Forum Quick View Panel

View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Lounge
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?
jayon
Of course, it should. This is an MSNBC poll they are doing, so you can imagine the way the numbers are. Distribute accordingly.

http://www.msnbc..../10103521/
Edited by jayon on 02/04/2009 19:41
 
Doubting Thomas
Unfortunately I saw this too late to vote, not that it would have made much difference. Actually, though, I'm glad that at least 14% think that it should be removed. It's better than the usual 5-10% nonreligious American statistics you usually hear.

Yes, the motto is a violation of the separation of church & state. No, it has not always been on our money. It was added in 1957 (I believe, after the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegience in 1954, or I could have the years turned around) after Christians got it officially added by act of Congress. However, it clearly makes an official establishment of religion by recognizing a deity. And of course it's very divisive because not all Americans believe in, let alone trust in, a god.

Funny how Christians think that the root of all evil is money, yet they want their god's name to remain on it.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
Sinny
I voted yes anyway. I figure get the percentage up even though it's too late to count. It still counts to me and anyone else who visits the site. Plus they can now take observe the fact that many people didn't get to vote due to not knowing about the vote until it was too late to be added. They might re figure the stats on it if people still continue to vote. Our numbers are growing and the christians will do nearly anything to avoid acknowledging it.

Thing is I often wonder if people vote multiple times to make it appear there are more people in favor of keeping it. I'm going to go back and see if I can cast another vote just for the sake of knowing if they have it computerized in a way that only allows the IP address to only vote once.

EDIT: Or should I say update: I just went back into that site and couldn't vote a second time. So apparently the site does go by the IP address and that way people can't re-vote multiple times. Good to know.

Oh one more thing. there were grassroots petitions sent via e-mail and sent to congress to keep the 10 commandments and they were thrown out due to people signing the petitions multiple times. Apparently people got the same e-mail 3-4 and umpteen times and they, the christians, signed each one every time. They failed to go by the IP addresses. It took a lot of time and effort to prove this but it was proven. Anyone could sign under a false name and address and anyone could have up to 4 account names (e-mails). They probably thought it would be impossible to catch this so called error. Fortunately they were wrong thinking they wouldn't get caught and did. This is one reason I don't believe there are nearly as many christians as claimed.
Edited by Sinny on 02/04/2009 20:57
 
cheshiredragon
Sinny wrote:
EDIT: Or should I say update: I just went back into that site and couldn't vote a second time. So apparently the site does go by the IP address and that way people can't re-vote multiple times. Good to know.


I think I may have jacked it up a few percent. I know how to and CAN change my IP addy. I re-voted about 3 dozen times. I am "teh pwn."
That's right, I said it...
 
Sinny
Ha Ha Ha I love it CD. :elmodance:

We need more people like you who can really give them the competition and dose of their own considering they do it all the time. It's about time we got to do it too with one of our own smart people.

:alienwgun:
Edited by Sinny on 02/05/2009 19:55
 
Doubting Thomas
This is why online petitions are virtually worthless. Anyone could get a bunch of names out of the phone book and add them if they wanted. I know there was an online petition website where anyone could start up an online petition, but IIRC there was no way to verify that someone's name was valid. I think it just collected names, and didn't have the IP verification to make sure people only signed once. And by "signing," I mean just adding a name, real or not.

So what's the weight of such a petition? Not much, really. Do you think any politician in the pocket of lobbyists is going to change his mind because of a list of names that shows up on his aide's desk?
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
Sinny
Yes e-petitions are worthless DT and don't mean anything to politicians, judges or committees/board members the go before. However, hand signed petitions do go a long way if they have the required amount of legitimate signatures. The politicians know they are voters who signed them. Those signed petitions by hand with address are verified, usually from the voter registration forms, are approved by the boards then a resolution is usually passed by the board of elected politicians and that is verified by appointed clerk to that board of politicians. The public can see it passed in a public meeting on such and such night that County or Municipality has scheduled.

Once the petition gets that far the and if they have enough signatures to scare the crap out of the politicians the resolution is usually drawn up and passed. Then sent to the legislation. There could then be a statute to create, change or remove a law/request made by the majority of the public. If they want their political party to stay in the majority, even when they are on the lower part of the totem pole, they will consider passing it. Especially when the lobbyists can say see the majority of voters want or don't want this and it's all verifiable. This is why the xtians are hot to trot to sign petitions. There's strength in numbers the more who sign the better their chances are.
Edited by Sinny on 02/07/2009 22:43
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
What exactly is "Obamacare" and what did it change? U.S. Politics 5 07/21/2013 11:50
Catman's thread. (was "Is it true?") The Lounge 64 04/03/2013 13:25
Donald "Duck" Dunn Music Discussions 1 05/14/2012 18:32
Getting it wrong. "War on Christmas" needs better PR. Christianity 3 11/30/2011 13:26
Has "Homeland Security" gone to far U.S. Politics 2 09/06/2011 11:07