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gw͋eͥ͒̑͋ñͧͪͥ͌:

> Untill all countries/people stop acting like they are better than everyone else, then we will continue to have these problems. People need to stop forcing thier beliefs on others, and just mind their own damn buisness, and respect that everyone is different.

A true Libertarian motto.

/applaud

It's rare I get any kind of backing against Robin. Thank you, Gwen, for pointing out the Wiki-blunder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DrNova:

> And of course, I regret starting this topic.
>
> Any time a topic thats current in the US comes up, Robin wants to take a poke or two at america.

Claiming that I have something against America is simply ignorant on your part. 90% of this community is made up of American teenagers. As such discussions are usually based around that country.

We have plenty of topics about European matters but Americans simply don't have any interest in it.

I take a poke or two at _all_ countries, especially my own. I've been actively campaigning my own pathetic government for years. If you really want to discuss British politics with me then go for it, but I've yet to meet a single American who has any idea how things are run over here.

I'm critical of politics in general. It just so happens that the rest of the world tries to copy everything America does meaning I need to keep up to date with current events over there just so I can make sure that shit doesn't fly over here.

@Gwenuıןɐp:

> Hey forward thinking England…. you have the same ducking thing in your government... God save the King/Queen is in your anthem.... and i dont give a duck if its not used by all of england, or only by some... the fact is its there.

We've been pushing for the separation of religion and state here for decades. Don't assume that because I'm criticising America I'm supporting my own country in any shape or form. The only thing I'm really proud of in modern British politics is the Liberal Democrats' well-received push for evidence based drug laws and our increasing acceptance of fringe group rights.

Honestly though, that link was just to point out to Miguu that it wasn't always on your currency and was a relatively modern thing. I'm not using it to prove a point one way or another.

What's seriously worrying about your Government's relationship with religion is that 4 of your Presidential Candidates claimed they were told to run for president by God himself.

Last time I checked hearing voices was a pretty good sign of schizophrenia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robin:

> What's seriously worrying about your Government's relationship with religion is that 4 of your Presidential Candidates claimed they were told to run for president by God himself.
>
> Last time I checked hearing voices was a pretty good sign of schizophrenia.

That's fucking hilarious! xD

I don't doubt it for a second, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...