Congress mandates use of "In God We Trust"

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

I'm still trying to figure out who Brickhead is.

I too was puzzled by that one, but then I decided it was a waste of time
trying make sense of the nonsensical.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:49:22 -0500, Mr. Jaggers lugburzman wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
You know what's really fascinating about this re-re-re-re-rehash of
religion vs not religion?

Nothing.

Quite frankly, I've never given any thought to whether my postings might
fascinate or not fascinate, nor do I detect the slightest hint of such
thought on the part of anyone else who posts here. Each of us is
entirely
free to open or not open, read or not read, react to or not react to,
anything and everything on r.c.c.

Apparently you missed my point. Let me be more direct. You're wasting
your time, both sides, trying to convince the other of anything on this
topic. All your well-crafted arguments, carefully crafted turns of the
phrase, and logic or quotations, isn't going to accomplish a thing.

I can't agree. You're almost certainly correct that nothing will change the
minds of the people that my posts are directed to, but there are always a
few people sitting on the fence that haven't been exposed to both sides of
the argument in anything other than sound bites.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 16:02:51 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
wrote:

Again, this neither forces forces anyone to BELIEVE in a particular god,
not
to participate in ANY religious activity. The constitution never says
that
government and religion need to be seperate. You hypocrites all to often
leave off the second part of that sentence.

Nobody said the motto IGWT forced anybody to believe in a particular
god. But what many people object to is that it asserts that the people
in the U.S. believe in a particular *type* of god, and that we put our
trust in that god. As has been discussed, this is very far from being
universally true.


I don't really think it asserts anything. The people never voted to include
IGWT on our coins. Politicians decided that. Until recent times, most of
us thought it was an okay thing to include and seldom gave it a second
thought, Christians or not. And I doubt if many of us would vote for a
candidate based on his/her position on the IGWT issue. I hope not anyway.
And I also doubt that very many people actually feel strongly about the
issue, one way or another, unless they might happen to get caught up in a
debate on the topic.

IGWT could probably be removed from our coins and currency with no more
public outcry that we hear now with IGWT on there.

Bruce

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:49:22 -0500, Mr. Jaggers lugburzman wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
You know what's really fascinating about this re-re-re-re-rehash of
religion vs not religion?

Nothing.

Quite frankly, I've never given any thought to whether my postings might
fascinate or not fascinate, nor do I detect the slightest hint of such
thought on the part of anyone else who posts here. Each of us is
entirely
free to open or not open, read or not read, react to or not react to,
anything and everything on r.c.c.

Apparently you missed my point. Let me be more direct. You're wasting
your time, both sides, trying to convince the other of anything on this
topic. All your well-crafted arguments, carefully crafted turns of the
phrase, and logic or quotations, isn't going to accomplish a thing.

I am going to express my position on a topic that interests me, and in the
best way I know how, in front of a candid and often hostile audience. That
is my objective, and I consider that a good use of my time. I neither
expect nor require that my interlocutors modify their positions as a result,
as my objective has already been met.

James

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 18, 8:05 pm, "Bruce Remick"
I agree. There are things that can truly hurt people which are certainly
worth getting huffy over. To me, personal indignance over this IGWT
issue--
either side-- ranks way way down on the list of things that need to be
addressed, unless one simply enjoys pontificating for exercise or extra
credit.

So you'd be OK if our money said "Praise be to Allah" or "Jesus is a
False Messiah"


No. But I'm okay with IGWT. How's that? And it's because I believe that
IGWT reflects the general attitudes of the majority of Americans. If the
majority of us were Muslim, maybe I would be okay with your suggestions.
IGWT is a generality that most US citizens respected, tolerated, and simply
become used to on our money for many decades without question or problems.
If it were decided to remove IGWT from our money, I would be okay with that,
too. It's nothing but a harmless slogan. If it doesn't apply to you,
ignore it and be happy that it may give comfort to others.

Bruce

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:49:22 -0500, Mr. Jaggers lugburzman wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
You know what's really fascinating about this re-re-re-re-rehash of
religion vs not religion?

Nothing.

Quite frankly, I've never given any thought to whether my postings might
fascinate or not fascinate, nor do I detect the slightest hint of such
thought on the part of anyone else who posts here. Each of us is
entirely
free to open or not open, read or not read, react to or not react to,
anything and everything on r.c.c.

Apparently you missed my point. Let me be more direct. You're wasting
your time, both sides, trying to convince the other of anything on this
topic. All your well-crafted arguments, carefully crafted turns of the
phrase, and logic or quotations, isn't going to accomplish a thing.

I am going to express my position on a topic that interests me, and in the
best way I know how, in front of a candid and often hostile audience.
That is my objective, and I consider that a good use of my time. I
neither expect nor require that my interlocutors modify their positions as
a result, as my objective has already been met.

James

I like to do the same thing for the same reasons. Occasionally, there will
be a reply that enlightens me with a point of view I hadn't considered.
Occasionally there will be a reply that will shut me up so I won't put a
foot any further in my mouth. Meanwhile, I think most participants in
threads like this seem to feel when to let go and let a thread die.

I find this particular thread informative in that I grew up Catholic in a
small town 50/50 Catholic/Protestant where we were taught as impressionable
young children not to enter a Protestant church and that all non-Catholics
were "unfortunate". When I first went out on my own in college, I found I
had no practical answers to religious questions from people of other faiths
and was a bit ashamed and embarrassed. Since then, I tend to listen in the
background to religion-oriented discussions, if only to help me make more
informed judgements for myself. Sort of like politics, I guess.

Bruce

On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:28:32 -0400, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:

IGWT could probably be removed from our coins and currency with no more
public outcry that we hear now with IGWT on there.

If the Supreme Court ruled that IGWT was an unconstitutional joining
of church and state, which it is, the religious fanatics in this
country would riot, shouting that "radical humanists" had bought off
the "activist" judiciary so they could continue leading the country
down into the hell of feminism, homosexuality, promiscuity,
bestiality, euthanasia, birth control, and liquor sales on Sunday.

There wouldn't be that many, percentage-wise, that would have such a
fit. But they would make a huge clamor. It's the fear of this squeaky
wheel syndrome, in large part, that keeps IGWT on coins, I believe.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Mon, 21 May 2007 01:22:49 GMT, Honus wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Apparently you missed my point. Let me be more direct. You're wasting
your time, both sides, trying to convince the other of anything on this
topic. All your well-crafted arguments, carefully crafted turns of the
phrase, and logic or quotations, isn't going to accomplish a thing.

I can't agree. You're almost certainly correct that nothing will change the
minds of the people that my posts are directed to, but there are always a
few people sitting on the fence that haven't been exposed to both sides of
the argument in anything other than sound bites.

You really, really think there's people out there who haven't been
exposed to this argument before? Seriously?

On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:38:05 -0500, Mr. Jaggers lugburzman wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

Apparently you missed my point. Let me be more direct. You're wasting
your time, both sides, trying to convince the other of anything on this
topic. All your well-crafted arguments, carefully crafted turns of the
phrase, and logic or quotations, isn't going to accomplish a thing.

I am going to express my position on a topic that interests me, and in the
best way I know how, in front of a candid and often hostile audience. That
is my objective, and I consider that a good use of my time. I neither
expect nor require that my interlocutors modify their positions as a result,
as my objective has already been met.

Well, (shrug) good luck with that. Here's your lance, Mr. Quixote...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:49:22 -0500, Mr. Jaggers lugburzman wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
You know what's really fascinating about this re-re-re-re-rehash of
religion vs not religion?

Nothing.

Quite frankly, I've never given any thought to whether my postings
might
fascinate or not fascinate, nor do I detect the slightest hint of such
thought on the part of anyone else who posts here. Each of us is
entirely
free to open or not open, read or not read, react to or not react to,
anything and everything on r.c.c.

Apparently you missed my point. Let me be more direct. You're wasting
your time, both sides, trying to convince the other of anything on this
topic. All your well-crafted arguments, carefully crafted turns of the
phrase, and logic or quotations, isn't going to accomplish a thing.

I am going to express my position on a topic that interests me, and in
the best way I know how, in front of a candid and often hostile audience.
That is my objective, and I consider that a good use of my time. I
neither expect nor require that my interlocutors modify their positions
as a result, as my objective has already been met.

James

I like to do the same thing for the same reasons. Occasionally, there
will be a reply that enlightens me with a point of view I hadn't
considered. Occasionally there will be a reply that will shut me up so I
won't put a foot any further in my mouth. Meanwhile, I think most
participants in threads like this seem to feel when to let go and let a
thread die.

I find this particular thread informative in that I grew up Catholic in a
small town 50/50 Catholic/Protestant where we were taught as
impressionable young children not to enter a Protestant church and that
all non-Catholics were "unfortunate". When I first went out on my own in
college, I found I had no practical answers to religious questions from
people of other faiths and was a bit ashamed and embarrassed. Since then,
I tend to listen in the background to religion-oriented discussions, if
only to help me make more informed judgements for myself. Sort of like
politics, I guess.

I may have said this before, but it's been long enough that it bears a
revisit: I enjoy a well-crafted and well-presented argument that I agree
with, but I enjoy even more a well-crafted and well-presented argument that
I disagree with. Both are rare, but for me at least, the latter is also the
rarer.

James