A debate...

I started this on Facebook and thought I'd move it here to continue the discussion if it's warranted. The names of the participants have been reduced to initials and since this was just copied from Facebook, I apologize for the format. Also, since this is from Facebook, the conversation gets derailed a little but stays fairly on target. The following is what I asked:

"ok, let's stir the status quo...our so called national motto "in god we trust" needs to be changed to what it should have been "E Pluribus Unum"--thoughts?"

MIR
Ummmm.....can't decide how to respond. :)
Yesterday at 10:10pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
grrr, don't sit on the fence MIR :-)
Yesterday at 10:14pm · Delete

MIR
lol I'm not sitting the fence. I'm trying to decide HOW to reply....
Yesterday at 10:16pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
seriously tho, everyone assumed our national motto was e pluribus unum until the civil war when suddenly people's thoughts shifted to thinking the war was caused by our "heathenism"...as if the opposite of believing in god is heathenism
Yesterday at 10:18pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
e pluribus unum "out of many, one" is a saying i can get behind
Yesterday at 10:20pm · Delete

MIR
I don't think "in God we trust" is the nations motto....pretty sure it already is "e pluribus unum"
Yesterday at 10:21pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
The Congressional Record of 1956 reads: "At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that 'In God we trust' be so designated as U.S. national motto
Yesterday at 10:22pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
A law was passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint resolution declaring In God We Trust the national motto of the United States
Yesterday at 10:24pm · Delete

MIR
Hmmm....I feel a small debate coming on....not of disagreement but of just a diff perspective. Let's face it....civil war actions did resemble monsterous actions. Helping people get back to their faith (whatever it is/was) was maybe a way of putting things in perspective of their arrogance. In their trusting of their belief....it made everyone a bit humble again....
Yesterday at 10:25pm · Delete

MIR
Their God fearing ways that is.....made them more humble/less arrogant....
Yesterday at 10:25pm · Delete

MIR
Wow! West High did you a bit of good! :)
Yesterday at 10:28pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
in interesting thought but doesn't make a case for our national motto. to me, it was a devious, but ingenious, way of moving someone's personal agenda
Yesterday at 10:28pm · Delete

BA
'i dont like confrontations!' -TRex (toy story)
Yesterday at 10:30pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
debates brad, debates
Yesterday at 10:31pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
and i welcome all opinions/comments
Yesterday at 10:32pm · Delete

MIR
Whose??? Countries fold over religious debate. This nation came together over something positive for the majority in the 50's. Not to mention this country was founded on religious freedom....gives you the choice to believe in or not without fear. The "founding fathers" just chose to belive.
Yesterday at 10:35pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
to add to the debate, i think we should also remove "in god we trust" from our currency. we are not a nation "under god" nor are we all religious.
Yesterday at 10:37pm · Delete

MIR
lol Not debating....seriously. Just a slightly different perspective....I see where Tim is coming from. I however like the idea of "in God we trust" as it keeps the believers living a life of respect to their beliefs. Respectful living (well most religions)
Yesterday at 10:38pm · Delete

MIR
We ARE a nation under God....that was the whole idea of breaking away and forming a country of believers in God that could pick or choose their religion....the country was founded this way....non-believers have that right too. To not belive. But it is still " one nation under God" as that us how it was formed. Religious freedom!!!! :)
Yesterday at 10:42pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
actually not all of the founding father's believed, not all of them were religious and i think they took great pains to leave religion out of the constitution/declaration
Yesterday at 10:45pm · Delete

MIR
Hmmmm....I'm listening. How do you know this?
Yesterday at 10:47pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
"one nation uder god" was not added until the mid 50's. just because a certain decade of government decides to add some religion to our nation doesn't mean it was right. we should revisit this, i think it would be removed if we got the right lobbyists involved. afterall, it was lobbyists of sorts that got it there in the first place.
Yesterday at 10:49pm · Delete

MIR
But how do you believe they went thru "great pains" to keep it out? How do you know there were non believers then? That was a time of a God fearing life....
Yesterday at 10:53pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
well as you said, that was a time of god fearing people but you don't see that in the constitution or the declaration of independence. thomas paine, tho a deist, was decidedly anti-theist. i have to believe that the founding father's realized what it could mean to the nation if they allowed religion to rule.
Yesterday at 10:57pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
original pledge of allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Yesterday at 11:00pm · Delete

JD
Don't let him win Melanie!
Yesterday at 11:00pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
quiet you, unless you have something constructive to say :-)
Yesterday at 11:02pm · Delete

MIR
Ok....where did you learn the words to the Pledge of Allegience!?! lolMaybe you don't understand lol
Yesterday at 11:05pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
the internet does have all this info you know...look it up. i thought it was common knowledge that "under god" wasn't added until quite recently
Yesterday at 11:07pm · Delete

DR
I'm afraid if I agree with you I may wake up with a swarm of locusts on my house. So I am going to keep my thoughts to myself!!!
Yesterday at 11:08pm · Delete

MIR
So....who does it hurt having it as our nations "motto"??? What would we gain by changing it???More importantly.....how many more dollars of "Obamas money" is this going to cost??? :)
Yesterday at 11:08pm · Delete

JD
Oh.. now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Yesterday at 11:09pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
as far as who it hurts...no one, tho again that doesn't make a case to have it as the motto or on our currency because it doesn't hurt anyone not to have it either. as far as cost, nothing...just phase it out next time the currency is redone.
Yesterday at 11:10pm · Delete

MIR
Quite recently??? That was over 50 years ago....I am VERY selective about my information I retrieve from the www......as should you. And I'm older than you by one day...so as your "elder"....you should listen to me.... ;)
Yesterday at 11:12pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
as far as the pledge of allegiance goes, this was eisenhower's reasoning for adding "under god", "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." --transcendence of faith?
Yesterday at 11:12pm · Delete

DR
The machinery used to print our currency would have to be replaced at all of our federal reserve locations. And the money it would cost to change it would be highly inflated as its "government money"
Yesterday at 11:13pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
you should be selective and confirm what i say with as many sources as makes you comfortable.
Yesterday at 11:14pm · Delete

MIR
Nice Monty Python!Ummmm....that would do more damage that just monetarily I believe...and no, just the congressional debate will cost us money....it couldn't just be phased out. Not something like this.
Yesterday at 11:16pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
actually our government pays for our currency to be printed, which strikes me as odd and the machinery would not have to be replaced, just the "templates".
Yesterday at 11:16pm · Delete

MIR
lol that's not a retort!
Yesterday at 11:17pm · Delete

JD
Religous affiliations aside; our future landscape of our nation is no longer is UNDER GOD. We are made up of many religions and beliefs. The problem is that we sell ourselves as a nation of freedom and acceptance, but in our present "Modified" pledge, we basically alienate half our population.
Yesterday at 11:20pm · Delete

MIR
You have not directly answered my question on how you know not all the founding fathers we religious.
Yesterday at 11:21pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
interesting...about the motto on coins "The Supreme Court has upheld the motto because it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". just take it off if it means nothing. that just goes without saying
Yesterday at 11:22pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
finally, joe. that was constructive.
Yesterday at 11:24pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
not only that but the current pledge is mostly repeated by our children, further indoctrinating them into religion without a whole lot of choice. these types of things should remain secular.
Yesterday at 11:25pm · Delete

JD
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Not to mention why would any religous body WANT to associate GOD with MONEY?
Yesterday at 11:33pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
jefferson, for instance, was pretty adamant about removing the supernatural aspects of religion and focus on the moral aspects. actually, you could say he believed in being good rather than a god.
Yesterday at 11:33pm · Delete

MIR
Interesting and valid point Joe. However, this country allows anyone to have and express praise to "whatever God" they believe in or not belive in. There are many names for peoples "creator" but the Pledge does not have to be stated by all. Nobody is excluded from it if they don't believe in it. That's like saying I'm excluded from Lent because I'm not Catholic. The entire Midwest changes thier menu during Lent. I choose to eat steak whenever I want because I do not believe doing that will make me go to "hell". But I'm certainly not "excluded" from anything I choose not to be a part of or believe in.
Yesterday at 11:33pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
religion, as a whole, is all about exclusion. the very fact that you won't go to heaven if you don't take jesus as your personal savior is exclusion by definition.
Yesterday at 11:36pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
so by adding a national motto to our currency and pledging allegiance to our nation under god, one could interpret this as exclusion.
Yesterday at 11:37pm · Delete

MIR
That is not a straight across the board belief. That's some religions. Catholics - the Virgin Mary. Many sectors have different beliefs. Again, it's not exclusion if you choose not to belive. It's exclusion if you choose a belief and are not allowed to be a part of it or persecuted for questioning it. Coming full circle to our countries beginning.
Yesterday at 11:40pm · Delete

JD
Xactly.. you have a choice to partake of the "Filet-o-Fish" or not on Fridays, but when it's emblazoned upon the money you use to purchase said steak... no choice there.
Yesterday at 11:41pm · Delete

MIR
Seriously now....My visa check card doesn't have religious beliefs printed on it. I never carry cash....
Yesterday at 11:43pm · Delete

JD
LOL... oh yeah. Problem solved!!!
Yesterday at 11:44pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
that's true, i never carry cash either hehe. it's the principle that this debate is about.
Yesterday at 11:44pm · Delete

MIR
My work here is done.;) lol!!!!Night guys....great fun!
Yesterday at 11:46pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
as far as exclusion, melanie, there have been many many cases here in the united states where children have been suspended from school for not reciting the pledge of allegiance due to a conflict with whatever religion they believe in or don't believe in. again this is exclusion.
Yesterday at 11:47pm · Delete

MIR
If that is true, then that is sad. However, that is an ignorant school official making a bad choice. Not a religious backed rule or law.
Yesterday at 11:51pm · Delete

Tim Anderson
that's kind of my point, religion makes people do stupid things. removing it from currency and the pledge is a good start to a secular nation.
21 hours ago · Delete

MIR
lol stupid people will do stupid things with or without religion, unfortunately.
16 hours ago · Delete

Tim Anderson
true but i'd rather have someone do something stupid out of stupidity's sake than in the name of religion.
15 hours ago · Delete

MG
Tim, I'm with you on this one. The 50's, when the change to the pledge and the national motto were made, was a decade of fear. These changes were reactionary - the building of a religious wall to block communism from entering the U.S. The founding fathers were against religion intermingling with Government. If you want to know more, read what they wrote. Many (not all) of them were privately religious men, but felt that it should be separate from their public duties. Jefferson is an excellent example - he wrote the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom prior to the Revolution. God is mentioned as both God and the Creator in the Declaration, but you won't find any mention or reference to God in the Constitution. And while yes, children have the choice to not say the pledge, not many six year olds know this or have the independent spirit to be the only first grader not standing when the teacher leads them in the pledge. Even high school students struggle with this.
11 hours ago · Delete

Tim Anderson
excellent and well stated MG...
11 hours ago · Delete

Holy Crap! part deux

So it's been a while since I posted anything about religion. As it happens, something I read today sparked my interest in debunking religion again.

I've heard theists argue that because science can't explain the origin of everything then there must be a designer/creator. While many atheists would easily dismiss that as the root of what science is and that just because science doesn't have the all the answers doesn't mean there is a creator, I've never heard the opposite argument. The fact that religion does have all the answers should make it suspect. Any rational person that is presented with the answers to all life's questions should be wary. Any book that gives you all you need and condemns free thinking is dangerous. The saying "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is" comes to mind.

During what I consider the "age of religion", think way way back to ancient egypt, there was certainly a lack of organized learning. Only the rich and powerful were educated and even then the quality of the education was limited to what they knew at the time. Religion was a perfect fit AND it was for everyone. This, in fact, was where things naturally took a turn for the worse. It is without question that those in power, be it moderate or extreme, want to stay in power. Those that have wealth wish to keep it. This has been and will always be the way it is, good or bad. Survival of the fittest can be applied here, it's just nature. Religion was the means to stay in power, to terrify the masses (uneducated, mind you) and collect money in the name of a creator/deity. It hasn't always been the God we think of today, there were many deities that came before the Christian God. All of them with similar traits, similar tasks, and similar rules. The obviousness of the truth is overwhelming...religion is a means to control and make money from the uneducated or easily persuaded through fear and retribution.

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion. - Thomas Paine

Palin steps down?!?

Lots of reasons but the full truth is not known...at least that's my opinion. My opinion, she quit, she couldn't take the pressure of all the attacks, lawsuits, etc... Bottom line, no way can she hope to get the vote for president now in 2012, why would the American people vote for someone that might get bored with the office of President and quit?

Other than family, there is no good reason to quit with a year and a half to go in your term. You are not doing what's best for the people in AK...unless you feel you are not worth the office of governor. If that's the case, then you certainly aren't worth anything in politics either.

Meh...good luck AK!