Why does one man get to decide how this is all going to go down?
Last time I checked, the way to get a law changed or have your voice heard in this country, you needed to have a lot of people agree with you. Like, you need a lot of signatures on a petition or everyone you know should send a letter…
So why is this guy getting any air time? Why is he getting ANY say? Because he’s a lawyer?
Forgive me if I offend any atheists with this post.
But seriously, how many millions of people are there in this country, and one man throws a tizzy fit because he doesn’t like seeing the words in "God we Trust" on our currency and could potentially get those words removed costing this country how many dollars to redo all of our currency? How many more people with actual beliefs that like seeing those words on our currency and feel that they are part of what this country was founded on are going to be offended and file another lawsuit to get them back on there? Sheesh.
This guy needs to stop getting so much press.
I just don’t get why as an atheist he thinks he should get any say. Atheism is not a set of convictions or a set of beliefs. It is a lack of them. So why should he, with his lack of beliefs, get to say he’s offended. He doesn’t believe anything! And don’t give me that baloney about how it makes not a separation of church and state. Malarkey. I have never had anyone tell me how I am supposed to believe or where I needed to go to church, so I am doing just fine.
I can kind of understand the whole pledge of allegiance thing, he filed suit against, because yes, by having everyone stand up and say it, it is sort of teaching a certain set of beliefs, but this is ridiculous. Who even looks at their money before they spend it anyway?
It just really scares me that one man has the potential for this kind of power. If he wins this (I hope he doesn’t even from an economic standpoint) what’s next? "Umm, I am sort of offended by this law here that says I can’t speed. I sort of like speeding and it offends me that you don’t so down with speed limits!" I know that’s kind of extreme, but…
I just think this guy needs to be treated like a kid having a tantrum. Put him in his room until he can cool off and play by the rules. The world doesn’t revolve around you, little one. And in this house we have the words "in God we trust" and most everybody else likes it that way.
I’m secretly hoping that God strikes him down.
I really could pick holes in your entire argument, but I am just going to point out a few basics… find yourself a definition of atheism, if you can understand what you read, you will quickly see it IS a set of beliefs, they just state that what you believe is wrong. if is the belief that there is no all powerful creator, etc. However, I don’t want to get into a religious debate here.
You are saying that it supports a separation of church and state… would you be happy if all currency produced from now on had the words ‘Allah Akbar’ on them? No, you would feel that it was promoting Islam through state currency. Ahem, take a step back and look at it subjectilvly, in that case you are either saying Christianity is not a religion, or you are admiting that it is a link between church and state.
If no one supported this person, and it was simply his views alone, then he would not be getting that publicity. Also your statment ‘I just don’t get why as an atheist he thinks he should get any say’ is verging on idiotic. Should Jews not have a say? Should Muslims? Should Hindu’s? If you take your statement literally, given the understanding that Atheism does involve beliefs and convictions, then that really is intollerence to the extreme, and shows a total distain for freedom of speech. You may as well just say ‘no one but christians should have the right to vote’.
Your example of abolishing speeding lores is a bit pathetic, speeding kills, ‘in god we trust’ offends all non christians and is a mockery of church/state separation. Comparable? I think not, and sincerely hope that you don’t either.
I could also argue against your statment that you have never been lead towards christianity… were your parents christians? Do you follow the same belief system as them? I rest my case.
Oh, and your closing statment, ‘I’m secretly hoping that God strikes him down.’… well, if atheists are wrong, at least they will have the pleasure of watching you burn along side them
Anyway, likewise, I don’t want to offend anyone with this post, so if you have been offended, take a step back, breathe for 30 seconds, re-read what wound you up in a subjective way, and then feel free to rant at me if you still feel my points are invalid.
Leo
Comment by Leo Whitton — August 17, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Present me with an “atheist creed” and I will retract my statement.
The currency says “in God we Trust”. It does not say, “in a Christian, trinity style God we trust.” So your statement “would you be happy if all currency produced from now on had the words ‘Allah Akbar’ on them?” is sort of silly. If our country had been founded on those ideals, and all of our currency already said that, then no I would not be offended by it. I am upset that we would go through all the trouble of making new money to please one man’s opinion. (Which clearly, our country isn’t to that point yet, since they did nothing about his claim.) If we changed all the money to say ‘Allah Akbar’ because of one person then yes I would be upset about that. But not because of the new phrase itself.
That said, everyone has a “god” they believe in. We all worship something. Whether it’s Allah or Buddha or the God of Israel, we worship a god. Maybe your god is money or alcohol or the church of yourself. Everyone has a god, and the money saying “in god we trust” should be offensive to no one besides people looking to be offended. It spends the same for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists, so who the heck cares what it says? I personally don’t spend a whole lot of time reading my money, do you?
This statement: “If no one supported this person, and it was simply his views alone, then he would not be getting that publicity” is probably not accurate. News likes to report on anything stupid, scandalous or silly. Especially quirky people who write up lengthy lawsuits to get attention.
In the end, I am not offended by what you said. But I don’t agree. Which you probably expected anyway.
Comment by Steph — August 17, 2009 @ 5:29 pm