# "In gods and goddesses we trust"



## fangjian (Nov 3, 2011)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...We-Trust-Why-Congress-reaffirmed-the-US-motto



"The House on Tuesday passed a non-binding resolution reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto. The measure sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., supports and encourages the motto's display in all public schools and government buildings."


Woooow. Seriously?!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 3, 2011)

This should be good Frivolous Lawsuits will be STACKING uplike cord wood

I once worked in a Government office that had a first floor lined will pillars on the inside of the building and every Christmas different offices in that department would decorate a pillar. One year one office took bible quotes and put them all over the pillar and someone took offense to it and even brought in a Lawyer and they were yelling about separation of Church and State. They did not seem to care about the angles hung all aroundone pillar with piano wireby the neck (my ex-fiancée called them Angels We Have Hung on High) but the quotes they found offensive. So instead of fighting the department had them removed to which the office that put them up starded yelling about discrimination and freedom of speech, I never found out what came of all that. I saw a similar thing when a school used theword Holy on its light up sign in front of the school at Christmas time.

So now we are going to put In God We Trust all overschools and Government offices. Let the games begin.


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

You would think at this time people had more pressing problems...in The House and else were.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> You would think at this time people had more pressing problems...in The House and else were.



That is what I thought too.... but apparently they don't have more pressing problems


----------



## Nomad (Nov 3, 2011)

The point isn't to work on something meaningful, it's to use sleight of hand to make really big problems "disappear" from the consciousness by bringing up crap like this.  Like a particularly shiny object, it's a deliberate distraction for people to fixate on.


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

Nomad said:


> The point isn't to work on something meaningful, it's to use sleight of hand to make really big problems "disappear" from the consciousness by bringing up crap like this.  Like a particularly shiny object, it's a deliberate distraction for people to fixate on.


Sadly, you are too right on that!


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 3, 2011)

1) i dont see why anyone would have a problem with this
and
2) this is just smoke to hide the utter failure that is the obama regime


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> 1) i dont see why anyone would have a problem with this
> and
> 2) this is just smoke to hide the utter failure that is the obama regime



A) it's a waste of taxpayers money to push for BS laws.
B) the previous administration had similar smoke screens.


----------



## fangjian (Nov 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> 1) i dont see why anyone would have a problem with this



I find it odd that you wouldn't have a problem with our paper money saying  "In Muhammad (peace be upon him) we trust"  

You'd be ok with that?!


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 3, 2011)

if the majority of this country is muslim, that would be fine, since it isnt, it isnt

very simple really



fangjian said:


> I find it odd that you wouldn't have a problem with our paper money saying  "In Muhammad (peace be upon him) we trust"
> 
> You'd be ok with that?!


----------



## fangjian (Nov 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if the majority of this country is muslim, that would be fine, since it isnt, it isnt
> 
> very simple really



Ahh. So you don't agree with the separation of church/state concept. I guess I just _assumed_.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2011)

It's a non-issue.  I'm not a xtian, but I don't have any problem with 'In God We Trust' on our money.  I wouldn't have any problem with also including Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist language on the money, too.  I'm not trying to be inclusive.  I just really don't consider it worth giving any significant time to worrying about.

Let's put the Spaghetti Monster on there, too, while we're at it.  It just doesn't matter.

And in a similar vein, if you want to pray at school, knock yourself out.  Just don't require my child to pray and we're all good.  By all means, teach my kids all about your religions, just don't try to do it in science class.  I think there's real value in teaching kids about world religions.  It's just not science and shouldn't be taught as such. 

Let's all get over this crap.  It's not that big a deal.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> 1) i dont see why anyone would have a problem with this



Because this country has a secular government by design.  Because not everyone believes in God.  Because not everyone can even agree on which "God" we are all supposed to trust.  Because some religious people have strong strictures about putting religious statements on money or other secular devices.

You have a limited imagination.



Twin Fist said:


> 2) this is just smoke to hide the utter failure that is the obama regime



You *do *know that this was put forth by the Republicans...right?!?


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I find it odd that you wouldn't have a problem with our paper money saying  "In Muhammad (peace be upon him) we trust"
> 
> You'd be ok with that?!



Fallacy, it would read 'Allah' since it does not read Jesus either... 


nitpick moment over.


----------



## fangjian (Nov 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> Fallacy, it would read 'Allah' since it does not read Jesus either...
> 
> 
> nitpick moment over.



Doesn't matter. It's government catering to a religion. You can choose any name.  Aphrodite, Yahweh, ...


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Doesn't matter. It's government catering to a religion. You can choose any name.  Aphrodite, Yahweh, ...



I'd go with Eros then, short, easy to spell.....


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 3, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Like a particularly shiny object, it's a deliberate distraction for people to fixate on.



yeah, I know.  It just preys upon the short attention span of - SQUIRREL!!!


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> I'd go with Eros then, short, easy to spell.....



Bacchus, anyone?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2011)

Blind Io.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 3, 2011)

Always been partial to Mielikki myself.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 3, 2011)

It's a non-event.  
Summary: House Concurring Resolution 13 (H.Con.Res 13)  available via thomas.gov
Text: 


> *CONCURRENT RESOLUTION* Whereas `In God We Trust' is the official motto of the United States;
> Whereas the sentiment, `In God We Trust', has been an integral part of United States society since its founding;
> Whereas in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as
> their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction;
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 3, 2011)

As an individual I agree it's a non-event but what of that sizeable number whose reason tells them that there is no such 'creature' as god (in any of the extant forms)?  Is it not a sign to them that the superstitious theocrats are still knocking on the door of secular power even now in the 21st century?

In their eyes (and mine) such phrases as *JKS* lists above are inherently false in their presumption of the existence of what does not exist and to perpetuate such things in the modern setting of an advanced Western culture is a worry.  Particularly as the one great 'enemy' of peace still out there (not counting the economic giants that are poised to swallow up the West) uses much the same language in it's (violent) political decision making.

Is it a good thing to be putting out a theocratic 'message' to the international community when the very thing that is supposed to be promulgating the doom of us all is a theocratic message?


----------



## Carol (Nov 3, 2011)

Religion is irrelevant.  This is an act of desperation.  A desperate toss of red  meat to pacify the loyalists of a party who haven't produced fearful of  losing a majority in the upcoming election, and fearful of losing to an  unpopular President.

Would have predicted that they would see a headline such as THIS during the election cycle?  



> Both the Republican winner of the special election in Rockingham County  and the Democratic loser said that the Tea Party was really the big  loser of the election tonight.



http://politicalscoop.wmur.com/gop-dems-tea-party-loser-of-special-election

I  dunno if it was the Tea Party activist Joe Barton that threatened a female  (Republican) state senator, then later persisted on calling her out on  NHGOPs facebook page, offering a large sum of cash for anyone to primary  her (Representatives and Senators are unpaid here!).  Some though it was fair game, as the senator was a Republican that (gasp) did not support Right To Work legislation!  But.....shockingly, that same activist fell mighty silent on the subject when a Republican union  firefighter was voted in to office in a special election and said he would not support Right To Work.    I wonder why Barton hasn't threatened the union firefighter?


Or maybe it  was the 91 y.o. rep who said disabled people should be shipped to  Siberia, or the state rep that was elected but never ever showed up at  the capital.....stating "financial difficulties"  (again....Representatives and Senators are unpaid here! ).  Or maybe it  was the guy that didn't step down after getting arrested on a DUI last  year.  It took till he got arrested for driving on a license that had  been suspended since that DUI matter that got him to step down.    Or  maybe it was because the NH Tea Party was far more interesting when it  was independent and outside voters, and much less interesting now that  they are just another sourceparroting the RNC party line.  

Voters  (remember them?) have had enough.  2010 saw Republicans taking a  trouncing majority...Republicans outnumbering Democrats 3 to 1 in both  houses. 

 But since starting the session in January...3 deep  Republican districts suddenly elected Democrats in landslide 60%-40%  victories. The union firefighter that won, was the only special election  won by NHGOP...even with Obama's numbers at an all time low.

NH  is not giving up on the GOP.   Romney  has the  strongest Republican primary numbers since  Reagan.  But clearly the voters believe that they aren't being heard, so they are speaking with their ballots.

The  RNC is watching while  districts that are 100%, 100%, and 90%  Republican elect a Democrat in a landslide.  The DNC is watching while  Democrats are elected from heavily and historically Republican districts  in a landslide, but the sitting Democrat President is tanking.  

9 weeks till NH, 4 months till Super Tuesday, then we'll _really_ see the desperation kick in.  Its already being planned.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 3, 2011)

Sorry, but this bill is a non-event.  It does nothing, it simply restates that the US motto is "In God We Trust", with a lot of pretty verbiage and a vague encouragement that the phrase be promoted as such.  It makes no change in law, it's just feel good noise.  It'll be a very small sop to the Religious Right...  emphasis on small.  It's not much more than a company saying we value our employees -- while freely planning a massive layoff.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 3, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Sorry, but this bill is a non-event. It does nothing, it simply restates that the US motto is "In God We Trust", with a lot of pretty verbiage and a vague encouragement that the phrase be promoted as such. It makes no change in law, it's just feel good noise. It'll be a very small sop to the Religious Right... emphasis on small. It's not much more than a company saying we value our employees -- while freely planning a massive layoff.



Or, to put it another way:



fangjian said:


> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...We-Trust-Why-Congress-reaffirmed-the-US-motto
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Non binding resolution"=_doesn't mean ****._ :lfao:


----------



## Carol (Nov 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Or, to put it another way:
> 
> 
> 
> "Non binding resolution"=_doesn't mean ****._ :lfao:



What, you don't like red meat?


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 3, 2011)

I not christian, but I don't give two hoots that they want "In God We trust" on our money or on government buildings.  What I do have a problem with is the House wasting time on this nonsense while there are such bigger issues going on in the US.  I have to ask, Republican or Democrat, is this what we are paying our representatives to do?


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I not christian, but I don't give two hoots that they want "In God We trust" on our money or on government buildings.  What I do have a problem with is the House wasting time on this nonsense while there are such bigger issues going on in the US.  I have to ask, Republican or Democrat, is this what we are paying our representatives to do?



yes, yes it is......


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

seperation means the government cant sponser a church like what happened in england, everyone just forgets what that actually was intended to protect us from...

not to mention freedom OF doesnt equal freedom FROM


fangjian said:


> Ahh. So you don't agree with the separation of church/state concept. I guess I just _assumed_.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> seperation means the government cant sponser a church like what happened in england, everyone just forgets what that actually was intended to protect us from...
> 
> not to mention freedom OF doesnt equal freedom FROM



The government here doesn't 'sponsor' a church, I think you have muddled things up. The Queen is the 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The government here doesn't 'sponsor' a church, I think you have muddled things up. The Queen is the 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx



The Church of England also has 26 seats in the House of Lords-I've always thought of it as officially part of your government, but does not receive any government revenue. (This from someone who was raised as part of the Anglican communion-Episcopalian-is the son and grandson of Episcopal priests and the son of an avid Anglophile....)

So it's the government sanctioned and recognized church, of which about something like 2% of the populace attend....:lol:


----------



## fangjian (Nov 4, 2011)

I just can't help but laugh

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_247/12052858698UU67M.jpg

Tried to get an image of Americas dollar as well. 

----------Note:   Sorry, can't figure out how to upload or get the url right. I'm just contrasting Americas money with British money, and how they are different in what they show support for.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The Church of England also has 26 seats in the House of Lords-I've always thought of it as officially part of your government, but does not receive any government revenue. (This from someone who was raised as part of the Anglican communion-Episcopalian-is the son and grandson of Episcopal priests and the son of an avid Anglophile....)
> 
> So it's the government sanctioned and recognized church, of which about something like 2% of the populace attend....:lol:



The Cheif Rabbi is also in the House of Lords as a 'Lord Spiritual' as opposed to a 'Lord Temporal'.

The House of Lords is *part of Parliament not the government*. The government at the moment is made up of a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

We have always had figures of note on our bank notes never politicians or their ilk.

The church of England isn't government sanctioned, it's under the protection of the monarch who will however take advice from the Prime Minister on appointing senior ranks in the church but as with a row thats going on at the moment the Queen doesn't have to take their advice, she often has ideas of her own. Prince Charles if and when he takes the throne has said he will become the Defender of the Faith*s.*


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The House of Lords is *part of Parliament not the government*. The government at the moment is made up of a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.



Okay-color me confused. I thought Parliament was the legislative body of Great Britain-wouldn't a legislative body be part of the government? Wouldn't having seats in that body make an organization also part of the government?



Tez3 said:


> The church of England isn't government sanctioned, it's under the protection of the monarch who will however take advice from the Prime Minister on appointing senior ranks in the church but as with a row thats going on at the moment the Queen doesn't have to take their advice, she often has ideas of her own. Prince Charles if and when he takes the throne has said he will become the Defender of the Faith*s.*



From the Church of England's webpage :



> The settlement of 1689 has remained the basis of the *constitutional positio*n of the Church of England ever since, *a constitutional position in which the Church of England has remained the established Church with a range of particular legal privileges and responsibilities*, but with ever increasing religious and civil rights being granted to other Christians, those of other faiths and those professing no faith at all.
> 
> As well as being the established Church in England, the Church of England has also become the mother church of the Anglican Communion, a group of separate churches that are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and for whom he is the focus of unity.



From the excellent Merriam-Webster's Collegiate English Language Technical Manual (that's_ engineerspeak _for "dictionary"-oh, by the by, Webster's is an Encyclopedia *Britannica* company.):



> *established church *_noun_ Definition of _ESTABLISHED CHURCH_*:* a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority



Wikipedia redirects "established church" to here



> A *state religion* (also called an *official religion*, *established church* or *state church*) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy.
> 
> State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state.





So, the Church of England is the "official religion of Great Britain"-with a congregation of 2% of the populace...
:lol:

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Irene!


----------



## seasoned (Nov 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Oh, and Happy Birthday, Irene!



_*Missed it, Happy Birthday, Tez3.

*_Sorry to interrupt all the fun, carry on.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Okay-color me confused. I thought Parliament was the legislative body of Great Britain-wouldn't a legislative body be part of the government? Wouldn't having seats in that body make an organization also part of the government?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The Church of England is the 'official' religion of England, not the UK. You won't find the Church of England in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they have their own.


Parliament and Government aren't the same thing.
http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/

http://www.parliament.uk/education/...youve-got-the-power/ygtp-parliament-overview/



cheers! I am now officially very old lol!


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 4, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I not christian, but I don't give two hoots that they want "In God We trust" on our money or on government buildings.  What I do have a problem with is the House wasting time on this nonsense while there are such bigger issues going on in the US.  I have to ask, Republican or Democrat, is this what we are paying our representatives to do?


What, you think they ought to be doing something like, oh, passing a budget?  Taking back some of the power they've ceded to the President by neglect?

Not happy with the job that the incumbents are doing?  Vote 'em out.  Me?  I'm about _this_ close to voting for the nutbar fringe candidates until the Congress is stacked with people who might actually do what they're elected for instead of the political gridlock between the two major parties...  It ain't like they can be less effective than the incumbents!


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 4, 2011)

Regarding the confusion on "government" and "Parliament"...  I think I know what's going on.  For us here in the US, when we talk about the "government", we're talking about the entire group that governs the country (or city or county or state...).  So, when you here us say "government", we might mean the elected officials, we might mean the working people who do most of the actual day-to-day work of running the country, or we might mean the whole kit & kaboodle.  When Tez and many others from the UK (and other countries) talk about the Government -- they're referring specifically to the collection of ministers, secretaries, and what-have-you that do the work of running the country -- but NOT the Parliament.  I get the feeling it's more or less limited to what we'd consider the Executive branch here in the US.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2011)

#1 It annoys me that congress is so worried about stupid thins like steroids in baseball, HGH in Football and now this instead of doing real work like cutting sending

#2 It annoys me that we must change tradition in the name of not offending anyone.  "In God we Trust" has been on our money since the mid 1800's at this point its more tradition then a support of one god over another.  People just need to grow up stop looking for any attempts to make a victim class.  If You dont believe in God fine but the $5.00  in your pocket still spends just like the guys $5.00 bill that Pastor has in his pocket.  When do we stop changing things just because someone does not like it. We wont have any traditions left at this rate.  Then again I somehow think that may be the plan of some.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> What, you think they ought to be doing something like, oh, passing a budget? Taking back some of the power they've ceded to the President by neglect?
> 
> Not happy with the job that the incumbents are doing? Vote 'em out. Me? I'm about _this_ close to voting for the nutbar fringe candidates until the Congress is stacked with people who might actually do what they're elected for instead of the political gridlock between the two major parties... It ain't like they can be less effective than the incumbents!




Contact these people and start an American branch of the party. When you read what they say it actually makes sense! They've put candidates up for Parliamentary elections and don't always come last. 
http://www.omrlp.com/


----------



## fangjian (Nov 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> #2 It annoys me that we must change tradition in the name of not offending anyone.  "In God we Trust" has been on our money since the mid 1800's at this point its more tradition then a support of one god over another.  People just need to grow up stop looking for any attempts to make a victim class.  If You dont believe in God fine but the $5.00  in your pocket still spends just like the guys $5.00 bill that Pastor has in his pocket.  When do we stop changing things just because someone does not like it. We wont have any traditions left at this rate.  Then again I somehow think that may be the plan of some.



Nothing wrong with changing traditions, or getting rid of some all together. Some traditions are just plain stupid and countries have become better since getting rid of them. 

Instead of having mythology on our currency, maybe something like "Liberty and Justice for all" would be better for *many* reasons.


----------



## Nomad (Nov 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> seperation means the government cant sponser a church like what happened in england, everyone just forgets what that actually was intended to protect us from...
> 
> not to mention freedom OF doesnt equal freedom FROM



Actually, yes.  Yes, it does.  Freedom of religion implicitly includes the option of simply not believing any of them, as well.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Instead of having mythology on our currency, maybe something like "Liberty and Justice for all" would be better for *many* reasons.



The first one being that they're just as mythological and unattainable as you see the great bearded Superfriend in the sky to be.....:lfao:

_Liberty and Justice for* all*..._ :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

*Justice??!!!*.....:lfao::lfao: :lfao: :lfao::lfao: :lfao: :lfao::lfao: :lfao: :lfao:



:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 4, 2011)

Technically speaking, yes, this is government sponsorship of a religious belief.  They're putting "In God We Trust", a religious statement, all over dollar bills.  It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so no point saying it's not a duck. 

However, it is still a very small and inconsequential duck.  But it still is what it is.


----------



## Carol (Nov 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The first one being that they're just as mythological and unattainable as you see the great bearded Superfriend in the sky to be.....:lfao:



Chuck Norris isn't dead, is he?????


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Nothing wrong with changing traditions, or getting rid of some all together. Some traditions are just plain stupid and countries have become better since getting rid of them.
> 
> Instead of having mythology on our currency, maybe something like "Liberty and Justice for all" would be better for *many* reasons.


I guess I dont like changing things just to change things.  If the word "God" offends you then you have serious issues.  If you dont believe in God then the word shouldnt offend you since it does not exist to you anyway. 

You add Liberty and justice for all and you have a new group of "Offended" people claiming that justice is not for all  in this county.

God has been used since the begining of this country its in our Declaration of Independence.  Should we take the white out to it and delete the words god and creator because its offensive to some?  I for the life of me just dont understand why people are so sensitive in this country.  Thats on all side of political and religious beliefs.  I belive now its more of "Im going to piss the other guy off watch this" then it is Im offended by that.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The Church of England is the 'official' religion of England, not the UK. You won't find the Church of England in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they have their own.
> !



Thanks for the clarfication, Tez-I'm one of those Americans who interchanges "Great Britain," and "England" all willy nilly, even though I know the difference. 

The Church of Scotland is the Presbyterian church, but the Church of England does exist there in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and has since it's inception.The Church in Wales *is* part of the Anglican communion-basically is C of E, an was the state religion of Wales until early in the 20th century. The Church of England also exists in Ireland in the form of the Church of Island, and has since the inception of the C of E as well-it was the established church until the mid 19th century- with most of its adherents being in Northern Ireland.....though, as in England, not a lot.......


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Regarding the confusion on "government" and "Parliament"... I think I know what's going on. For us here in the US, when we talk about the "government", we're talking about the entire group that governs the country (or city or county or state...). So, when you here us say "government", we might mean the elected officials, we might mean the working people who do most of the actual day-to-day work of running the country, or we might mean the whole kit & kaboodle. When Tez and many others from the UK (and other countries) talk about the Government -- they're referring specifically to the collection of ministers, secretaries, and what-have-you that do the work of running the country -- but NOT the Parliament. I get the feeling it's more or less limited to what we'd consider the Executive branch here in the US.



Sounds about right as I don't know how the American 'government' system works. The government is restricted to the winning party in a general election. The winning party ( or parties as they are at the moment) are the only ones who can appoint ministers etc. The people who work in the departments are civil servants and continue in post whoever is elected, it's their job to enact whatever the government wants and needs doing, they are non political admin staff. Parliament will include the Opposition parties, known as Her Majesty's Opposition which actually is an important postition as they can limit what the government tries to do. The third part of Parliament is the monarch. 

We also get confusion about religion here and that goes into the confusion of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, the two not being the same. However the Bishops in the House of Lords don't see themselves as just representing the Church of England. 

[h=4]_http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx"Who do they represent in Parliament?_[/h]_There is no 'Bishops' Party' and as non-aligned members, their activities in the Upper House are not whipped._
_Like other members of the Lords, they do not represent a parliamentary constituency, although their work is often closely informed by their diocesan role._
_They sit as individual Lords Spiritual, and as such they have much in common with the independent Crossbenchers and those who are not party-affiliated._
_Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

_The Church of England.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/cofe/cofe_1.shtml

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about_us/how_we_are_organised


http://www.ebcpcw.org.uk/  Church of Wales lol!

Here it has always been about the state trying to control the church rather than the other way round. The government doesn't 'sponsor' any church, I'm not actually sure what that even means. I doubt it's something the churches would accept, they like to be independant here.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> As an individual I agree it's a non-event but what of that sizeable number whose reason tells them that there is no such 'creature' as god (in any of the extant forms)? Is it not a sign to them that the superstitious theocrats are still knocking on the door of secular power even now in the 21st century?
> 
> In their eyes (and mine) such phrases as *JKS* lists above are inherently false in their presumption of the existence of what does not exist and to perpetuate such things in the modern setting of an advanced Western culture is a worry. Particularly as the one great 'enemy' of peace still out there (not counting the economic giants that are poised to swallow up the West) uses much the same language in it's (violent) political decision making.
> 
> Is it a good thing to be putting out a theocratic 'message' to the international community when the very thing that is supposed to be promulgating the doom of us all is a theocratic message?



Is that an English point of view?  We in the USA separated ourselves from many of those something over 200 years ago.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Twin Fist said:


> seperation means the government cant sponser a church like what happened in england, everyone just forgets what that actually was intended to protect us from...
> 
> not to mention freedom OF doesnt equal freedom FROM



At the time the Church of England was founded, the Catholic Church had a lot of power over all country's rulers.  That was OK with good King Henry VIII until the pope refused to grant another divorce.  No divorce, no pope.  The king became the head of the church through protection (if not on paper).

In the USA, writings of the founding fathers are full of references to God and/or the Creator, not to a specific church.  The constitution forbids founding of a state religion (by the federal government), not religion in government.  A minor distiction, but still true.  It says nothing about prohibiting the individual States from having State sponsored religions.  In fact, at the time, some of them did.  



Tez3 said:


> The government here doesn't 'sponsor' a church, I think you have muddled things up. The Queen is the 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx



See above.  At the time of the founding of the Church of England, the king was the government.  Yes?



RandomPhantom700 said:


> Technically speaking, yes, this is government sponsorship of a religious belief. They're putting "In God We Trust", a religious statement, all over dollar bills. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so no point saying it's not a duck.
> 
> However, it is still a very small and inconsequential duck. But it still is what it is.



Well, not exactly, again, see my comment of the founding fathers and the constitution.  The Supreme Court has already delt with a law suit on our motto being on our money.  That is why it is still there.  

Congress passes many such resolutions.  You would be surprised.  Most just don't get so much attention.  Before anyone is too quick to pass judgement on Republicans in The House, note that the Senate was in agreement.  Most of those who voted for it probably didn't expect it to get much more attention that most of the other resolutions passed.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Thanks for the clarfication, Tez-I'm one of those Americans who interchanges "Great Britain," and "England" all willy nilly, even though I know the difference.
> 
> The Church of Scotland is the Presbyterian church, but the Church of England does exist there in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and has since it's inception.The Church in Wales *is* part of the Anglican communion-basically is C of E, an was the state religion of Wales until early in the 20th century. The Church of England also exists in Ireland in the form of the Church of Island, and has since the inception of the C of E as well-it was the established church until the mid 19th century- with most of its adherents being in Northern Ireland.....though, as in England, not a lot.......


However only the *Church of England* in *England* is connected to the State.

The churches of Scotland and Wales while being part of the Anglican community have no official standing with those countries now. The Church of Scotland is proud of the fact that there is no government control or connections. The Episcopal Church in Scotland is for the sassenachs not the true Scots, it's 'the English Church' it only has about 50,000 members (mostly foreigners). To confuse you more there's the Wee Frees, two lots of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_(post_1900)

Nationalism looms large in religious arguments here, as with the Scots the Welsh haven't much truck with the Church of England, the Welsh are more inclined towards Non Conformism, most go to chapel rather than church. The imposition of the Church of England was seen as English oppression along with the banning of the Welsh language. I'm not even going near the Northern Ireland religious divide, far too contentious and bloody.

Oftheherd, saying that the Church of England was formed because of Henry's divorce is simplifying things a lot, the Protestant movement had been underway in Europe for some time and it was something that resonated with many English people. Protestanism was already being preached in England before Henry's 'problem' with the Pope. Certainly the divorce situation caused a rift but that breaking away may well have happened anyway as it had in other European countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation


----------



## fangjian (Nov 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess I dont like changing things just to change things.  If the word "God" offends you then you have serious issues.  If you dont believe in God then the word shouldnt offend you since it does not exist to you anyway.
> 
> You add Liberty and justice for all and you have a new group of "Offended" people claiming that justice is not for all  in this county.
> 
> God has been used since the begining of this country its in our Declaration of Independence.  Should we take the white out to it and delete the words god and creator because its offensive to some?  I for the life of me just dont understand why people are so sensitive in this country.  Thats on all side of political and religious beliefs.  I belive now its more of "Im going to piss the other guy off watch this" then it is Im offended by that.


Some people can be offended by words, which is understandable. For some, the word n!gger is offensive. 

I wouldn't say I'm _offended_ by it. I just think it's really stupid. I'd feel the same way if it said "in L Ron Hubbard we trust"  or "in Muhammad we trust"  I People would make fun of that, understandably to most. It's the same to me. I'm making fun of it.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Some people can be offended by words, which is understandable. For some, the word n!gger is offensive.
> 
> I wouldn't say I'm _offended_ by it. I just think it's really stupid. I'd feel the same way if it said "in L Ron Hubbard we trust" or "in Muhammad we trust" I People would make fun of that, understandably to most. It's the same to me. I'm making fun of it.



I think that it would be in 'Allah we trust' rather than Mohammed who was a prophet not a god. Muslims don't worship Mohammed.

I'm not sure if it's a good motto as I think according to Christianity as well as my own religion one is supposed to do things for oneself rather than whinge to G-d everytime you want something, the general premise being get off your **** and help yourself first then you'll get some help.


----------



## fangjian (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think that it would be in 'Allah we trust' rather than Mohammed who was a prophet not a god. Muslims don't worship Mohammed.



I know the difference. I'm just saying ALL mythology. I wasn't just reserving that blank spot for something else that is perfectly equivalent to the monotheistic god. 

Anything that falls in that category. Aphrodite, Thor, Fairies............


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 4, 2011)

In Wu wei we trust :asian:


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

and the government cant MAKE you beleive, or even make you say you believe

you are free to think whatever you want

words on money doesnt interferre with that



Nomad said:


> Actually, yes.  Yes, it does.  Freedom of religion implicitly includes the option of simply not believing any of them, as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and the government cant MAKE you beleive, or even make you say you believe
> 
> you are free to think whatever you want
> 
> *words on money doesnt interferre with that*



I would suggest however that it doesn't give people much faith in the issuers of said bank note!


----------



## Carol (Nov 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess I dont like changing things just to change things.  If the word "God" offends you then you have serious issues.  If you dont believe in God then the word shouldnt offend you since it does not exist to you anyway.



But that's also how the motto came about.  Changing things just to change them.   

My granddad was, among many other things, an avid coin and currency collector (I was sickened when I heard he sold his collection, but I digress...)   He taught me a lot about old coins as a child and influenced me to study and learn a bit more about them.   The history of coinage in America is interesting to say the least, so much reflecting the history of our country.  Many older coins had curious sayings on them.  Some of them seem a bit cryptic, perhaps they made more sense in the day, or perhaps my knowledge of American history isn't strong enough to appreciate it.   Nonetheless, I find this to be very fascinating.
"I am good copper"
"Valve of 3 pence" (pre-Revolutionary times, naturally)
"Value me as you please"
"Our cause is just"
"Unanimity is the strength of society"

"In God we trust" is another one of those sayings from our currency.  I realize that it is most likely from Francis Scott Key: "And this be our motto: In God We Trust,"  but to me the saying takes on an additional level of fascination when minted in to a coin...because introduces a vaguer meaning of the word 'trust'.   

I don't have an issue with it on our money.  Don't have an issue with the word God.  I just don't care for the politics behind it, how churches lobbied for the change, and the reactionary authoritarian politics of McCarthy's day don't play well with my libertarian side.   I think E Pluribus Unum was a better motto for our country and plays a deeper role in our history than In God We Trust.  

No, it doesn't particularly bother me or insult me.  No, I'm not out trying to change things (well...not with that anyway).  But. if we're talking about traditions, perhaps we should restore E Pluribus Unum as a motto or return to a time where vague slogans were minted in to our currency, instead of just one.  We had useful objects and idealized figures gracing the faces of the coins instead of Presidents.  


Or, maybe we should first take a look at border patrol issues, outsourcing to China, our troops being spread too thin, accountability in spending, taxation...............


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

well, now that might just be true


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Does anyone think in these times of recession that the motto is actually a plea from the issuers, that they are telling you to trust to a higher 'authority' because they can't guarantee the money is worth anything?


----------



## Carol (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Does anyone think in these times of recession that the motto is actually a plea from the issuers, that they are telling you to trust to a higher 'authority' because they can't guarantee the money is worth anything?



I think it proves the one-liner: "In God We Trust.  The rest pay cash." :lol:


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2011)

Carol said:


> But that's also how the motto came about. Changing things just to change them.
> 
> My granddad was, among many other things, an avid coin and currency collector (I was sickened when I heard he sold his collection, but I digress...) He taught me a lot about old coins as a child and influenced me to study and learn a bit more about them. The history of coinage in America is interesting to say the least, so much reflecting the history of our country. Many older coins had curious sayings on them. Some of them seem a bit cryptic, perhaps they made more sense in the day, or perhaps my knowledge of American history isn't strong enough to appreciate it. Nonetheless, I find this to be very fascinating.
> "I am good copper"
> ...


From what I read it said they started using In God we trust after the civil war to try and bring boths the north and south back together. The south was bitter towards the Govt and when they made the new money they tried to find something non-Govt related that both sides could get behind.


----------



## fangjian (Nov 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> From what I read it said they started using In God we trust after the civil war to try and bring boths the north and south back together. The south was bitter towards the Govt and when they made the new money they tried to find something non-Govt related that both sides could get behind.



True. I can respect that for that time period.


----------



## Carol (Nov 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> From what I read it said they started using In God we trust after the civil war to try and bring boths the north and south back together. The south was bitter towards the Govt and when they made the new money they tried to find something non-Govt related that both sides could get behind.



Makes a lot of sense.  What's also interesting -- it wasn't the first use of "God" in a slogan on currency. The use predates our country's founding.  This is a token from the Colonial days which reads "God Preserve New England. 1694"   
 


If you think this has a very British sound to it, you'd be correct, they are believed to be sourced to a mint in London who produced tokens saying "God Preserve London" and "God Preserve Carolina"


----------

