Florida House Bill Requires "In God We Trust" Displayed In All Public Schools

The bill requires all public schools to display "In God We Trust" in an open, and easy to see, place. Religious conversation has been increasing more and more ever since Donald Trump has entered upon the scene. This ranges from Al Gore saying God told him to fight global warming, to President Donald Trump actively trying to remove the Johnson Amendment for Christians. All this religious talk is leading to the soon, and inevitable, enforcement of religious laws wherein everyone will be able required to obey the law of the state. Of course, such a thing can only be enforced, if the constitution is being repudiated, which of course is happening as we are speaking. The 2nd Amendment for example says, "Shall not be infringed", how many people are infringing upon that very right? Free-Speech is battling against "hate speech". Truly, America is taking a turn for the worse, and not for the better.

a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Yea, ok. Just as soon as they prove their version of some god actually exists.

Otherwise fire them all and prohibit them from filling any gov or state position for the rest of their lives.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Yea, ok. Just as soon as they prove their version of some god actually exists.

Otherwise fire them all and prohibit them from filling any gov or state position for the rest of their lives.

Just pretend 'they' worship money. It's still printed on money, isn't it? Coincidence?

Anyways, it's just words. Let people cheerlead their words if they want, it never hurt you or me none.

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Yea, ok. Just as soon as they prove their version of some god actually exists.

Otherwise fire them all and prohibit them from filling any gov or state position for the rest of their lives.

Just pretend 'they' worship money. It's still printed on money, isn't it? Coincidence?

Anyways, they're just words. Let people cheerlead their words if they want, it never hurt you or me none.

Perhaps you don’t understand the need to separate church from state? Or the reasons why we do not pander to those who believe in Gods?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Yea, ok. Just as soon as they prove their version of some god actually exists.

Otherwise fire them all and prohibit them from filling any gov or state position for the rest of their lives.

Just pretend 'they' worship money. It's still printed on money, isn't it? Coincidence?

Anyways, they're just words. Let people cheerlead their words if they want, it never hurt you or me none.

Perhaps you don’t understand the need to separate church from state? Or the reasons why we do not pander to those who believe in Gods?

As I said, it's just words. No one forcing anyone to attend church or announce their beliefs.

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Yea, ok. Just as soon as they prove their version of some god actually exists.

Otherwise fire them all and prohibit them from filling any gov or state position for the rest of their lives.

Just pretend 'they' worship money. It's still printed on money, isn't it? Coincidence?

Anyways, they're just words. Let people cheerlead their words if they want, it never hurt you or me none.

Perhaps you don’t understand the need to separate church from state? Or the reasons why we do not pander to those who believe in Gods?

As I said, it's just words. No one forcing anyone to attend church or announce their beliefs.

The words being there mean that they have the support of the state.And you definitely don’t understand the consequences of that do you?

a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

My guess is that we're being given a platform to be able to push back a bit.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
The words being there mean that they have the support of the state.And you definitely don’t understand the consequences of that do you?

Our forefathers, except for a couple, were rather religious. and they wanted to protect was religion. They came from a country that had a state sponsored religion and so they wanted freedom for all religions. What this means is they wanted to keep the state out of religion and not so much religion out of the state...if that makes any sense to you.

To say God in a general sense encompasses all religions, so I fail to see where that state support lies other than to suggest the intent of our forefathers was to keep the Government atheist, and I don't see that.

what happened to - freedom from religion

and just to get the wingnuts into a ftrothing hysteria - suggest that hommage to - allah , vishnu , odin , zeus etc etc be displayed in public buildings

the idiots what tax payer money to promote thier SPECIFIC immaginary friend - not other peoples

Well if they get this through it should be viewed as an opportunity, groups could form and go out an and change the word god to gun, maybe just a sticker they slap over the word with the picture of a nice rifle.

a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

How are people who believe in a pretend sky man allowed to hold positions of power? People in Government positions generally rely on verifiable Science before they act upon something, yet when Al Gore says 'God told me to fight Global Warming' everyone's on board. No one is asking 'Erm, did that guy just say god told him to fight global warming, yeah, seems unstable, hearing voices and stuff, that guy shouldn't be in a position of influence'.

I guess it boils down to control, easier to control people who believe in such things.

So just have the kids hold up dollar bills during the national anthem.

Problem solved!!

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Yea, ok. Just as soon as they prove their version of some god actually exists.

Otherwise fire them all and prohibit them from filling any gov or state position for the rest of their lives.

Just pretend 'they' worship money. It's still printed on money, isn't it? Coincidence?

Anyways, they're just words. Let people cheerlead their words if they want, it never hurt you or me none.

Perhaps you don’t understand the need to separate church from state? Or the reasons why we do not pander to those who believe in Gods?

In that one sentence you show a common misconception. Yes, there should be separation of church and state. But as for "pandering" to those who believe in God?...

The first Amendment says that Congress will make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means that no one can prohibit others from freely practicing religion. Your last statement seems to imply that people should be prohibited, or at least discouraged, from practicing religion. That's wrong. The US is a place where people should be able to freely express their faith without fear of retribution or ridicule.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's not freedom FROM religion.
It's freedom OF religion.
That's a big difference.

Florida House Bill Requires "In Gore We Trust" be Displayed In Public

I don't trust Al Gore, besides didn't he lose florida...

a reply to: BlueAjah

utter bollox

to have freedom of religion - you MUST have freedom from the imposition of ANY religion that you do not wish to be governed by

i choose ALL .

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Yea, ok. Just as soon as they prove their version of some god actually exists.

Otherwise fire them all and prohibit them from filling any gov or state position for the rest of their lives.

Just pretend 'they' worship money. It's still printed on money, isn't it? Coincidence?

Anyways, they're just words. Let people cheerlead their words if they want, it never hurt you or me none.

Perhaps you don’t understand the need to separate church from state? Or the reasons why we do not pander to those who believe in Gods?

As I said, it's just words. No one forcing anyone to attend church or announce their beliefs.

YET.

a reply to: ScatteredThirdAngel

Here we go.

A bunch of revisionist idiots, trying to pass off a deconstruction of the constitution, under a guise of tradition. Separation of Church and State is clearly laid out in the constitution, and ever since 1954, when Eisenhower pushed to add "under God" to the pledge of allegiance, and 1956, when he made the nations motto "In God We Trust", things have been spiraling down the crapper with regard to the solidity of the first amendment.

Of course, these were not the first examples of the penetration of state, by the church. Eisenhower's folly was simply a repeat of a previous attempt at penetration of the state by the church, during the Civil War. The reasons for it were the same, to whit, a desperate need on the part of those in control, to have a greater measure of it.

There are very good reasons why the absolute geniuses who crafted the Constitution of the United States, specifically addressed nonsense like this, by placing the first amendment in the document, despite the fact that they were men of faith themselves in many cases. They understood intrinsically that religious hierarchy can be toxic, and running nations with the assumed permission of God Himself, only leads to draconian and unaccountable leaderships, winds up digging deeper and deeper holes for the actual people of the nation.

And of course, all those who have claimed to be angry at the destruction of the constitution from their common perspective of right bias and support for phobic sociopaths like Trump for example, will shrug off THIS particular infraction of the first amendment, specifically, the establishment clause. Why? Because many of those claiming to be constitutionalist, only actually care about the constitution when it might protect their "right" to abuse people of colour, or to discriminate against people based on their gender, sexual identity, sexual activities, their promiscuity, their preference for weed over beer, or any other utterly irrelevant thing.

When the first amendment protects freedom of speech, and people are permitted to consider their phobic dross speech, rather than gutter mutterings, these people are happy as lambs in spring. But you try and enforce that amendment to get rid of the prohibitive, exclusionary language inserted into governance over the years, you try and tidy up those violations of the amendment that the right wing fundamentalists actually enjoy, and by God, you have trouble on your hands, constitution or no.

Disgusting bloody hypocrites, the lot of them.

I love God. I worship, in my own way. But even I, a man of faith, understand that a nation cannot be run in any fair or just manner, unless it is run in a secular manner, because otherwise, one set of religiously perverted morals always gets forced on an entire society, rather than having its laws and morality informed by the structure of the electorate. The people must come first, all the people of a nation, MUST have more importance and power to change their government, than does ANY religion, or any argument based on religion.

Government must respect ONLY the secular, give no pride of place or extra credit to any one religion over another, nor refer to religion in order to make its laws, create for itself mottos, require no God in order to operate its daily functions, and refer to no God in order to lend weight to its power in the eyes of the people. Its pretty God damned simple when you see the actual amendment written down. For a document penned in a period in which flowery language and long, difficult sentences were common, which I personally love (something the long suffering membership here will attest to, much to their annoyance in some cases ), the First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America, is ABSOLUTELY crystal clear, succinct, makes its point and has done with it. Not even the ADD/ADHD generations of recent years could possibly fail to appreciate the meaning of the words which comprise it. And yet...

The people who made this choice in Florida, Eisenhower back in the day, M.R. Watkinson in 1861, and everyone supporting their choices, have acted in direct violation of the very document that underpins and forms the foundation of your entire nation, and I am willing to bet that response to this is going to be weaker than watered down lager.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's not freedom FROM religion.
It's freedom OF religion.
That's a big difference.

the first amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is no different than Prohibiting the 10 commandments from being displayed on public property. People who believe in god’s are delusional.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

no the first amendment clearly states that laws which are in favor of a religious entity like the catholic church or the church of england shall be prohibited, it doesn't say anything about suppressing expression of religion, that clearly violates the first amendment.

making a law like for example the heresy act of 1554 in england as an example is what the first amendment is talking about, it's not about banning expression or free exercise of religious belief because it offends a certain group of people.

it's about laws favoring a specific religious entity and this law does not force religious practices on anyone, are you honestly telling me that just because something says "in god we trust" it's preventing people from practicing their own beliefs or non-beliefs?