What's funny about the ALCU is... I talked with some people from that group from Virginia... and they defended Jerry Falwell in court before. Cuz someplace wouldn't allow him speak or something.
Just thought it was a little ironic.

I am not Christian, and never have been. I was raised pagan. But I'm hardly offended by other people praying, or by "In God We Trust" on our money, or mention of God elsewhere. I have been offended by people attempting to force their religion or morality on me, but that's an entirely different matter.

There are too many people pushing for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion. Unhappy that they've posted the Commandments in the courthouse? Ask that they also post the Pillars, the Rede, etc. So delicate that the very reminder of other religions out there, and other people happily practicing them gets your panties in a wad? Um...grow some stones and get over yourself.

What I want (and what I think a great many people want) is the freedom to practice my own religion witout interferance from the government, and preferably from anyone else. Everyone else is perfectly free to think I or anyone else is going to hell, so long as they keep it to themselves.

Similarly, the reason I am opposed to any marriage amendments is because the Constitution and the amendments should not be used specifically to limit or remove rights from a group of people. Think it's wrong of two people of the same gender to marry? You're free to have that opinion and discuss it, but you should not have the right to tell them that just because it's against your personal morals, they are unallowed to enjoy the same rights as you.

Laws should not have anything to do with morality. They should have to do with rights.

So...don't some laws involve morality? It's immoral to murder or steal, and those are illegal. But if you murder someone (which is not the same as killing in self-defense or in war), you are removing that person's right to live, and if you steal, you are removing someone's right to property. That it's also a moral issue should be immaterial to the law. Therefore, some or many may view homosexuality as immoral, but since it does not violate the rights of anyone to practice it, it should be not illegal.

Anyway, I greatly enjoy reading your blog. It was the first one I ever began reading, starting more than a year ago, and is a good part of the reason I started my own. So, thank you.

The boy scout ban was not because of the mention of god, it was because the scouts require belief in god.

link

I wonder how many people refuse to take Thanksgiving and Christmas off because they don't believe in religion. Probably the same number as Muslims on the Mayflower.

Last I checked, the words, "In God We Trust" is founded in religion. Putting that religious reference on our currency is a sign of respect for that religion.

In 1864, the first "In God We Trust" appeared on a US coin originally prompted from the complaint from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania:

"...
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.
..."

Sure's hell seems like Congress respected an establishment of religion, to be "straight forward".

How is the ACLU bothering you? If you want to trust in god, then isn't that your business? Why should all of us heathens have to read it on our currency? From what I can tell, the ACLU isn't taking any rights away from anyone, and, if anything, helps by acting as another checks and balance system to make sure our freedoms are protected.

"quest to eliminate religion from society" seems to be a combative hyperbole. I don't see the ACLU guarding people from entering places of worship. I don't see them stripping crosses off of folks' necks.

And, doesn't "secular fundamentalist" imply that there is some text that secular society accepts as unerring? Could this be, say, the Constitution?

Now, while I don't disagree with allowing to show 5th graders texts with religious references as a teaching tool, we are only given one side of the story, here. Such texts could be presented in such a manner, as to glorify the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, thus proselytizing as Principal Vidmar feared Williams would. Whether Vidmar has a case has yet to be reported on. Let's wait for all the facts, shall we?

godammit . . . how the hell can you expect arguments on controversial issues when you use logic and common sense to define your position!!

frankly, as I was reading it, I experienced a rather troubling episode of inner deja vu, knowing full well I had this same conversation only days/weeks/months/years ago with various members on my mail addee list

problem is, you're not on my list, so how did you get the point???!!

Lane - I was a Boy Scout and the only reference to God is in the Boy Scout oath. I was never forced to attend any church. I was never given any religious instruction. In my years from Cub Scouts, to Boy Scouts, to Sea Scouts the only time God was mentioned was when we recited the Boy Scout Oath. That was it.

Jimmy - The ACLU is bothering me by trying to enforce their secular views on society. How was the cross on the Los Angeles County Seal bothering anybody? How was the military supporting the BSA bothering anybody? I am an atheist but I was raised Catholic. It would require another post to go into this further but I am all for religion for children as it is the best way to teach morality. If I were to have children, I would want them to be educated by Jesuits. If not by Jesuits, my fallback would be any Catholic school system.

el ronaldo - Maybe you read a post I did on secular fundos about a year ago.

I think it was Roger Bacon who said something like:

"...The reason is, because the religion of the heathen, consists rather in rites and ceremonies, than in any constant belief."

In other words, religion ain't faith & faith ain't God. If our coinage said "In Control We Trust", would that be ok?

I think "In God We Trust" is a wonderfully OPEN expression that says simply that we believe in something greater than ourselves. The obverse is true as well: something greater than ourself believes in us.

So I think I'm in agreement with Denny's conclusion:

"I'm beginning to think that secular fundamentalism is a religion and like any other religion I do not want it forced on me.

Dear ACLU and the rest of you secular fundos. STFU and leave us alone!"

I am a Christian, but once I was an atheist. I agree with Denny. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was written to prohibit the establishment of a mandated state religion. They had had a lot of trouble with that back in England and the founding fathers didn't want any of that over here. And as Denny said the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited. I think the problem comes with how some people want to interpret the word 'respecting' in that document.
Maybe they think it is unconstitional to respect any religion and therefore it must only be proper to disrespect all religions .... except athiesm and secular humanism.

Denny -

The cross on the Los Angeles County Seal is offensive merely by its existence. If you don't find it offensive, what if it was instead a star of David? Wouldn't quite look the same, would it? The question isn't whether it's offensive, but rather, what does it have to do with Los Angeles County? Is the christian god somehow involved with Los Angeles policymaking? Does the christian god represent those of Los Angeles? And if so, what of the hebrew god? And all the hindu gods? Is Buddah not interested in Los Angeles County? Your opposition to the removal of the cross seems a bit odd to me. As one that doesn't believe in a god, why continue to allow the government to show that you are represented by a specific one?

And as for the BSA, I don't care if they drop off the face of the planet. Various State's Supreme Courts have ruled the BSA a private religious organization, since their exclusion of agnostics, atheists, and gays show their descriminatory actions, and therefore have no right to our tax dollars or gummint subsidies any more than the KKK does.

In a country of religious freedom you'd choose to indoctrinate with a specific sect of christianity just because you were? I didn't think you'd be so narrow-minded. Are muslim, jewish, buddhist, or hindu children raised with less "morals"? Do you believe that children are incapable of being raised "morally" without religion involved?

Moosy -
To go against everything that Denny posted, the first Amendment is anything but "straight forward". The constitution is subject to as much interpretation as a religious text, and with good reason. Do a little research on it, and you'll see for yourself that it's not so cut and dry.

I will admit before I begin this that I don't know much about the history of Los Angeles. But a very similar suit was brought here in Oklahoma, about a cross on the city of Edmond's seal. It was placed there because religion was a very big part of Edmond's history--I don't remember the details, but it was a main reason for founding the city. So the cross, despite the many people now living in Edmond who are not Christian, or who are at least not the particular type of Christian who founded the city, was more of a nod to the history of the city. Since the name Los Angeles has to do with angels, a distinctly Christian creature (I use creature because of the descriptions of various forms of angels in the Bible--there are only a few who are the modern human with wings sort), it wouldn't surprise me to find that Christianity had a lot to do with the founding or the history of the city/county.

I'm pretty offended by all this referencing of "God" in things like the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and on the currency (not to mention that Godawful song they play at baseball games since 9/11. God Bless America. Why? Did we sneeze?)

The permeation of God throughout the machinery of the State is NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted. A lot of people make the argument that the Founders were Christian... Yeah well Jimmy Carter and Jerry Falwell are both Christians but they're pretty different in their apporach. There's a pretty big difference between Deism and Theism and I'm getting sick and tired of the William Boykins of the world telling us that Our God is the true God and Allah is a phony when in fact they're the same person. Christians, Jews, and Arabs are all Children of Abraham so get over yourselves already. And why am I picking on poor General Boykin while others (coughOsamacough) get a pass? Well, unlike other players in this non-declared War on Terror, I'm paying the General's salary, and like all my employees he's subject to a performance evaluation from time to time.

Well. Enough people in this world seem to have the attitude, as expressed on a clever bumper sticker, that "God Loves Me For Hating You." This attitude has gone on and seemingly will go on forever. Yawn. Wake me when JHVH does a pile-driver on Allah, but Allah tags God at the last second and God puts JHVH in a sleeper hold and then all the cherubim enter the ring in for a bra and panties match free-for-all.

So what do I do? I grab my Sharpie and put a black line through "In God We Trust" on all my bills. It's not a lot, I know, but it makes me feel better.

No Jimmy I would choose to educate not indoctinate my children in parochial schools preferably by Jesuits because they would get a better education than they would in gummint schools. The fact that I was raised Catholic has nothing to do with that choice.

I would not find the Star of David offensive on the seal. I don't run around looking for things to offend me. How come they went after the cross rather than the goddess Pomona who is also on the seal? Since she is a pagan goddess shouldn't she be offensive also? Or are they only going after Christian symbols?

Jesus! Can't you liberals just get a grip? Why does religion bother you so much?

Sure, take the pagan symbol off, too. I wouldn't wanna be biased.

Perhaps they go after all religious symbols for the same reasons that they don't want the gummint subsidizing the BSA. Gummint money shouldn't be spent on them for any reason, not even their religious symbols.

I don't think it's religion in general that upsets liberals so much, but, and I hate to say it, but christianity, specifically. It permeates our society, influencing all that yield to its symbols. A cross clearly displayed is free advertising. Just like every other private religious organization, the churches should have to pay for their advertising.

Oh good grief, Jimmy. Christmas must be REALLY depressing around YOUR house...*rolls eyes*

You know, I have an eclectic set of personal beliefs that doesn't fall into any of the conventional religions already in existence. Given that it centers around the power of the imagination and the human capacity for creativity, I think I'm going to take the human head as my religious symbol. So Jimmy, your head now offends me. I demand you remove it at once or I'm going to call the ACLU.

--TwoDragons

Just for reference, the cross on the LA County seal wasn't just some cross put there on its own, even to annoy ACLU types (although that is a worthy goal, all by itself). The cross was in a portion of the seal along with a spanish mission, in recognition of the important role the missions had in the history and development of California. There were many other symbols of SoCal history as well.

And now someone's bitching about God Bless America being sung at ballparks? WTF? If you dont believe in God, why does it bother you if those of us who do ask for His blessing? (And for my money, the fellow who does it at Yankee Stadium is hands down the best.)

Denita: LOL!

My bitch about God Bless America is: What does that phrase even mean? And why do we suddenly get inundated with that song after 9/11? To me it's a subtle reinforcement of the difference between us and the terrorists -- not that they use terror, or attack civilians, or anything like that. Rather, that Our God is Right and their god is Wrong. Which, in both my opinion and point of theological fact, is completely asinine.

So please, believer, explain to me the rationale for singing God Bless America all the time? Was our failure to sing this song regularly at sporting events a precipitating cause of the 9/11 attacks? Did God stop paying attention to us because we slacked off on singing His praises? Is singing God Bless America intented to restore God's protective mantle over our nation?

(And if you really believe that, can we then agree, for completely different reasons, that America spends far too much on the military? If we've got God's blessing, who needs missile defense?)

But we're getting sidetracked. The New York Yankees are a private organization and can sing whatever songs they like. I find it tacky, but that's their right as Americans to do things their way.

What I really take offense to is the politicization of God. For instance, Washington State Representative Jim McDermott got in some trouble recently when he recited the Pledge of Allegiance before Congress. His crime? Omission of the words "Under God." Well, as it turns out, when Mr. McDermott learned the Pledge as a child during WWII, the phrase "Under God" wasn't part of it. Those words were added in the paranoid anti-Communist frenzy of the 1950's most famous for the McCarthy hearings. In other words, God, like Elvis, was drafted to fight the Red Menace.

I would think that as a Christian you would be somewhat appalled that Congress purports to know what God thinks. I don't think you'll find a ringing endorsement of either Capitalism or Communism in your Bible, since those words were invented by Karl Marx in the 1867th Year of Our Lord.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If you want to believe in God, by all means do so. If the New York Yankees want to believe in God, or cater to their fans that do, or cater to the fear of 9/11 by continuing to hymn God Bless America during the seventh inning strech long after most ball clubs have stopped, fine. As private citizens (or corporations) that's their perogative. But please, find something better to spend my taxes on.

I dare not presume to speak for a God I don't even believe in, but I have to wonder if our Creator might find a bit of irony to see the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on our money when so many Americans seem intent on accumulating material wealth and only pay lip service to spiritual wealth.

Finally, I must say that the bit about the California teacher not being able to use the Declaration of Independence because it has G-d in it is utterly ludicrous. What's next, a remake of The Godfather for the politically sensitive?

As an Atheist I realize I'm in a minority. Perhaps we can compromise, and in order to be more inclusive of America's disparate religions, change the phrase to IN GODS WE TRUST?

Denita -

Every day is a wonderous adventure around my house! No need to practice religious holidays.

Unfortunately, my head isn't tax-exempt. But, I agree that all religious government-respected symbols should be decapitated.

Ian -
How about:

"In God(s) We May or May Not Trust"

...that would make me feel better.

Ian:

"My bitch about God Bless America is: What does that phrase even mean?"

How could that phrase be any more clear?

"..change the phrase to IN GODS WE TRUST?"

Wouldnt you agree that there are more monotheists, here and elsewhere, so the singular is more inclusive?

Sorry daniel I like jimmy's idea better. Though, enough people seem to think that God and Allah are a different entity that I'm wondering what they think the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" means. By the way, I just learned that IN GOD WE TRUST is the official motto of the United States of America. While this isn't a high priority of mine, I will go on record that as an American Atheist I'm deeply offended by my country's clear and clearly unConstitutional attempt to establish or endorse religion on my dime.

Like I said I have nothing against religion whatsoever ("some of my best friends are Jews") but it's pretty explicitly not the purview of the Government.

You can read this
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
for a good history on how the "IN GOD WE TRUST" worked its way into the currency. Basically a bunch of religious zealots pushed it through around the time of the Civil War, which isn't too surprising considering how America has come running back to God after the recent trauma of 9/11.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're gonna believe, putting those words on a coin ain't gonna change that. And if you don't believe, it's not like the words on the back of a dollar are going to lead me to an epiphany. Let's just keep Government out of Religion and vice versa. I mean do we want to become one of those Fundamentalist Islam countries, with the only difference that we're Fundamentalist Christian? These groups have more in common than they like to admit.

OK guys. Let's take this bullshit to its obvious conclusion. St. Louis (and San Francisco, St. Augustine, and all the other saints) was named after a Catholic saint so we need to rename those cities so as to be in agreement with the Establishment Clause. Would that make you and your ACLU buddies happy?

The cross was in the LA County Seal to recognize the importance of the Catholic Church in the history of Los Angeles. Why does it offend you ACLU types so much? It is not establishing a religion.

Jimmy--No, I just want to cut off YOUR head. You're annoying the hell out of me.

Same goes for you too, Ian. You dipshits need to get a grip. Take Denmark, where you are BORN INTO the religion of Evangelical Christianity and have a VERY difficult time changing to another religion because the fucking GOVERNMENT EXPECTS YOU TO BE CHRISTIAN--and if you DO manage to change, you're pretty much looked upon as a second-class citizen. And worse, there also countries across the Pond where you WILL get your head cut off, not just a sarcastic statement like mine but the real thing (as in, no more living for you, got it?) for NOT BELIEVING what the majority of the country demands you believe. There are factions running around in the Middle East--like, you know, those mean people like the guys what flew the big planes into the big buildings in New York a few years ago? Remember that? Or did it slip your mind?--who will kill EVERYONE down to the last man, woman, and child, for the crime of not being a fundamentalist Muslim.

...Meanwhile, in the most affluent and free country in the entire world, you're getting your lacy panties in a fucking bunch over a little cross on a State flag and a bunch of little words on a fucking piece of currency. Frankly, I doubt cutting your heads off would do much to change your outlook on life.

--TwoDragons

Denny - Youre right about the city names. That was raised out here in SoCal during the seal crap. Los Angeles for pete's sake, city of angels. Not to mention Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and on and on. That where the mission influence came in big time.

Also, the cross on the seal was not just for christianity generally, but the missions specifically.

http://lacounty.info/old%20seal.htm

I don't really believe the ALCU has a particular "agenda" to de-establish Christianity. Sure, there are cases everywhere, but that is because it falls under Bill of Rights cases, which the ALCU specializes in. And since the law says "separation of church and state", and people have to file a complaint in order to bring the ALCU in, the ALCU is always on the secular side of that battle. Like I said, I was told by one of their members that they defended Jerry Falwell's right to free speech.

So I believe the ALCU fills a good role by advocating sometimes unpopular causes in the name of civil rights. You don't have any problem with groups and interests looking to defend gun rights or anything, do you? No, you have plenty of politicians who would make that fight.
But what politicians would try to remove "under God" or take off "in God we trust" even if some of their constituents were really bothered by it? None of them. It's political suicide. But the ALCU will help you. I think that's a good thing. Whether you guys agree with it or not, this discussion needs to be had.

And of course, I think the true solution lies somewhere in the middle. I personally do not believe you need to be "Under God" to be a U.S. citizen in the pledge of allegiance. "In God we Trust" on our money? Doesn't really bother me, but I don't see the point there. To have religious text on money is the height of irony, however.

Things that should stay? Historic things, flags, names, etc, etc. LA should keep its seal if its citizens believe that best represents them. Although I think they should sneak in the Mexican flag in there somewhere now.
I know this is another issue, but I believe any symbolism of the Confederate States of America in current society should be torn down. I'm particularly talking about the flag. Statues, I'm ok with, since it's history, but I grumble about. Confederates were traitors, plain and simple. They raised arms against the Stars and Stripes. That's the worst thing you can do, in my book. And yet they're heroes in some places? The flag is still flown? I don't quite get it. Only in America are losers of a civil war glorified.

Denita -

C'mon, baby. I didn't mean it. Truth is, I really don't give one [or two] shits about that cross. Fuck the cross. But I understand the arguement. I think our resources should be spent more wisely than to remove gubernatorial christian memorabilia.

What's all this about Denmark? Was a description of a country with half the population of NYC supposed to sway me?

And then the insinuation that I don't remember 9/11? Sweetheart...you hurt my feelings.

"Only in America are losers of a civil war glorified."

That's because their cause was noble, though they lost the war of northen agression, or war between the states if you like. And it was not slavery, but rather freedom and federalism in the true sense, as contemplated by the founders.

Even Lincoln didnt give a crap about slavery, and said so himself. His only goal was keeping the union in tact, with or without slavery. He even considered offering up a location in central america for relocation of all blacks, just to get the issue put to bed.

So LA County should have the Mexican flag on their seal if the people want it, but the Confederate flag should not be flown in any governmental context, even if those people want that?

And thanks for this thread Denny. Robin just reminded me to send $$$ to the NRA, GOA, and the Heritage Fdn. Wonder if the Reagan Library would like some too?

Samira,

How about "Civil Unions"?

Daniel is starting to sound like the Queen of Hearts. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!! Isn't this just further evidence that he's a fundamentalist nutjob like those guys in Iraq? Birds of a feather I suppose, except that Daniel doesn't have the balls to do what the brave martyrs of 9/11 did. Grow a set and make the news, buddy, and if you're right, God will surely reward you.

You should dig a little deeper when talking about the Civil War. True, Lincoln stated that he wasn't interested in freeing the slaves, only in preserving the Union. Reagan stated that Ketchup was a vegetable. Doesn't make it so. If you believe every speech or letter every President has ever penned, you've got a very distorted version of history inside your pious little head.

But why let the facts influence your ideology? After all, faith is defined as believing in something when there's no physical evidence to support it. Sometimes I wish I had a little of this mysterious "faith," it would sure make decision making a lot easier when you don't have to take reality into account.

Hmmm... Snoofy is me, Ian. Sorry for any confusion.

Ian:

You're a fuckup. All the arguments you were making went right down the shitter with your mischaracterizations of my statements and your name calling.

Denny: Apologies for the language, but apparently its the only discourse PeeIan understands.

Ian - Daniel has a point. The Civil War was not fought solely over slavery altho' that was one of the reasons and that pot had been boiling for quite some time as evidenced by the Missouri Compromise. But there were also some economic reasons. The manufacturing North was fucking with the agrarian South as regards interstate trade. Lincoln stated on more than one occasion if he had the choice between preserving the Union and abolishing slavery he would preserve the Union.

TD:

Why the need to give the same thing a different name?

What a lot of people, especially in this case the religious sorts, need to do is separate the wedding and the marriage. People other than Christians get married. Marriage itself it not a religious issue--it's a legal one in this case. It's about the rights you get from being married (hospital rights, death rights, rights with children who might be involved, insurance, taxes, etc). Your church believes it's wrong for a man and a man to get married? They are under no obligation to let them have a wedding there. Just don't take their money. Just because you think its wrong doesn't mean you have the right to tell someone else they can't go to a different church, or before a representative from a different religion, or before a justice of the peace at a courthouse and get married there instead. Since their being together violates no one's rights, it shouldn't be a legal issue. But making a law to prevent them from getting married goes against what laws should be doing.

Don't like it? Don't do it. Your church doesn't think it's right? Then that church doesn't have to perform the ceremony. It's similar to the cross on the county seal. You have the right to practice your own religion here, but you do not have the right to not have to see evidence of other religions because it might offend you.

Apologies if my rhetoric was too spicy for you daniel. Considering the tenor of this site, I thought a little name-calling would be well received. I only hope that, before the kitchen got too hot, you had time to grab that big sharp knife you'll be needing. If you'd like to dress your victim in an orange vest, I hear Old Navy is having a sale.

Denny has it right about the Civil War; slavery was an issue, it was not the only issue, but it most certainly was at issue during the War. Now, I will grant you that what's generally taught, that the Civil War was all about slavery, is not accurate. Yet there is a grain of truth to it.

One need look no further than the Lincoln-Douglas debates to see how Lincoln truly felt: The continued division of the Union into free and slave states was an untenable situation. Lincoln's recipe for preservation of the Union and the continued existence of slavery were mutually exclusive. It is perhaps unfortunate that States' Rights were dealt a mortal blow during the War of Northern Aggression, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.