Not at all. If the currency said “In Democrats we Trust” removing it would not be an endorsement of Republicans. Same thing here.

Yet at the same time, such a action would be seen as a benifit to Republicans, since we’re still a two-party system… For now.

The point is that it shouldn’t say “In Democrats We Trust,” “In Republicans We Trust,” “Voting is for Suckers,” “In God We Trust,” “We Trust in Many Gods,” “In Satan We Trust,” “Trust No One But Yourself”…or anything like it. It should simply not address those issues. Of course, if competing private currencies were legal, as they should be, this would not be an issue.

Getting rid of all the religious aspects in government isn’t a exercise of individual sovereignity, but rather that of secular totalitarianism.

How so? Individual sovereignty does not require a monopoly government, much less one that tries to impose a one size fits all solution to religious issues.

Members of Congress certainly have, and should continue to have, freedom of religion. What they should not have is the right to express their religion with other people’s money.

Then they ought to simply have a law that says it can be done on government property, but through private or personal funding. Would that make you happy?

Government property is in and of itself other people’s money.

Members of Congress should also not be allowed to use the public treasury to funnel money to their political parties, although of course they should have the personal right to belong to them and to express their beliefs.

Do you understand the difference?

I understand where you’re coming from, but from the attitude here, it sounds like people are advocating for the government to do more then just prohibit taxpayer funding of anything religious.

The attitude, as far as I can tell, is only in your imagination.

Neither does the argument of doing away with religious expression in any part of government a secular libertarian notion, but the opposite of Libertarianism in general.

Libertarianism dictates that people should not be forced to subsidize what they do not agree with. Minimal statist libertarianism posits that the amount to which people are forced to subsidize things against their will should be reduced to the amount they believe is necessary to maintain law and order. To the extent that there remains such a thing as government property, it should not be used to promote the religious or political beliefs of some over others. Lack of religious displays on government property is no more a religious display in itself than lack of partisan political displays would constitute endorsement of – what? No party membership? Not voting?

Neither should I have to put up with all the religious and Christian bashing here.

What Christian bashing? I’m reasonably sure that some of the people you think are “bashing” Christians would consider themselves Christians as well, where as others aren’t but have no interest in bashing anyone. Furthermore, I’ve already provided sources to demonstrate that mixing church and state goes against Christian teachings, if you go back to their source.

Why do you need religious displays on government property?

Why do you need to remove them in the first place. It’s almost like the Taliban blowing up those buhddist statues.

Not even close. The Buddhist statues were ancient relics and part of the world’s architectural heritage. I have no idea whether they were on private property. but even if they weren’t, no one could reasonably interpret that they constituted any attempt by the Afghani government to identify with or promote Buddhism, given that there are virtually no Buddhists in Afghanistan today. Similarly, no one interprets government symbols which harken back to, for instance, ancient Greek and Roman religion as being some attempt to reinstitutionalize the worship of the Greek or Roman pantheons. And to demonstrate that Christianity is not being singled out, no one (except apparently you) thinks using “AD” and “BC” constitutes some Christian practice in today’s society. On the other hand, everyone including the people doing it understands and acknowledges that putting up Christian displays on government property is a conscious attempt to mix religion and government.

Now that I have answered your deflection, how about answering the original question: Why do you need religious displays on government property?

if you want to remove icons, language, and anything else on government and public property, it is a attempt to diminish his (God’s) influence.

No it isn’t. God does not need coerced money and stolen property (which all government property is); such things are of the devil.

Removing anything religious from the government is suppressing free-will of those within it to express their beliefs, and removing other items is supressing the free will and beliefs of the founders.

Absolutely not. Individuals within government always have the free will to express their religion, just as they have the free will to express their political affiliation. They should not, however, be given to express either with other people’s money.

BCE as in Before The Common Era

ACE as in After The Common Era ………

Basically the non existent Roman Year Zero!

There is no law that states we must use Christian dating. Indeed, many communities use the Judaic calender and others use Muslim years.

There have been others, the French for a short time used Napoleonic years, and Kampuchea for a short time had their own.

You might have noticed that learned people have been using “1972 CE” the past generation or so.

And BCE instead of BC.

They seemed odd to me the first time or two I saw them, but are certainly more inclusive. Even if it is still based on Christian years.

PEACE

You’re quite wrong and your arguements are circular. Quit trying to legitimize religion by use of government–it wont work. A religion can only be HARMED by shackling it to the State.

= Yet at the same time, such a action would be seen as a benifit to Republicans, since we’re still a two-party system… For now.

= Yes.

That’s why I prefer individual sovereignty over Republican government

= Getting rid of all the religious aspects in government isn’t a exercise of individual sovereignity, but rather that of secular totalitarianism.

= Then they ought to simply have a law that says it can be done on government property, but through private or personal funding. Would that make you happy?

Members of Congress should also not be allowed to use the public treasury to funnel money to their political parties, although of course they should have the personal right to belong to them and to express their beliefs.

Do you understand the difference?

= I understand where you’re coming from, but from the attitude here, it sounds like people are advocating for the government to do more then just prohibit taxpayer funding of anything religious.

= Neither does the argument of doing away with religious expression in any part of government a secular libertarian notion, but the opposite of Libertarianism in general.

You still have the right to have any religious displays you want on your own property, but you should not be allowed to force me to subsidize your religion.

= Neither should I have to put up with all the religious and Christian bashing here.

Why do you need religious displays on government property?

= Why do you need to remove them in the first place. It’s almost like the Taliban blowing up those buhddist statues.

Is God somehow diminished by not receiving donations collected under the threat of duress (taxes)?

= if you want to remove icons, language, and anything else on government and public property, it is a attempt to diminish his influence.

God gave us free will, so that is actually contrary to the religion you say you follow.

= Removing anything religious from the government is suppressing free-will of those within it to express their beliefs, and removing other items is supressing the free will and beliefs of the founders.

Do you want Atheist and Satanist displays on government property also?

= Looks like its going that way with people like Michael Newdow getting their way.

Not at all. If the currency said “In Democrats we Trust” removing it would not be an endorsement of Republicans. Same thing here.

= But then again, since the expression is on the currency, removing it and other religious artifacts would be taking a position on the issue.

Since atheism doesn’t believe in any kind of religious expression, so that could be interpreted by many as the government bowing to the atheist belief in no god or any kind of higher power.

= Well, it certainly has Christian orgins.

Hardly. It just means I’m speaking in a manner that communicates to others in a way they can understand. And exclaiming ‘Jesus Christ!’ does not, and would not, make something of government matter. Again, you confuse society and government, particularly on the issue of heritage (perhaps you should brush up Ón your Bastiat).

= Then can you tell me just who this ‘Lord’ guy is that the phrase is reffering to?
BTW, the phrase was also very common back then because people at that time were more religious. The JC exclamation you stated is also from the influence of Christianity, just like how middle easterners say ‘Allah be praised’ as a public expression that of course comes from the Muslim religion.

The “Star Spangled Banner” was written during the War of 1812, hardly during our foundation, and wasn’t written by a founder of government, but by an ordinary citizen.

= Yet it became our official national athem later on… By the Government.

Moreover, it was not immediately adopted as our national anthem.

= Yet its been our national athem for a long time, and I believe that our previous national athems had religious language in the lyrics as well.

Additionally, you had to go to the full-length version, which is not what is commonly sung, nor am I sure that the full-length version is what is ‘officially’ adopted (compared to, say, what is commonly sung).

= The whole version isn’t commonly sung because it can be too long. Even at my Church, the SSB is included in our Hymnbooks and sometimes we sing only half of the whole song in order to shorten the time of the meeting, or service.

‘Creator’ can imply many things without being a Judeo-Christian god.

= I have to admit that you could be right on this part, even though I believe the founders were speaking of the Christian/Jewish God.

It can be ‘god’ in the sense of existence, like Eastern philosophies preach; it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (’pasta be thy name’). The point is, Creator does not necessarily equal God (’God’ being the Judeo-Christian god), and therefore does not place a preference or state a heritage of one religion over another.

= Yet it still refferences a higher, perhaps spiritual power, and seems to offend the militant atheist.
And I do not believe that any of the founding fathers believed in the ‘Flying Spagetti Monster’.

Finally, once again, *people* having a Christian heritage does not mean the government has a Christian heritage.

= But a lot of Judeo-Christian notions and Principles also play a role in the function of government and congress.

Moreover, as stated, many of said people were deists and humanists rather than Christians.

=Yet opposed removing any religious expression from government.

Our *society* certainly has a Christian heritage – our *government* does not.

It does have, or I should say previously had, certain principles in government that related to the Judeo-Christian belief.

It doesn’t matter if those serving in government were Christians (which, again, many weren’t), because they’re part of society.

= Yet the overwheming majority of them believed in a high power, still.

Members of Congress certainly have, and should continue to have, freedom of religion. What they should not have is the right to express their religion with other people’s money.

Members of Congress should also not be allowed to use the public treasury to funnel money to their political parties, although of course they should have the personal right to belong to them and to express their beliefs.

Do you understand the difference?

= Then again, it can also NOT have anything religious on the items, that would also be an endorsement of atheism, just like a Ten-Commandments monument being a endorsement of Christianity. The expression of atheism can actually be more broader then simply saying “There is No God”

Being religiously neutral (by mentioning no religion at all) does not promote or endorse atheism – it promotes and endorses nothing.

= I know plenty of people that would disagree with your take on that.

[For the record, I don't consider myself an 'atheist' either]

= Neither do I advocate for Theocracy or for one religion infringing upon the rights of others, but I oppose censoring and prohibiting ANY religious expression and freedom, since that would be the opposite totalitarian extreme.

=According to your interpretation, though some may disagree.

Moreover, I’ve never once ’spewed’ hate towards religious freedom.

= You seem to spew hate towards religious expression by government officials, and anything religiously said, acted, engraved upon, written, drawn, etc. by people in the government and government institutions.

I encourage religious freedom.

= Except the expression of it in public land, and you seem ethusiatic in doing away with it from anything related to the government.

You seem to completely misunderstand the notion, however. Freedom means your tyrannical majority must respect my minority rights by not having taking official stances through the hand of government.

= That is not ‘respecting minority rights’, rather it is a small intolerant minority having a chokehold on what the government can express or say. It sounds more like the minority has more power then the majority in controlling what the government does and say.
And yet the only governments besides us that I know of that have done away with all religious symbols and expression from their institutions are the various Soviet governments and other toltalitarianistic nations

By explicitly endorsing Christian ideology you propose, through government, not to respect those who disagree with you (by using their tax dollars for statements of your belief). Your statements are the opposite of freedom.

= If that’s ‘religious intolerance’ or ‘religious persecution’ to you, then I laugh at your paranoia.
Rather doing away with the long held religious symbols, icons, and expression that have been in our government since the colonial era is the opposite of freedom.

BTW, remember that the solid majority of taxpayers are practicing christians and others that are openingly religious, so I think a good majority of them wouldn’t object to their dollars going to something that they believe in.

You can display as much as you want via provate enterprise – that way others aren’t forced via government to fund and endorse your beliefs.

= So what are your views of a non-profit church group holding a short service in front of a courthouse or government building, on government property? Would you oppose something like that?

That’s why I prefer individual sovereignty over Republican government.

You’re Welcome IPR.

Perhaps they are, but I posted this article here.