It is time

I remember a thread here earlier in the year when I was but a raw newbie, and most of my under 500 posts brought at least one accusation of being a troll. Good times, those were. DU was so..edgy. I felt very counter-culture and quite the leftist! I thought about re-doing my wardrobe and buying a lot of hippie skirts and tunics and wearing patchuli, but I couldn't find any in my size and I don't like patchuli very much. The thread I am referencing was about taking "Under God" out of the Pledge. I put forth at that time (as did many others) that there were other things to worry about and that making a stink about this would just give the RW fodder for their trash talking.

Well, I think it is time. And it is time to take "In God We Trust" off our money. It is time to take any reference to God out of our government. Why? Do I really feel it is that heinous? No, not at all. I really don't care much and don't think most people do, even atheists. But we need to push this because the Christian Right has become a juggernaut and they need to lose a few battles and get down off the high political horse and take their Bibles home where they can embroider those mottos and pledges on pillows and place them all over their house. I might even embroider one myself, and hang it over the mantle. Because I personally do trust God. But this little chink in our church/state separation armor could well open wider. And as nothing is more certain than change, one of these days the whole dynamic might evolve and God will become Allah, and you know that before that happens there will be a lot of death and destruction. The government needs to be pure and secular if any of us want the assurance of believing what we want to believe.

In the past, atheists have led this charge, but this time I believe it is up to people like me, people of faith, to lead it. The Christian Right looks upon atheists with fear and revulsion and see them as the enemy. They aren't quite sure what to think about moderates. It will bring them up short if this fight is led by lawyers working for faith-based organizations.

Now, I have no idea how to accomplish this, so it isn't a call to arms and action, it is basically a rant. But the time has come.

Oh, yeah, YOU da grannie! :applause:

I am so tired of religious phrases being used by the religious right as "proof" that this is a christian nation founded by christians (two lies for the price of one--it's a summer madness sale).

It's a Baptist thing and I've been told they pay to use the auditorium for their services. I guess the school needs the money, but I wonder if they would let me hold Buddhist or Islamic services there. I'll call and see what the rates are. It bugs me.

and I have no problem with it. If they only let certain groups in, though, (assuming all are willing to pay the fee) then that is a problem. The courts would say it is a problem, too.

Very nice post to start the week. I do disagree with one thing you mentioned. You say the "Christian right has become a juggernaut." I believe they want us to believe they are a juggernaut. They are loud and noisy and an irritant like a fart in a movie house, but I would not characterize them as a juggernaut. Common folk like us who love and support the constitution and who happen to be much smarter than the average free republic member have enabled the christian right to huff and puff because we have been so polite over the years. I think I'll reread your post. Thanks.

I'm going with it! We need to remind them they are NOT the juggernaut they think they are.

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

It would be a tremendous start if people of faith would write their Congresscritters and say that money is not the appropriate place to make statements of religious doctrine. Organize others within your faith community to do the same. Introduce resolutions at congregational meetings, parish councils, sessions of the presbytery, diocesan conventions, etc. to have the phrase removed from money, and forward these resolutions to Representatives and Senators. Do the same with your local Council of Churches and other ecumentical organizations.

Unfortunately, it is easy to ignore atheists who work for secularizing American currency. It would be much more difficult to ignore if hundreds of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. were to work towards that goal.

And thanks for the support :hi:

I like the way you think.

This is exactly what needs to happen.

I would start by researching what the atheists have done, figure out what seemed to work the best and incorporate it into your plan. Refigure what they did and make it yours. Learn from what did not work, maybe from your standpoint it would work. :shrug:

Go for it. :yourock:

And I agree. We are one *IHOP away from overt theofascism, and even without that catalyst the plan is to slow boil us into theocracy. It is the ethical responsibility and tactical best plan for the enlightened progressive theist community to lead the fight against the religious right, but 15% of the population acknowledges no religion and we will be fighting right there alongside you.

It's an election year. The Democrats are completely out of power. Starting this now would just hand the repubs a huge wedge issue that they could use to clobber the Dems.

Let's save this 'til after we're back in power and have half a chance of getting our message out in the media.

but I HATE that argument. The dems have been "keeping their powder dry" for way too damn long and for no good. We look like wimps. Is it any suprise that Feingold is so popular when he seems to be the only dem with a backbone?

"In God we trust" from our money.

If you ever want to win at anything, you have to choose your battles. This is NOT a good time to choose this particular fight.

And Feingold is backing the right of gays to get married. I would think that would be a bigger hot button than "In God We Trust." Oh, yeah, and he was THE ONLY GUY to vote against the patriot act on 9/12. And he made a motion for censure of Bush.

But on to the issue at hand. When, exactly, should we start worrying about the theocracy in America? When do we actually take back the seperation of church and state? I mean, hey, the senate dems kept the powder dry and put a Catholic majority on the SCOTUS in the process. Nice job. And what are they going to do with all that mythical powder?

So let's just kiss the ass of the moderate republicans so we can win an election but never be able to do anything. That's a good plan.

clear demonstration of the problem. The issue is essentially cosmetic, yet it pushes all sorts of emotional buttons. And overly emotional people on the other side will act just as irrationally as you have.

No one has recommended kissing the ass of moderate republicans.

As to when to address the issue of "In God we trust", it's a matter of setting priorities and addressing issues in order of importance. On my list, having "in God we trust" printed on our coins comes far below the issue of the Iraq War, the deficit, the energy crisis, global warming, unfettered government spying, etc; issues that I believe threaten the survival of the nation.

Compared to the issues that I consider important, the question of "In God we trust" is a cosmetic issue that should not distract from far more critical issues.

Am I not making logical points?

We have had this religous language on our money and in our pledge for far too long. It gives the religious right the ammunition to say that this is a christian country (which is a lie) that was founded on christian principles (which is also a lie) and we know that is true because of our money and our pledge. Why else would that stuff be there?

So let's look at your issues. Iraq War--that went so smashingly in the 2004 election. Asshole got reelected when the war was already going in the shitter. Why didn't we hear more about that during the election? Deficit--why is no one talking about that? Energy crisis--ditto. Global Warming--don't even make me laugh. Spying--did that really happen?

The point I have been making is that the democratic party seems intent on winning the moderate republicans. Now, you claim that no one has recommended kissing their ass, but why else would you be arguing that we not take on such "hot button" issues? Clearly it is so we can attract the moderate republicans and win the next presidential election. We are intent on winning those moderates at the expense of NEVER TAKING A STAND on anything moderately controversial. (which is the logical point I was making by referencing the senate dems not filibustering Satan/Alito and Feingold being the only senate dem with enough of pair to take a stand on anything) THAT is what I have a problem with. THAT MINDSET is what I reacted to in your message. YOU WERE advocating that we just lay low on the touchy things. I think that is shit. I think the dems need to start acting like an opposition party and not a "lets wait and see if people really understand how stupid the republicans are and vote for us in default" party.

is not a rational response to what I've said.

Now, you claim that no one has recommended kissing their ass, but why else would you be arguing that we not take on such "hot button" issues?

Can you honestly look at your question and say that you are arguing rationally? Can you formulate the syllogism(s) that leads from "we do not want to take on this "hot button issue" to "I recommend kissing their ass". Please only include in your argument statements, or direct inferences from statements, that I've made.

Clearly it is so we can attract the moderate republicans and win the next presidential election.

Well, that's not actually the reason; but, are you claiming that trying to attract voters is the equivalent of kissing their ass?

The reason that you don't want to raise largely irrelevant, emotional issues, and at this point in time, especially religious issues; is that it allows repubs to capitalize on these issues. It is extremely well-known that most Americans are religious. If the repubs can make it appear that you are attacking religion, they win. You gain nothing on this issue, and you tremendously increase the chance that you , once again, lose the election based on superficial wedge issues.

is what I believe the conclusion of your argument is. You may not like it, but that does not make it irrational.

You said, and I am paraphrasing because I already have multiple windows open (I am doing grading right now) though I think I am accurate,:
1. We should not raise these hot button emotional issues
2. We should avoid these issues because we want to win the election.

Here are my assumptions:
1. The core liberal base would not knee-jerk to the "In God We Trust" action.
2. The only way that we win the next election is to bring some moderate republicans into the fold.

That being the case, it is pretty clear that your argument is that we don't do anything that will chase away moderate republicans or we will lose the next election.

So, now it's your turn. What EXACTLY should be discussed? What issues can we talk about that won't spook the republicans? What issues won't give them ammunition to call us out? And, finally, is it worth it to let all of those fall to the wayside?

... is neither based on your "belief", nor my "like". I asked you if you could form the syllogism(s) that lead from my argument(s) to your conclusion. If it can't be done, your conclusion is irrational.

That being the case, it is pretty clear that your argument is that we don't do anything that will chase away moderate republicans or we will lose the next election.

Actually my argument is not at all concerned with moderate republicans. It's concerned with democrats and independents who can be persuaded by "wedge" issues. I don't believe we need moderate republicans to win this election.

So, now it's your turn. What EXACTLY should be discussed? What issues can we talk about that won't spook the republicans? What issues won't give them ammunition to call us out? And, finally, is it worth it to let all of those fall to the wayside?

As I said before, the issues that I consider the most important are: the Iraq War, the deficit, the energy crisis, global warming, unfettered government spying, etc. The "etc." covering any number of important issues. The point being to avoid raising issues that are probably not winnable at this point in time and are easily converted to"wedge" issues by republicans.

led to the conclusion. I don't have the time right now to come up with the 3-4 syllogisms it would take to get to that conclusion. Perhaps tomorrow if I get my grading done. In the meantime, why is my reasoning in the prior message incorrect?

So you think that there were democrats that voted for Bush in the last election? Really? Perhaps the term moderate republicans is a little misleading. How about moderate undeclareds? Those are clearly the ones that need to vote dem in order to win. That is the group you are talking about courting.

Some would reword the last paragraph of yours to say that we shouldn't discuss any issues that aren't publically popular.

republicans, so your conclusion: So let's just kiss the ass of the moderate republicans so we can win an election but never be able to do anything is not based on anything in my argument.

why is my reasoning in the prior message incorrect?

Nothing in the reasoning you listed in your prior argument leads to the conclusion that we should kiss the ass of moderate republicans; so, your reasoning in the prior message does not support the conclusion thatyou draw.

and want to win a new one, who exactly do you think needs to be convinced to vote for democrats? More democrats? Seems to me it would the the people that are moderates who didn't vote for democrats before. Or are you saying that democrats making a move for removing "In God We Trust" will cause die hard democrats to jump ship? I don't see that happening. It seems only logical that you win the next election by bringing those that were closest to voting for you over to your side. You are saying a currency deal would cause this to NOT happen.

I don't understand your scenario otherwise. You say you are not interested in the moderates, but where are all of those votes going to come from in order to win the election?

Your original statement was: So let's just kiss the ass of the moderate republicans so we can win an election but never be able to do anything..

Now, of course, you leave out the part about republicans. As to your argument about die-hard Democrats, I stated previously: Actually my argument is not at all concerned with moderate republicans. It's concerned with democrats and independents who can be persuaded by "wedge" issues. I don't believe we need moderate republicans to win this election.

And, of course, the second part of your conclusion: we can win an election but never be able to do anything is also not based on anything in my argument.

The point is if you can't win an election, you can't do anything. Bringing up less-important issues that decrease your chance of winning an election, decrease your chance of being able to do anything.

None of this has anything to do with kissing anyone's ass. It has to do with the simple common-sense notion that if you want to win an election, you should not alienate potentially large parts of your constituency by raising side-bar issues that will cost you votes.

that perhaps "moderate republican" was a bad choice of word and said something like "moderate independant."

Who is going to be wedged out of the party by this issue?

If we win an election because we were quiet about things, you think the populace that elected "us" is going to "let us" do things we didn't talk about. Hardly seems likely. I know YOU didn't make that point, but it seems to be the outcome of winning an election that way.

The democrats could actually start acting like an opposition party and call bullshit when bullshit comes up. That would be a good change. Follow the lead of Feingold and tell the Republicans they are full of shit when they are. Then we would actually be a party that stands for something rather the party that doesn't piss people off.

You call it "not alienating" and I call it "ass kissing." We are both talking about the same thing. I actually want our party to stand for something. I don't know that you do--unless it is popular to do so. That is, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, the problem I have had from the beginning. Why not just do the right damn thing when the right damn thing needs to be done? What ever happened to that old canard.

I'm talking about a campaign tactic, I'm talking about using a common sense campaign tactic namely, don't use tactics that give advantage to your opponent. If you've been paying attention, you must now that every election year repubs bring up things like flag-desecration amendments, federal marriage amendments, etc. They do this because it gives them an advantage in the election. Now, once the issue has been raised, Dems should argue for what they honestly believe. But, no matter how the dems argue these issues cost them net votes - that's why the repubs bring them up. Raising the :"In God we trust" issue in an election year is just plain bad tactics. It makes no sense. The dems lose votes if this is an issue.

Using common sense campaign tactics is not at all the same thing as kissing ass. It takes amazingly sloppy thinking to equate the two. Nor does not raising an issue that costs you votes deprive you of the ability to "do anything" if you win (the 2nd part of your conclusion) - raising issues that cost you votes will deprive you of the ability to do anything because it insures that you don't win.

You say that we shouldn't do this now because of the election, but once we win we can make the changes (just like Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton did with the "under God" in the pledge after it was put in during the 50s--I like how that works so well). But you can't ever make changes on your "hot button" issues. They will always be "hot button" issues, and voters will hold it against the politicians the next election and the republican candidates will be sure to bring it up in case people have forgotten. So, by your logic, we never solve the hot button issues because we are always campaigning.

Why don't all the dems jump on the "The Gays are Coming" bandwagon? The country is on that side. Surely that will win us lots of votes and get us elected.

It's an election year. The Democrats are completely out of power. ...

Let's save this 'til after we're back in power and have half a chance of getting our message out in the media.

Both things are important. In other words, circumstances alter tactics. Nationally, the dems are out of power and have relatively little access to media. If you've been paying attention, you know that they have even been denied access to advertising media. That's why they so easily lose all these debates.

The first thing they have to do is gain some power; that will gain them better access to the media and then they have a chance of winning these arguments. But, more importantly, they have the opportunity to change the entire dialog so that the repubs are on the defensive on their issues.

Raising issues that play into your opponents hands and keep you out of power does not accomplish anything. Get power, then you can effect change.

That is the point I just made. We never return to these issues. The theocracy inches its way in and is never checked. All we hear is, "Just be quiet for now and we will address it when we are in power." How long has "under God" been in the pledge? How long has "In God We Trust" been on currency? Have there been democrats in power since those things were added? Why wasn't something done?

But I'm sure that THIS time the issues will be addressed when Dems get back into power, right? This is the time. Just be quiet for one more election and it will be fixed. Pardon me if I don't buy that again for the millionth time. I'm a little jaded after 4 decades of waiting.

I really don't see any point in continuing it.

I keep responding to what you say, and you keep saying "my original post said." Why don't you give me some examples of where your grand plan has actually worked and I'll be happy? Why don't you show me that there is SOME historical precedent for people shutting up about religious theocracy infringement and then having that infringement taken care of when dems got into power? I would love to know when that happened, because, according to you, it has happened and I should be confidant it will happen again.

I, on the other hand, think that is a crock of shit you are trying to sell me.

Of course, it is a lot easier to just say that this discussion is going nowhere than to convince me that it isn't a pile of shit in that bucket you want me to buy.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

THAT is your response? "Grow up"? You don't have anything better than that?

How am I being immature? I am claiming that you are lying about what will happen with these issues and I have given you historical evidence that it has not happened. And your response is "this isn't going anywhere" and "grow up."

WOW!

Your debating skills slay me.

Since "grow up" is the vein we are now going on, let me add the following before you get the chance to:

I know you are but what am I.
I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
I'm taking my ball and going home.

Well, on second thought, that type of argument isn't so much fun.

He can't point to when the issue has been addressed when Dems have been in power, so of course YOU'RE the one who should grow up.

I'd like him to prove you wrong, but I think he can't, because it's never happened.

Can you answer that? I know the separation of church and state isn't as important to you as it is us (as evidenced by your remarks that these are "superficial" concerns, when in fact they are direct violations of the SoCaS), but GM's question is a fair one: when has the issue ever been even MENTIONED, let alone corrected, when Dems have been in power?

the Iraq War, the deficit, the energy crisis, global warming, unfettered government spying, etc.

Every single one of those issues can be (and HAS BEEN) converted into a "wedge" issue.

* Iraq War / spying - "The Democrats are soft on terrorists!" or "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here!" (See: 2002 midterms, 2004 prez)
* Deficit - "Democrats want to raise your taxes!"
* Energy crisis - "Democrats don't want us to drill in Alaska and won't let oil companies build new refinteries!"
* Global warming - "Part of a much larger climate cycle, the jury's still out, do you really want to put American industry at a disadvantage, yada yada"

The lesson learned is pick your issues, and run on them. The Repukes will spin around and attack us for whatever it is, so we might as well stand firm.

but certainly not clearly enough. This "In God We Trust" issue is somehow worse though. Must be the "Whackjob Factor."

between lives lost in Iraq and mottos on coins. Or is there? I think that sometimes cosmetics are important. This would be an issue that would establish the purity of our secular government and send the message very loudly that we have no plans on being a theocracy. And aren't we in Iraq because God told GWB it was the right thing to do? Theocracy is also related to the environment because a goodly number of theocrats think we are allowed to desecrate the earth because the Rapture is coming. In short, all of the things you mention are tied up in the concept of theocracy.

However, at this point in time, I believe the idiocy of the Iraq war, the complete incompetence of the bush administration, and the lack of oversight from the Republican Congress are strong pro-Democratic arguments in this election. Arguing about "In God we trust" just distracts from those arguments and, distracts in a way that will be costly to Democratic chances.

This would be an issue that would establish the purity of our secular government and send the message very loudly that we have no plans on being a theocracy.

But would it help with Islamic fundamentalists? Do they hate Christians or secularists more?

I think if we close the holes in the governmental armor we have a better chance of keeping everybody out, Christian or Islamic fundamentalists.

I sense (but don't really know) that Islamic fundamentalists have a certain grudging respect for fundamentalists Christians. They agree on so many things. It's the secularists they think are sending the world spiraling into damnation.

In fact, it speaks of the pervasive and insidious creeping of religious extremism into every facet of modern life, all while breast-beating fundies are wailing and gnashing their teeth about how persecuted they are.

Obviously, the phrase "In God We Trust" is not in itself religious extremism, but witness the furor that results when anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe, we should stamp a government endorsement of religion on every single piece of currency. You'll see frenzied religious extremism from people you never would have suspected of that kind of insanity.

Fundies really have no cogent argument to make here: either it is a religious invocation and should therefore be removed from U.S. currency, or it isn't a religious invocation, so that there's no harm in removing it. Heck, if I were a fundie, I'd be upset that the nation (secular by charter!) is taking the Lord's Name in vain.

right time to make waves, or push for a cause/rights. I am sure that the 60's were a bad time to push for civil rights, according to many, but it was the right thing to do.

Some even here are arguing that it is the wrong time to push for other rights as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=664891

I believe the opposite; it is ALWAYS a good time to push the right thing to do.

Besides, many of us can multitask, and thus work on more than one just cause at a time...

Yes! Exactly! I keep making this point over and over. Along with the "it's not a zero-sum game". My working on Cause A does not detract from someone else working on Cause B. More so, there should be a synergistic effect as an overall progressive atmosphere is created. We may not succeed in getting everything we want, but the net result is a continuous, positive push for progressive causes and not this on again, off again two steps forward, three steps back dance we've been doing for the past 40 years.

:toast:

In literature (and some religion) money always has some relationship with evil. As an atheist I have always appreciated the irony of the godly statement on that symbol of evil.

Whenever I see that statement on a coin or bill it reaffirms my belief that there is a connection between the symbol of evil and the god that it speaks of.

But in the long run, it is all symbolism and subjective interpretation is fun for the whole family!

When Judas sold out Jesus for thirty coins, did the coins have "In God We Trust" on them? :)

:)

I can't stand ambiguity in my currency! From now on, I will assume that "In God We Trust" means Emperor Augustus. Hail Caesar! :)

To the point!

And I look forward to having that beer with you. :loveya:

It has been time for quite a while. The addition of "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was a knee-jerk reaction to fears that Americans might not be sufficiently distinguishable from the "godless commies". The motto "In God We Trust" was added to coins because of pressure from religious groups during the Civil War era. (It seems ironic that Christians would want such a motto on money when their Bible clearly states "The love of money is the root of all evil" 1 Timothy 6:10.)

The Pledge should be restored to it's original form. We are a pluralistic nation and no amount of historical revisionism by the fundamentalists will change that. "In God We Trust" should be removed from currency. "God" has nothing to do with money, though certain religious groups seem to be much too interested in it. (If anything, "In Money We Trust" should be stamped on our currency, because that wouldn't be too far off base, particularly with the current administration. :sarcasm:)

As the old quote goes... "It is time. Let us go, Adams dark shadow; servant of the Lilan."

Given that that is from an arbitrary mythology it does not make so much sense, but I like it.

of course, I don't know who Lilan is, but it sounds wonderfully mysterious.

built using what was imparted by the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In other words, it means "It is time. Let us take our servant technology, and (end the world from context)"

You are without a doubt the poster for whom I have the most respect on this board. I always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts, and I regard you as a fellow believer for whom I have much admiration.

And yet, I must respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think your initial impulse was the right one, and your rethinking of the issue has led you to a mistaken conclusion.

Basically, you make three points, if I understand you correctly:

1. The inclusion of references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on currency is a violation of the concept of separation of church and state, which is dangerous because it can lead down a slippery slope to other violations.

2. If we keep references to God on our currency and the Pledge, Muslims may some day take over and put references to Allah on currency and in the Pledge.

3. Removing references to God will hurt the Christian Right politically.

Please allow me to respectfully suggest that you are mistaken about all of these points.

1. There is no provision in the Constitution requiring the exclusion of government references to God. In fact, nowhere in our Constitution is there any reference to the "separation of church and state." The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Framers wanted to make sure that the U.S. would not have an official government church, like England and many other European countries did. As for the slippery slope argument, if having "In God We Trust" on the currency were going to somehow lead to excessive entanglement between the government and religion, it would have happened already. It has been about 150 years. Yet you don't see any government infringement of anyone's liberty to worship or not worship as they please. This is a non-issue, IMHO. Our country stands as a shining beacon of religious liberty in comparison to most other countries in the world.

2. Do you really think that if the Muslims ever took over our nation, they would feel constrained by whether or not we had previously had "In God We Trust" on our currency? LOL! I can hardly imagine a Muslim imam saying: "Dammit! I want to include 'In Allah We Trust' on the currency, but I cannot, because in 2006, the infidels removed 'In God We Trust,' and that now sets a precedent!"

3. Any effort to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency will not hurt the Christian Right politically. It will certainly do the exact opposite, energizing the RW Christians and turning millions of moderate Christians against whatever political party is spearheading this effort. Politically, there is no question that this is a disastrous proposal.

IMHO, of course.

:eyes:

Are you in the United States of America?
Allah = God, fyi. Muslims believe in your prophet Jesus and your God, but in your mind you don't believe in theirs. So, relative to Muslims, you're an atheist I suppose...

I do not believe that Allah = God. I believe in the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Muslims don't. The Muslims believe in a god that has never had a Son. They believe that Jesus was just a man - a prophet, but not divine. This is contrary to what I believe about Him.

Some say that Allah is just the pagan moon god that the Arabian people worshipped before Muhammad founded Islam. I don't know enough about this claim to say one way or another. But I do know that Allah is not equivalent to the God that I worship.

And no, I am not an atheist. Atheists don't worship any deities. In fact, they maintain that no deities exist, or profess to have no belief in the existence of deities. That would not be an accurate description of me.

I'm also still a little shocked how you used the term "the muslims".

No matter how deeply in denial "some" may wish to be.


Allah is the Arabic term for "God" in Abrahamic religions, and is the main term for God in Islam.

Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians and Jews (including the Teimanim, several Mizrai communities and some Sephardim) use "Allah" as the proper noun for 'God.' "Allah" is found in the Qur'an and in Arabic translations of the Bible. In the Qur'an, it refers to The Only God.

<snip>

Outside the Arab world, Allah is associated with Islam, and is used to refer specifically to the Islamic concept of God. The Islamic conception of God is a strict monotheism. It is the same as the Jewish conception of God <1><2> , but differs from the Trinitarian Christian conception of a single God.


<snip>

From the point of view of traditional Islamic theology, Allāh is the most precious name of God because it is not a descriptive name like other ninety-nine names of God, but the name of God's own presence. Muslims believe that the name of Allah had existed before the time of Adam. It is the same God worshipped by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and other prophets of Islam.

<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

"but differs from the Trinitarian Christian conception of a single God." Exactly.

Christians worship the same God as Jews do (e.g., the God of the OT is the same God as that of the NT). Therefore Allah is God, and God is Allah.

Doctrinal differences aside, when the 3 religions talk about the God of Abraham, they're talking about... the God of Abraham.

but they run deeper than I thought. Go reread your post and where it says "the muslims" instead read to yourself "the blacks" or "the asians" or "the women" and tell me it doesn't sound like a bigoted rant.

You and "the muslims" worship the same god. Get over it. Oh, I know, you think that god is a trinity and the muslims and jews don't. Big deal. Same god. Same deal. Where in the old testament does it talk about god as trinity? The old testament is your god, too, isn't it?

:wtf:

Sounds like you are the one with "issues." Walking on eggshells, are we? You might want to google "projection."

Anyone who calls you a bigot is just projecting. My word of advice, don't give up the day job for that psychoanalyst career you are hoping for.

Did you do what I said? How does this sound to you? (I only changed things in bold--I used Jah because I couldn't think of anything else on short notice and "crackers" seemed on bigotry par with "infidels.")





Oh, yeah, I see it now. You are right. You aren't bigoted; I am clearly projecting my own bigotry on you. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. :crazy:

I hope someday you get the honor of living in a country where you are a religious minority. I think it would be a highly educational experience for you.

(Nice racist xenophobic stereotype of Muslims, there, you tolerant liberal guy you.)

how about identifying the part or parts of my post that had anything to do with race? Careful! You might just reveal your own racism with your explanation!

No, I did not outright call you a racist, I said that it was a "racist xenophobic stereotype" that you offered up.

But I'll have none of your red herrings. If you don't want to defend your stereotype (and I certainly can't blame you, it's pathetic), then just say so.

I just found a 12-step program in St. Paul. It's called Projectors Anonymous. You want to meet up there for some really strong coffee and a chance to overcome our problems since clearly Zeb wasn't offering up a bigoted stereotype with those Muslim comments?

Clearly since Zeb is a REAL Christian, he is right and we are wrong. We are simply projecting our own hatred of Muslims onto his innocent and loving words that Jesus would be proud of.

and I'm a projector.

Sheesh.

...I'll make some relevant point as soon as I stop rolling in the floor laughing. I often pass along these interesting observations from DU's True Xians and Learned Theologians to my Muslim co-workers. They deserve a good laugh, too.

Usual Disclaimer: Angry Whackjob Atheist here. (Capitalized due to copyright filing.) For the record, my atheism doesn't seem to bother the Muslims as much as it does some of the lib'rul Xians on DU.

You should do some reading about Muslims. They are not all one race, as you seem to believe. Since Muslims include people of many (if not all) races of mankind, referring to Muslims as "the Muslims" cannot possibly be racist. But to realize that, you would have to discard your preconceptions about all Muslims being dark-skinned Arabs. Pathetic. And you of all people accuse me of engaging in racist stereotyping! How ironic.

It must be obvious then, even to you, that instead you have to try and attack me for your sins.

If you are a follower of Jesus, Zeb, then he must be the most horrible god ever. You are a miserable representation of what it means to be a Christian. Good luck winning people over to Christ when you treat them like you do.

That's OK. I forgive you.

Took you awhile to getting around to responding, is all.

And considering I'm not the one who smeared all the followers of one of the world's major religions, I'm having difficulty thinking of just how anyone but you would think *I* was the one full of venom here.

into our coins?

I like that a lot better.

I think it would also be nice to see trivia questions about world history and science.
Oh, and maybe a little philips head screwdriver on one edge of the dime to further increase its usefulness.
Tip calculator on quarters? Proper tooth brushing procedure? Knock knock jokes?

That is a great, great, idea! I don't know if you were serious, but that is excellent! :applause:

I'm glad that I know of at least one person who got it. :)

I personally hate how much people focus on the trivial. But maybe if it were done, we could get on to more important things -- like all the money that goes to "faith-based" organizations, which really chaps me; it's unconstitutional, IMO.
Besides, public faith is so deeply cynical. Do you think the Washington types don't laugh up their sleeve at the pious folk that they hoodwink?