View Full Version : Illinois sheriff puts "In God we Trust" on all his police cars
In a town in Illinois, a sheriff decided to remove "Protect and Serve" on the department's cars and replace it with "In God we Trust".
What do you think of that?
It's the official motto of the United States and a sentiment a large portion of the citizenry hold dear. I think it's appropriate.
I think that is wrong and yet another example that separation of Church and State is practically a myth by now in our country. If there is a gun held to my head, I want the police to protect and serve me, and leave the trusting of God up to me
We live in an Xian nation. As an atheist, I just put up with that nutty stuff. Though I wish for a day when my people can be free and fully enfranchised in this nation...
We live in an Xian nation. As an atheist, I just put up with that nutty stuff. Though I wish for a day when my people can be free and fully enfranchised in this nation...
How are you not "free" or "enfranchised"?
As long as that stupid communist era reactionary BS remains our national motto athiests are not fully enfranchised. God has no place being in our national motto anymore than it does in the pledge of allegiance.
As long as that stupid communist era reactionary BS remains our national motto athiests are not fully enfranchised. God has no place being in our national motto anymore than it does in the pledge of allegiance.It's been on some forms of US currency for past 150 years, have we been reacting to communism for that long?
I propose a compromise:
"In god we trust... or not."
Any takers?
In a town in Illinois, a sheriff decided to remove "Protect and Serve" on the department's cars and replace it with "In God we Trust".
What do you think of that?
What county? Has to be somewhere downstate.
On a unrelated note, I'm listening to the scanner traffic from Lake County, IL after a cop was shot and killed today in Fox Lake, IL. Manhunt for three suspects on going. About 40 minutes away from.
raises hand, puts hand down, raises again- IDK, I can't decide! After being at the bedside for a ton of deaths, you would think I would've come to a conclusion. I waffle on God. And I do not want him on police cars, in public schools, on a plaque behind a courtroom judge's head, none of that is ok with me, regardless of my personal religious beliefs or anyone else's. i think, I hope, we one day look back with horror at the states that passed laws allowing business owners to not bake gay wedding cakes or sell a slice of pizza because of their personal religious beliefs. And how exactly do you know the sexuality of a customer buying a pizza? Gay ID cards? slippery slope
I hope, we one day look back with horror at the states that passed laws allowing business owners to not bake gay wedding cakes or sell a slice of pizza because of their personal religious beliefs. And how exactly do you know the sexuality of a customer buying a pizza? Gay ID cards? slippery slopeSlippery slope indeed. If you use the government to enforce your intolerance of the intolerant, we'd all better stay on your good side.
It's been on some forms of US currency for past 150 years, have we been reacting to communism for that long?
Longevity makes it less offensive? But trying to deny that turning it into the national motto and adding it to the oledge in the 50's was not related to the 'red scare' of godless communists is grasping at straws.
Longevity makes it less offensive? But trying to deny that turning it into the national motto and adding it to the oledge in the 50's was not related to the 'red scare' of godless communists is grasping at straws.
Actually, I don't find it offensive at all, but I'm a live and let live kinda guy. I was simply pointing out that the use of the phrase in the United States pre-dates the threat of communism so its symbolism may be a little more nuanced than presented.
Indeed people have been ignoring the founders desire for seperation of church and state since before we got all freaky scared of the terrifying communists. That doesnt make it any better that the religionists have long been trying to force all of us to believe in their god. since i don't trust in god does that mean that the police in this county won't serve and protect me? Perhaps if i lived there i would need to ask for a rebate in my taxes because of that.
I have personally known numerous communists. I never had any problems with them.
Indeed people have been ignoring the founders desire for seperation of church and state since before we got all freaky scared of the terrifying communists. I've always found it interesting that people don't see the difference between church and religion and believe that the free expression of religion should be abridged.
That doesnt make it any better that the religionists have long been trying to force all of us to believe in their god. If I declared my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster in public, would you take it as my forcing my belief onto you?
since i don't trust in god does that mean that the police in this county won't serve and protect me?
Of course not. Remember when you suggested I was grasping at straws earlier? I think this is a much better example. ;)
Williamsmith
9-1-15, 9:45pm
I assume the Sheriff is an elected official and as such represents the people of his jurisdiction. The Sheriff should be free to post this phrase on his personal vehicle, his house, his T-shirts and tattoo it on his arse if he likes. But he shouldn't stencil it on a vehicle paid for by taxpayers who have various beliefs including non belief in God or any higher power. Congress does what it wants.
I am with Teddy Roosevelt who hated the whole idea because he felt the use of the phrase on coins or government property was offensive to the greatness of God. I am a deeply religious person and my God does not favor or oppose a person or groups of persons based simply on blanket claim of trust that probably doesn't even represent every member of the department in question. A department that has to claim higher moral ground by advertisement is no better today than they were prior to the change. I prefer E Pluribus Unum. Out of Many, One. Now who can complain about that?
And for the record i'm a live and let live guy too. Where i draw the line is anytime someone tries to drag their religion into our government. What they do in their personal life? Not my biz. What they do with any government entity that's paid for with my tax dollars? Very much my biz and they need to keep their god out of it.
I prefer E Pluribus Unum. Out of Many, One. Now who can complain about that?
As a national motto, so do I. Many states, one nation, a perfect description. But, on a personal level, can't we all be individuals with individual beliefs deserving of the tolerance of others or should all opinion or beliefs be hidden from public view?
As a national motto, so do I. Many states, one nation, a perfect description. But, on a personal level, can't we all be individuals with individual beliefs deserving of the tolerance of others or should all opinion or beliefs be hidden from public view?
You can share your belief on your own dime. Perfectly cool. On the oublic dime? Absolutlely not. Government should NOT have a religious view.
What they do in their personal life? Not my biz. What if their personal life involves a one person bakery and a desire not to be involved in gay weddings? Would you want your government to protect society from their beliefs?
What if their personal life involves a one person bakery and a desire not to be involved in gay weddings? Would you want your government to protect society from their beliefs?
That's a topic for another thread if you, or someone else wants to start it. Not at all related to this thread.
freshstart
9-1-15, 10:24pm
I prefer E Pluribus Unum. Out of Many, One. Now who can complain about that?
I can't!
Paint it on your own car, I don't care.
Paint it on my fire truck or ambulance, I'm not going to work anymore.
That's a topic for another thread if you, or someone else wants to start it. Not at all related to this thread.
If your argument against the subject of the thread continues to be that public entities should not force their beliefs upon you I think an example of your desire for public entities to force your beliefs upon others is pretty relevant. However, there's only so much time in the day for devils advocacy, so.....
Paint it on your own car, I don't care.
Paint it on my fire truck or ambulance, I'm not going to work anymore.
Isn't that the great thing about tolerance and diversity? Choices freely made beget choices freely made.
Against, despite the fact that I don't have a personal problem with the phrase. What's happening over in the middle east is a great example of what happens once religion takes over the government.
Williamsmith
9-2-15, 5:58am
I don't think it is appropriate to display references to God on a publicly funded vehicle. As if just placing it there brings some kind of special honor or shows some kind of elevated professionalism that the deputy didn't have when it wasn't there. The rose still smells the same or the crap pile. And if Congress were to evolve into a predominantly heathen group of Non believers and adopted "God is Dead" as a national motto....I wouldn't think it appropriate to plaster it on publicly funded vehicles either.
The Sheriffs that have allowed this or encouraged this are funding it privately and they are making a religious statement under the guise of patriotism. Do you think there might be at least one Sheriff in this country who is atheist or Muslim or name a religion and might decide to put any number of religious messages on his publicly funded vehicles? What are we to do then, turn it into a dang advertising sign like NASCAR?
Now if I was the Sheriff in a one horse county, I'd put this on all my patrol cars....."Have You Called Your Mother Lately ?"
Paint it on your own car, I don't care.
Paint it on my fire truck or ambulance, I'm not going to work anymore.
So, I guess you've stopped using cash?
Williamsmith
9-2-15, 6:46am
The motto has appeared on money since what 1957 ? Prior to that and after that, money spent the same way. Now I think however that the mottos original purpose, to declare publicly our Nations reliance on God.......since 1957 that has been a complete bust. We are a decidedly less Godly nation than we ever have been. So as in all things actions speak louder than words.
So, I guess you've stopped using cash?
You miss the point.
Painting that motto on police cars or fire trucks or ambulances is a deliberate action by a governmental agency to endorse religion, a particular sort of religion. It's not Alan painting something on his own personal truck, which I don't care about one bit. It's government time and money and capital being used.
As to money, I don't really have much of a choice there, now do I? The fact that something bad is already going on is not a reason to justify doing *more bad things*.
What if there was a new Sheriff in town and he had "There is no God" painted on all the police cars?
What if there was a new Sheriff in town and he had "There is no God" painted on all the police cars?
Equally wrong. Government entities shouldnt be saying anything about godd or religion at all.
Ultralight
9-2-15, 10:06am
You all are tough to please! I am trying to find a solution here, one that everyone can be happy with. What about this one?
"Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."
;)
freshstart
9-2-15, 10:44am
You miss the point.
The fact that something bad is already going on is not a reason to justify doing *more bad things*.
exactly and well put
You miss the point.
Painting that motto on police cars or fire trucks or ambulances is a deliberate action by a governmental agency to endorse religion, a particular sort of religion. It's not Alan painting something on his own personal truck, which I don't care about one bit. It's government time and money and capital being used.
As to money, I don't really have much of a choice there, now do I? The fact that something bad is already going on is not a reason to justify doing *more bad things*.
I can see if the sheriff painted "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" on the car, or "Allah is Great, Praised be his Name" but In God We Trust is our national motto, so I'm actually with Alan on this one. If enough people want to change the motto, that's what we should focus on.
Ultralight
9-2-15, 10:55am
I can see if the sheriff painted "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" on the car, or "Allah is Great, Praised be his Name" but In God We Trust is our national motto, so I'm actually with Alan on this one. If enough people want to change the motto, that's what we should focus on.
That reminds me of the unfortunate "My country, right or wrong!" mentality that so often leads to folly.
I agree that that's what we should ultimately focus on. But for the time being I'd just be happy with not having government officials continue trying to shove god down my throat any more than it already is.
"he shouldn't stencil it on a vehicle paid for by taxpayers who have various beliefs including non belief in God or any higher power"
My thoughts exactly.
Ultralight
9-2-15, 11:06am
I agree that that's what we should ultimately focus on. But for the time being I'd just be happy with not having government officials continue trying to shove god down my throat any more than it already is.
As they shove him down your throat try to chew him at least 26 times before swallowing.
freshstart
9-2-15, 11:52am
If enough people want to change the motto, that's what we should focus on.
enough people wanted to eradicate Jews, too. Just because enough Christians want it, still does not make it right. If we are going to focus only on the majority in this country, what happens to the minorities? they will have it worse than they do now. FTR, I am a Catholic and I still believe this is wrong.
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) provides that and Article VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution) specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause) as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
Thomas Jefferson and others went on to clarify the separation of Church and State. This phrase has been cited by the Supreme Court repeatedly.
The Establishment Clause has served this country well over the centuries, although lately it's seeming to me that government is interfering more in religious matters than the other way around.
The Sheriff should remove the offending language and replace it with something less controversial. Perhaps "All lives matter".
I'm on the side of considering this unacceptable. It has no place on a police car..........and I would venture to guess that the guy who made the decision to do it is pretty closed-minded about some of the other issues out there.
As they shove him down your throat try to chew him at least 26 times before swallowing.
Perhaps if I could dunk him in a little milk first, like an Oreo cookie, to make him taste better... :-)
enough people wanted to eradicate Jews, too. Just because enough Christians want it, still does not make it right. If we are going to focus only on the majority in this country, what happens to the minorities? they will have it worse than they do now. FTR, I am a Catholic and I still believe this is wrong.
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) provides that and Article VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution) specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause) as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
Thomas Jefferson and others went on to clarify the separation of Church and State. This phrase has been cited by the Supreme Court repeatedly.
Well, that raises the question, does believe in "God" constitute a religion? If so, does non-belief in God constitute a religion?
Ultralight
9-2-15, 12:54pm
Well, that raises the question, does believe in "God" constitute a religion? If so, does non-belief in God constitute a religion?
Is "off" a channel on a TV?
Is "off" a channel on a TV?
Good one!
My point is, "religion" in my mind comes with doctrine and dogma and congregants and a certain level of formality. A simple acknowledgement of "God" without the formalized trappings is not a religion. So people who do not acknowledge God are atheists, but I do not consider atheism a religion. It is a belief, just as one's belief in God is a belief. Is there anything in the Constitution that prohibits expression of belief?
Ultralight
9-2-15, 12:59pm
As an atheist, let me clarify slightly: Atheism is merely a lack of belief.
As an atheist, let me clarify slightly: Atheism is merely a lack of belief.
If atheism affirms the nonexistence of God, that would seem to constitute a belief. Agnosticism, which takes no position one way or the other, would seem to be a lack of belief.
Saying "I know there is no God" is as much a statement of faith as saying "I know my redeemer liveth."
Here's the article from the county in Illinois where it happened.
http://www.register-news.com/news/sheriff-s-office-motto-stirs-up-debate/article_32f4ab34-42e3-11e5-8a43-17221c25621e.html
All the atheists I know are agnostics. Myself included.
I am agnostic because I do not know if a god does or does not exist because I cannot prove a negative. Atheism is my opinion on the issue.
Well, that raises the question, does believe in "God" constitute a religion? If so, does non-belief in God constitute a religion?
it doesn't matter how you slice it, God is God, believe what you want but he does not belong in public governmental places. Who cares if people who believe in God are religious and it makes no matter whether one believes atheism is a religion or not. Like Ultra said "is off a tv channel?" All of us, religious or not, should not have to accept God in government. And I do think it is ridiculous to replace "protect and serve" with anything else, that's what you want in a police officer, that is their belief and career objective. The only place in police actions for God is up to the individual who believes in him and prays privately.
it doesn't matter how you slice it, God is God, believe what you want but he does not belong in public governmental places. Who cares if people who believe in God are religious and it makes no matter whether one believes atheism is a religion or not. Like Ultra said "is off a tv channel?" All of us, religious or not, should not have to accept God in government. And I do think it is ridiculous to replace "protect and serve" with anything else, that's what you want in a police officer, that is their belief and career objective. The only place in police actions for God is up to the individual who believes in him and prays privately.
It'd be a better nation if Protect and Serve was focused on a lot more...
All the atheists I know are agnostics. Myself included.
I am agnostic because I do not know if a god does or does not exist because I cannot prove a negative. Atheism is my opinion on the issue.
I agree with you as far as personal philosophy. But the downside of atheism/agnosticism not being a "religion" is that then it isn't a protected right. If you are religious, you can be entitled to certain things (which I'm completely fine with - I think religious rights should be protected if no one is being harmed), but my lack of religion doesn't entitle me to anything.
Though this is purely a thought-exercise for me as it's been a while since I've felt infringed upon. I did dislike the pressure to participate in Christmas activities at my past workplace. Somehow, many people now seem to see Christmas as a secular holiday, or celebrated by most people of any religion, and I do not like that. I am not Christian; I don't celebrate Christmas.
I think (and I realize this is my opinion) that I should have a right to freedom from religion. In the US there is a group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation that advocates for this.
In the US it is unlikely that an out atheist will ever be elected president. We atheists are often afraid to come out of the closet because we could get ill treatment at work, in hospitals, in family gatherings, or various other public and private social settings.
I am "out" to everyone but I know people who cannot be because it could cost them their job or a promotion and things like that.
I think (and I realize this is my opinion) that I should have a right to freedom from religion. In the US there is a group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation that advocates for this.
In the US it is unlikely that an out atheist will ever be elected president. We atheists are often afraid to come out of the closet because we could get ill treatment at work, in hospitals, in family gatherings, or various other public and private social settings.
I am "out" to everyone but I know people who cannot be because it could cost them their job or a promotion and things like that.
That is so hard for me to imagine, and I agree it's not right at all. At least in my social circles it isn't a big deal to be atheist. I can't imagine knowing or caring what the Prime Minister's religion is. There are much bigger issues. So there's pressure in some situations to be (or at least fake being) religious, but rarely outright discrimination against non-religious people. And that would generally be in obvious situations - like applying to work for a church or something.
ApatheticNoMore
9-2-15, 3:30pm
I did dislike the pressure to participate in Christmas activities at my past workplace. Somehow, many people now seem to see Christmas as a secular holiday, or celebrated by most people of any religion, and I do not like that. I am not Christian; I don't celebrate Christmas.
then they can just call them holiday activities or "winter activities" and problem solved. The winter party is usually called the "holiday party" or the "winter party" anyway. It sucks enough that only half the office goes (no one really wants to spend their free time as well, with their coworkers I guess)
If a religious belief or lack thereof costs a promotion that's probably a lawsuit waiting to happen (like racial discrimination hard to prove though even when it exists).
That is so hard for me to imagine, and I agree it's not right at all. At least in my social circles it isn't a big deal to be atheist. I can't imagine knowing or caring what the Prime Minister's religion is. There are much bigger issues. So there's pressure in some situations to be (or at least fake being) religious, but rarely outright discrimination against non-religious people. And that would generally be in obvious situations - like applying to work for a church or something.
Canada is a very different nation than the US.
Many (most?) Americans are a superstitious, war-like people with reptilian brains and a massive sense of entitlement.
Canadians are polite and share an ethos of social cohesion.
Here's a good letter from a man who lives locally in this county, who is against changing the motto.
http://www.register-news.com/opinion/opposition-to-stickers-shown/article_9e88c505-e729-5ba8-9bb4-8c3b5a7183d2.html
Canada is a very different nation than the US.
Many (most?) Americans are a superstitious, war-like people with reptilian brains and a massive sense of entitlement.
Canadians are polite and share an ethos of social cohesion.
Ha ha. Fun with stereotypes. If only people here had more of a sense of social cohesion. I'm personally working on that, but it's certainly not wide-spread at all. Lots of bigots/anti-immigrant/racist people running around. And the Americans I've met have all been very polite and often friendlier than Canadians. Unfortunately not every Canadian has read the Official Politeness Rule Book.
Cultural norms, especially in neighbouring, reasonably similar countries, is really a fascinating subject.
Ha ha. Fun with stereotypes. If only people here had more of a sense of social cohesion. I'm personally working on that, but it's certainly not wide-spread at all. Lots of bigots/anti-immigrant/racist people running around. And the Americans I've met have all been very polite and often friendlier than Canadians. Unfortunately not every Canadian has read the Official Politeness Rule Book.
Cultural norms, especially in neighbouring, reasonably similar countries, is really a fascinating subject.
Seen the documentary Escape To Canada?
Canada is a very different nation than the US.
Many (most?) Americans are a superstitious, war-like people with reptilian brains and a massive sense of entitlement.
Canadians are polite and share an ethos of social cohesion.
Are you sure you weren't a poster here 10 or so years ago? Some of this self loathing/stereotyping is starting to sound familiar.
Are you sure you weren't a poster here 10 or so years ago? Some of this self loathing/stereotyping is starting to sound familiar.
No, not on here ten years ago.
I don't loath myself. haha
I mean, I know I have my quirks and that I am far from a perfect man. But loath myself? Nah.
I don't really think I was stereotyping either. I know some good Americans that go against the superstitious, war-like, entitled, reptilian grain. But frankly, I consider myself a planetary citizen. I just happened to have been born in the US. So the government/corporations claimed me as their own. ;)
...
Though this is purely a thought-exercise for me as it's been a while since I've felt infringed upon. I did dislike the pressure to participate in Christmas activities at my past workplace. Somehow, many people now seem to see Christmas as a secular holiday, or celebrated by most people of any religion, and I do not like that. I am not Christian; I don't celebrate Christmas.
Sometimes I'm an agnostic, sometimes I'm a pantheist, sometimes I'm a deist. I don't have a dogma in this fight. :devil: I do see Christmas as a secular holiday; I don't believe it has any historical connection to the time of Christ's birth (if indeed he existed), and it was a traditional Winter festival co-opted by Christians. I think of it as "the shopping holiday," though I'm not so observant these days. :)
Sometimes I'm an agnostic, sometimes I'm a pantheist, sometimes I'm a deist. I don't have a dogma in this fight. :devil: I do see Christmas as a secular holiday; I don't believe it has any historical connection to the time of Christ's birth (if indeed he existed), and it was a traditional Winter festival co-opted by Christians. I think of it as "the shopping holiday," though I'm not so observant these days. :)
I shake my fist at the Great Mystery!
I don't really think I was stereotyping either. I know some good Americans that go against the superstitious, war-like, entitled, reptilian grain. But frankly, I consider myself a planetary citizen. I just happened to have been born in the US. So the government/corporations claimed me as their own. ;)
:doh:
But frankly, I consider myself a planetary citizen.
Which planet?
Sometimes I'm an agnostic, sometimes I'm a pantheist, sometimes I'm a deist. I don't have a dogma in this fight. :devil: I do see Christmas as a secular holiday; I don't believe it has any historical connection to the time of Christ's birth (if indeed he existed), and it was a traditional Winter festival co-opted by Christians. I think of it as "the shopping holiday," though I'm not so observant these days. :)
Yes, I also don't celebrate "the shopping holiday". Or the "let's eat tons of unhealthy food and pretend to enjoy socializing with people we don't actually like", holiday. But I try to be open-minded and understand that others do enjoy it and have every right to do so. (I'm trying to minimize what I say here as it's a bit too early to start my holiday rant season.) ;)
Williamsmith
9-2-15, 4:53pm
That guy made some very well thought out, reasonable, cogent points.
Folks, if you truly do trust in God.......do you think posting it all over creation is going to make you a better person or department?
And a final thought, as a police officer I really don't want to be held to the standard that is suggested by that motto. It might be effective inspiring patriotic fervor but when you associate that with your department, you are alienating a lot of people you are supposed to be serving.
One of my fellow Troopers was in a horrific crash at an intersection that claimed the life of an innocent mother who was doing nothing more than driving home from work. The news coverage showing the Marked patrol car smashed into the victims car was terrible enough. Imagine a view of the carnage with the words...."In God We Trust." Emblazoned On the bumper of the patrol car with a covered body in the background.
As a police officer I want to be trusted to do the right thing, not because of some religious duty but because the honor of the force is entrusted to me. I must be willing to lay down my life for someone I don't even know. Just as others have done before me. I do this because I am sworn to protect and serve other humans. It has nothing to do with God. It has to do with your fellow man/women. That is why....to serve and protect......is wholly appropriate.
Seen the documentary Escape To Canada?
Unfortunately no. I just want to Escape to America for the climate, and some of the interesting landscapes. But overall I think I'll be retaining my citizenship.
Excellent post, Williamsmith. Not to mention that if God exists, He's so capricious that we need backup. Thus officers "To Protect and Serve."
Which planet?
I'll give you one guess.
rodeosweetheart
9-2-15, 5:23pm
Canada is a very different nation than the US.
Many (most?) Americans are a superstitious, war-like people with reptilian brains and a massive sense of entitlement.
Canadians are polite and share an ethos of social cohesion.
Then you should definitely leave, if you can, as I would not want to live with such dreadful people as you say we are.
I hear the fishing is very good, too, an added bonus!
Then you should definitely leave, if you can, as I would not want to live with such dreadful people as you say we are.
I hear the fishing is very good, too, an added bonus!
Tempting, very tempting. ;)
Williamsmith
9-2-15, 5:42pm
JaneV2.0 said,
Excellent post, Williamsmith. Not to mention that if God exists, He's so capricious that we need backup. Thus officers "To Protect and Serve."
Yes, in other words, "In God We Trust".......but just in case, my department gave me a .45 caliber Glock with 33 rounds of hollow point ammunition, a pistol grip taser, a metal expandable ASP baton, a 12 gauge Remington shotgun with OO Buck and rifled slugs, a .223 caliber Colt semi automatic assault rifle, two sets of peerless handcuffs, zip ties and a canister of pepper spray. Just in case God didn't show up.
Ha ha. Fun with stereotypes. If only people here had more of a sense of social cohesion. I'm personally working on that, but it's certainly not wide-spread at all. Lots of bigots/anti-immigrant/racist people running around. And the Americans I've met have all been very polite and often friendlier than Canadians. Unfortunately not every Canadian has read the Official Politeness Rule Book.
Cultural norms, especially in neighbouring, reasonably similar countries, is really a fascinating subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT6A0AXdVMo
I probably should have said "present company excluded." ;)
Teacher Terry
9-2-15, 6:28pm
I recently read that in god we trust was inserted in many places in the 1950's & I think that also includes our $. The founding fathers were not religious. They believed that God was the great clock winder so he wound up the world & never interfered. I think it was called Deitism but I am not sure. I took a few religion courses in college since I went to a Lutheran university. We learned about all religions & past ones.
I recently read that in god we trust was inserted in many places in the 1950's & I think that also includes our $. The founding fathers were not religious. They believed that God was the great clock winder so he wound up the world & never interfered. I think it was called Deitism but I am not sure. I took a few religion courses in college since I went to a Lutheran university. We learned about all religions & past ones.
Yes, they were Deists; yet, they mention God 4 times in the Declaration of Independence.
rodeosweetheart
9-2-15, 6:53pm
in re the motto and the currency:
http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
It'd be a better nation if Protect and Serve was focused on a lot more...
Couldn't have said it better.
In God We Trust bugs me another way, when I'm thinking ok there might be a God, i do not believe he controls things, he doesn't choose who is going to get cancer, who's gonna win the football game or pick sides in a war between countries. He clearly is not in charge of devastation, like Katrina, or why did he "let" that happen? We state in many religions, including mine, Catholicism, God gave us free will. So war is on the humans and God does not "make" the just side win. And in life good shit happens, bad shit happens but it's random, God is not personally directing what happens in your life. So that makes In God We Trust a pretty dumb motto, implies we believe God is "protecting us" over others, etc. It's actually an embarrassing motto, akin to those football players praying that it be God's will that they win the game. If I have to put up with hugely ironical things like the fact we put this motto on MONEY because sure, God is somehow connected to the evil thing we strive for, argue about, deny the poor and go to war for, I put up with it because I can't live without money. Would I like that taken off our money? Of course. But I would be even more upset that in my town Protect and Serve was replaced by In God We Trust. That's a choice deliberately made in the modern age by someone or someones serving the public. It is not the 1950s, communism is not an issue. but religion is a hot button topic so let's create more strife by putting God on police cars. Thank God (or Chuck Schumer) I live in NY, this stuff is less likely to occur here. We need to move past fighting over religion, particularly in dealing with the extreme right Christian groups trying to pass religious legislation (and succeeding), or trying to undo Roe v Wade or weaken it (and succeeding) and instead focus on getting this country's shit together. Enough, no more government funds being used to fight for or against these "religious" matters.
I don't care, but to me, it's smacks of confronting naysayers and drawing a line in the sand rather than just the sentiment itself.
Ultralight
9-3-15, 10:36am
A sincere apology to those I offended on this thread with my heavy-handed indictment of many Americans. I was in a dark mood at the time (not the best excuse, I know).
A sincere apology to those I offended on this thread with my heavy-handed indictment of many Americans. I was in a dark mood at the time (not the best excuse, I know).
"It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting."
- Epictetus
I'm beginning to think the Stoics had the answer to everything.
Ultralight
9-3-15, 11:09am
"It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting."
- Epictetus
I'm beginning to think the Stoics had the answer to everything.
"What other people think of you is none of your business." -- Daniel Suelo
I am fond Marcus Aurelius as well.
“The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Teacher Terry
9-3-15, 12:35pm
It appears that using the motto on coins was off & on since the 1800's however, it was not put on our paper $ until 1957.
Teacher Terry
9-3-15, 12:36pm
Also no one in a public position has a right to paint religious sayings on public vehicles.
Also no one in a public position has a right to paint religious sayings on public vehicles.In this case, I guess it depends upon how you view the saying. The saying in question is the official motto of the United States of America, which just happens to have a religious bent. Are you implying that no one has a right to advertise our motto if you don't agree with the content?
Teacher Terry
9-3-15, 12:47pm
I actually don't have a problem with the saying but we have a strict division between church & state and as such this can not be tolerated. Also as I mentioned this motto was not on our $ until 1800's for coins & 1957 for paper $ so this was not what the founding fathers envisioned.
I actually don't have a problem with the saying but we have a strict division between church & state and as such this can not be tolerated. Also as I mentioned this motto was not on our $ until 1800's for coins & 1957 for paper $ so this was not what the founding fathers envisioned.
Neither was Income Taxes, Welfare, Social Security, Standing Army or the Emancipation of Women, to name just a few.
If you want to consider what the founding fathers envisioned, consider that they never conceived of an outright ban on religious thought or principles at the highest levels of government, they simply said there would be no state established church nor would there be religious tests for public office. Do you know of any examples of either?
I think all the founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves. I'm pretty sure there's very little of today's society that was in their hopes and dreams.
Why such reverence for the founding fathers?
Teacher Terry
9-3-15, 1:39pm
Because most of them lost their homes, fortunes, family were killed & some of them killed etc. for the 84 people that signed the Declaration of Independence. You should read what happened to them & I think you would have more respect for them. They paid a huge price for standing up for their beliefs-a price most of us would be unwilling to pay.
I just can't get down with the founding fathers. I have an MA in American Studies. I learned that they held/bought/sold slaves and committed genocide against indigenous peoples here. That is not okay.
Why such reverence for the founding fathers?Because they built something remarkable. They drew very heavily on the philosophies and writings of many Enlightenment thinkers (John Locke and such), but they took all this philosophy and critical thought and turned it into an entirely new country! Sure we owe a lot to the Magna Carta and English common law etc., but all of that European thought was more or less a reaction to a lamentable status quo. Basically it's about chipping away at preexisting tyranny. The Founding Fathers took all that and started fresh and they weren't lazy about it. They didn't simply copy what was out there. In typical American fashion they invented what they needed and they didn't approach the problem as politicians, but rather more like philosophers. They tried to build up their construction from the bottom, beginning with the free citizen as their building block and framing out his fundamental rights as the axioms upon which and around which their system of government would be built. And basically they set out to try and create a government that was about protecting the freedom of the individual, where rule of law had limits and derived power from rational consensus. And since then such principles and such a system of government has been widely emulated.
The entire world has benefited from their efforts, why would we not revere them?
Because they built something remarkable. They drew very heavily on the philosophies and writings of many Enlightenment thinkers (John Locke and such), but they took all this philosophy and critical thought and turned it into an entirely new country! Sure we owe a lot to the Magna Carta and English common law etc., but all of that European thought was more or less a reaction to a lamentable status quo. Basically it's about chipping away at preexisting tyranny. The Founding Fathers took all that and started fresh and they weren't lazy about it. They didn't simply copy what was out there. In typical American fashion they invented what they needed and they didn't approach the problem as politicians, but rather more like philosophers. They tried to build up their construction from the bottom, beginning with the free citizen as their building block and framing out his fundamental rights as the axioms upon which and around which their system of government would be built. And basically they set out to try and create a government that was about protecting the freedom of the individual, where rule of law had limits and derived power from rational consensus. And since then such principles and such a system of government has been widely emulated.
The entire world has benefited from their efforts, why would we not revere them?
I am skeptical of this jingoistic stuff. Again, think of the slaves and the indigenous. Before invasion there were roughly 500 nations of indigenous peoples here on the continent. If the founding fathers made something remarkable in this nation, I'd say they destroyed 500 more remarkable nations.
Teacher Terry
9-3-15, 2:30pm
Alan, it must be a miracle because for once you & I agree:))
rodeosweetheart
9-3-15, 2:41pm
Apparently, there are founding fathers in Canada, too, although they are called The Fathers of Confederation:
http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/confederation/Fathers.html
I don't know whether the Canadians wiped out the indigenous nations; hopefully, not.
But was it really so different in Canada?
I think the decals should say, "in gods we trust" or "in goddess we trust".
Apparently, there are founding fathers in Canada, too, although they are called The Fathers of Confederation:
http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/confederation/Fathers.html
I don't know whether the Canadians wiped out the indigenous nations; hopefully, not.
But was it really so different in Canada?
Healthcare, baby! Healthcare! That is the big difference. :) Oh, how I envy it!
The indigenous of Canada suffered much the same fate as in the US, as far as I know. Though I think their first nations are in a little better condition than the indigenous of the US. But if you are curious, it might be worth looking into and doing some research. You could also visit some reservations in the US and some First Nations in Canada.
Apparently, there are founding fathers in Canada, too, although they are called The Fathers of Confederation:
http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/confederation/Fathers.html
I don't know whether the Canadians wiped out the indigenous nations; hopefully, not.
But was it really so different in Canada?
it was not better in Canada. in fact, it may have been worse.
I think the decals should say, "in gods we trust" or "in goddess we trust".
"In dogs we trust?"
Because they built something remarkable. They drew very heavily on the philosophies and writings of many Enlightenment thinkers (John Locke and such), but they took all this philosophy and critical thought and turned it into an entirely new country! Sure we owe a lot to the Magna Carta and English common law etc., but all of that European thought was more or less a reaction to a lamentable status quo. Basically it's about chipping away at preexisting tyranny. The Founding Fathers took all that and started fresh and they weren't lazy about it. They didn't simply copy what was out there. In typical American fashion they invented what they needed and they didn't approach the problem as politicians, but rather more like philosophers. They tried to build up their construction from the bottom, beginning with the free citizen as their building block and framing out his fundamental rights as the axioms upon which and around which their system of government would be built. And basically they set out to try and create a government that was about protecting the freedom of the individual, where rule of law had limits and derived power from rational consensus. And since then such principles and such a system of government has been widely emulated.
The entire world has benefited from their efforts, why would we not revere them?
Indeed it has and indeed we should. Well said, Alan.
C.S. Lewis used to talk about the “chronological snobbery” of moderns who looked down at the people of the Middle Ages. I can only imagine the amusement that a Washington or a Madison might take in being sneered at by an MA in American Studies.
Indeed it has and indeed we should. Well said, Alan.
C.S. Lewis used to talk about the “chronological snobbery” of moderns who looked down at the people of the Middle Ages. I can only imagine the amusement that a Washington or a Madison might take in being sneered at by an MA in American Studies.
You are right, I just have an MA in American Studies. I am no Howard Zinn! That is for sure. Which reminds me, maybe you should read A People's History of The United States.
ApatheticNoMore
9-3-15, 3:51pm
The founder fathers were products of their time. It may have been very advanced thinking at the time but the time was over 200 years ago, and many democracies constitutions have improved upon it since. European conquest of North America did destroy nations and peoples and civilizations. But that's kind of why, while I don't really care what things are named, I would kind of find the desire to rename everything back to an original name silly. As if history could be undone by that.
The founder fathers were products of their time. It may have been very advanced thinking at the time but the time was over 200 years ago, and many democracies constitutions have improved upon it since. European conquest of North America did destroy nations and peoples and civilizations. But that's kind of why, while I don't really care what things are named, I would kind of find the desire to rename everything back to an original name silly. As if history could be undone by that.
Who in history would you say does not get a "product of the their time" pass?
You are right, I just have an MA in American Studies. I am no Howard Zinn! That is for sure. Which reminds me, maybe you should read A People's History of The United States.
I have. It was excruciating.
I have. It was excruciating.
I would imagine so. Having your illusions shattered has that effect on a person.
ApatheticNoMore
9-3-15, 4:09pm
Who in history would you say does not get a "product of the their time" pass?
Who is not a product of their time to some degree? (but in modern culture there are usual multiple currents of thought, some more or less dominant etc.). But I do think interpreting everything as good or bad from modern lenses, becomes absurd. The ancient Greeks had slaves and believed in slavery. Early psychology believed homosexuality was neurotic etc.
Who is not a product of their time to some degree? (but in modern culture there are usual multiple currents of thought, some more or less dominant etc.). But I do think interpreting everything as good or bad from modern lenses, becomes absurd. The ancient Greeks had slaves and believed in slavery. Early psychology believed homosexuality was neurotic etc.
Again, who would you not give a "product of their time" pass to? Anyone?
"In dogs we trust?"
THIS. I can totally get behind this.
ApatheticNoMore
9-3-15, 4:23pm
Again, who would you not give a "product of their time" pass to? Anyone?
maybe anyone who did something that even at the time was widely considered deplorable, how is that?
I would imagine so. Having your illusions shattered has that effect on a person.
It was more the lugubrious Marxist polemic and history-as-conspiracy-theory narrative that rankled.
. I am no Howard Zinn! That is for sure. Which reminds me, maybe you should read A People's History of The United States.
that should be required reading to be an American since that will never happen, I'd like to see it in high schools. It's length and detail are probably a deterrent but that is a book that forces you to re-consider basic beliefs. The man is an underrated hero, IMHO
It was more the lugubrious Marxist polemic and history-as-conspiracy-theory narrative that rankled.
LDAHL: Your side will always win. So don't get too rankled.
LDAHL: Your side will always win. So don't get too rankled.
It's kind of you to say so, but with so many rushing down the road to serfdom I do get discouraged sometimes.
It's kind of you to say so, but with so many rushing down the road to serfdom I do get discouraged sometimes.
I am not being kind.
iris lilies
9-3-15, 5:31pm
I am not being kind.
Is it any significance that this is your 666 post? haha. hmmmm.
I've been following this discussion and find it interesting. Don't have much to add.
I'm quite certain that the Founding Fathers were passionate about this country they formed. They did so at great personal sacrifice yet they were also products of their time. These two ideas can exists simultaneously about them. Also, this U.S. of A. has come about due to a great deal of luck, what a remarkably successful political experiment. I expect it will continue to be lucky for some time. I don't have children so don't have to worry about what comes next. And if I did, I would let them worry about it.
“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”
― Saul D. Alinsky
iris lilies
9-3-15, 5:39pm
“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”
― Saul D. Alinsky
hoooh boy. :devil:
Williamsmith
9-3-15, 6:22pm
Just asking but if the National Motto was say, "There is no God but Allah." Would that be okay to post on police cars?
How about ... the stickers are magnetic and they say "In God I Trust", and every officer can choose whether to put one on the car or not before they drive off. Or you could have a whole basket of them on the counter. In God I Trust. Keep On Truckin. Everything Is Connected, and a peace sign (mine). You will pry my gun from my cold dead fingers. Hmm, maybe not. Envision Whirled Peas.
Just asking but if the National Motto was say, "There is no God but Allah." Would that be okay to post on police cars?That's an interesting question. The Quran says that the God of Islam, Allah, is the God of Abraham, so the entity is the same in both Islamic, Jewish and Christian traditions. The trouble with "There is no God but Allah" would be the use of the name Allah, which indicates a specific religion, Islam. That would seem to me to violate the Establishment Clause, just as "In Yahweh we Trust" would as both relate to specific religions.
In my mind, "In God we Trust" is not an endorsement of any specific religion and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause, so, would be proper where the others would not.
In my mind, "In God we Trust" is not an endorsement of any specific religion and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause, so, would be proper where the others would not.
Except:
- We all know it pretty much is meant to refer to the various Christian sects, and is an attempt to assert primacy.
- Even if you ignore that, the singular "God" explicitly excludes a whole range of belief systems.
- And so on.
Except:
- We all know it pretty much is meant to refer to the various Christian sects, and is an attempt to assert primacy.
Yes, people will see things through the lens of their own biases, whether warranted or not.
- Even if you ignore that, the singular "God" explicitly excludes a whole range of belief systems.
Still not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
- And so on....
I grew up surrounded by people in a Christian sect that found it unseemly to associate the name of the Lord with worldly affairs. Slapping "In God We Trust" on currency or police cars or government buildings is more-than-vaguely sacrilegious to them. (I think Teddy Roosevelt had something to say along these lines when the issue of putting those words on the currency came up...) Others I know feel that the meaningless recitation of such "ceremonial" phrases is inappropriate.
I have many friends and associates who are members of an Abrahamic religious that believes it is sacrilegious to write the name of JHVH.
In this day it is pretty darned mean-spirited to slap that motto onto public property, perhaps especially so the vehicles of our armed police forces. You can dance and be cute all you want about it being "tradition" or "meaningless" (as some of the Supreme Court cases in the past did) but when you look at the group that is quite successfully pushing this movement across the country, it is pretty easy to draw conclusions about the real motivations and intent.
The national motto should be changed, and these words have no place in our government.
If I drive up in an ambulance with that motto on the side, I *know* I will be causing additional stress to some of my patients and their families, and putting a barrier between them and effective treatment, and there is simply no good reason to go there.
Except:
- We all know it pretty much is meant to refer to the various Christian sects, and is an attempt to assert primacy.
- Even if you ignore that, the singular "God" explicitly excludes a whole range of belief systems.
- And so on.
Yup, exactly
- And so on....
I grew up surrounded by people in a Christian sect that found it unseemly to associate the name of the Lord with worldly affairs. Slapping "In God We Trust" on currency or police cars or government buildings is more-than-vaguely sacrilegious to them. (I think Teddy Roosevelt had something to say along these lines when the issue of putting those words on the currency came up...) Others I know feel that the meaningless recitation of such "ceremonial" phrases is inappropriate.
I have many friends and associates who are members of an Abrahamic religious that believes it is sacrilegious to write the name of JHVH.
In this day it is pretty darned mean-spirited to slap that motto onto public property, perhaps especially so the vehicles of our armed police forces. You can dance and be cute all you want about it being "tradition" or "meaningless" (as some of the Supreme Court cases in the past did) but when you look at the group that is quite successfully pushing this movement across the country, it is pretty easy to draw conclusions about the real motivations and intent.
The national motto should be changed, and these words have no place in our government.
If I drive up in an ambulance with that motto on the side, I *know* I will be causing additional stress to some of my patients and their families, and putting a barrier between them and effective treatment, and there is simply no good reason to go there.
I'm just gonna follow you around and agree, you say it better. This could easily get murky in hospice, as chaplains are part of a patient's team. I have to say, they did a wonderful job dancing around a topic that can heighten feelings at the end of life. Most everyone accepted them because they were good listeners and had calming words to say even if the patient practiced no religion so God never came up. However, probably half of patients initially refused and bristled at the mention of a chaplain, yet took their phone call, allowed a visit and all was fine. It still felt very strange to me to meet a patient where they are at spiritually and need to be of some use and comfort to them, as well as have basic knowledge of their religion and beliefs. I had to overcome the feeling that you don't bring God to work, so to speak. I am glad Hospice has chaplains, they are invaluable. But if I was a patient and the chaplain was actually a priest and he came dressed as one (we've interviewed but never chose a priest) or any chaplain showed up with that motto on their car, it would be hard for me to believe they can give support in a secular manner.
Bae, what do you do if someone is dying in your ambulance and asks for prayer?
Williamsmith
9-3-15, 8:57pm
The origin of the motto was an appeal from a Christian Reverend who preached the gospel of Christ from Pennsylvania collaborating with a deeply religious Episcopalian Secretary of the Treasury in a time when Christianity was overwhelmingly the majority religion if not practiced at least officially claimed for many social reasons including marriages and funerals.....the more appropriate motto E Pluribus Unum is inclusive and thus always applicable to an evolving and more diverse nation. Are Muslims not equal under your Constitution, how about Buddhists? The use of our current motto is exclusive in its origin. Lets say Congress repeals the motto. Would it still be acceptable to be placed on taxpayers vehicles? And would you allow a practicing agnostic Deputy to write on his vehicle, "I Don't know who I trust."
"I don't know who I trust." Lol!
Bae, what do you do if someone is dying in your ambulance and asks for prayer?
I help them as best I can. I was raised to be a Jesuit, moved on from that to different spiritual traditions, am still an ordained minister, and have several pastors as part of our ongoing critical event support team. I'm happy to sit with someone and help them with what they need.
I'm not going to encourage them to meet me in Valhalla out loud, though, unless that's their thing :-)
I'm just gonna follow you around and agree, you say it better. This could easily get murky in hospice, as chaplains are part of a patient's team. I have to say, they did a wonderful job dancing around a topic that can heighten feelings at the end of life. Most everyone accepted them because they were good listeners and had calming words to say even if the patient practiced no religion so God never came up. However, probably half of patients initially refused and bristled at the mention of a chaplain, yet took their phone call, allowed a visit and all was fine. It still felt very strange to me to meet a patient where they are at spiritually and need to be of some use and comfort to them, as well as have basic knowledge of their religion and beliefs. I had to overcome the feeling that you don't bring God to work, so to speak. I am glad Hospice has chaplains, they are invaluable. But if I was a patient and the chaplain was actually a priest and he came dressed as one (we've interviewed but never chose a priest) or any chaplain showed up with that motto on their car, it would be hard for me to believe they can give support in a secular manner.
Both my parents (athiests like me) used hospice care at the end of their lives. In both cases the chaplain called/visited and my sister or I informed them that our parent was an athiest. Neither chaplain had a problem with that of course. My sister and I were surprised that our mother readily accepted the visit. There was nothing religious, but they managed to provide comfort and a person besides my sister and I to whom mom could express her fears about what was happening. When the chaplain came to visit Dad he was by that point too far gone to be able to have a conversation, but I spent an hour or so talking with him. It's clear to me that a good hospice chaplain has a lot more in his toolbox than god. I don't know that I wouldn't have gotten through my father's death without him, but it was definitely worthwhile spending some time talking to someone who truly understood what I was going through at that moment. It probably didn't hurt that he was a gay episcopal priest who had lived in San Francisco for a decade before he made the decision to become a priest. Having that in common definitely helped him make a connection with me.
I guess I say all this to say that I have no problem with the idea of chaplains being part of the hospice care team. That seems like a very different thing from cops showing up in a car that says in god we trust. In god we trust would only seem to be an appropriate slogan for the hospice chaplain's car...
It's clear to me that a good hospice chaplain has a lot more in his toolbox than god.
We have a team of people who help us as a group and privately talk over Very Bad Events when they happen. The pastors on the team are very good at using a whole range of tools to help, it's been hugely educational. We performed CPR on a 7 month old child last month, who died on us. I'm so glad that team was there to help with the stress and trauma experienced by the responders on this event, it was absolutely horrific, both the loss of the child, the circumstances that led to the event, and having to do that sort of resuscitation effort on someone that small and vulnerable.
I help them as best I can. I was raised to be a Jesuit, moved on from that to different spiritual traditions, am still an ordained minister, and have several pastors as part of our ongoing critical event support team. I'm happy to sit with someone and help them with what they need.
I'm not going to encourage them to meet me in Valhalla out loud, though, unless that's their thing :-) Are you saying you're a Jesuit priest?
Are you saying you're a Jesuit priest?
I escaped that unlikely fate by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. The whole "I just met the lady for me!" thing derailed me, thank goodness.
freshstart
9-3-15, 11:39pm
Both my parents (athiests like me) used hospice care at the end of their lives. In both cases the chaplain called/visited and my sister or I informed them that our parent was an athiest. Neither chaplain had a problem with that of course. My sister and I were surprised that our mother readily accepted the visit. There was nothing religious, but they managed to provide comfort and a person besides my sister and I to whom mom could express her fears about what was happening. When the chaplain came to visit Dad he was by that point too far gone to be able to have a conversation, but I spent an hour or so talking with him. It's clear to me that a good hospice chaplain has a lot more in his toolbox than god. I don't know that I wouldn't have gotten through my father's death without him, but it was definitely worthwhile spending some time talking to someone who truly understood what I was going through at that moment. It probably didn't hurt that he was a gay episcopal priest who had lived in San Francisco for a decade before he made the decision to become a priest. Having that in common definitely helped him make a connection with me.
I guess I say all this to say that I have no problem with the idea of chaplains being part of the hospice care team. That seems like a very different thing from cops showing up in a car that says in god we trust. In god we trust would only seem to be an appropriate slogan for the hospice chaplain's car...
I'm glad to hear you had a good hospice chaplain experience, I'm sorry about your dad. Our chaplains over the years have been some incredible people, they aren't there just for families, they are there for us, too when, like Bae said something very bad happens. There were times I walked out of a death that was horrible and I was "done, don't need this in my life, done, done, done". And the rest of the team, feeling pretty similar, we'd go to lunch and decompress. And dang if those chaplains did not know just the right thing to say to make me get back on the horse. I don't know how they can go through life, giving so much of themselves, every day, and we forget they need support, too, how are they not sucked dry? Most of them run a church of whatever their faith is, as well.
freshstart
9-3-15, 11:55pm
We have a team of people who help us as a group and privately talk over Very Bad Events when they happen. The pastors on the team are very good at using a whole range of tools to help, it's been hugely educational. We performed CPR on a 7 month old child last month, who died on us. I'm so glad that team was there to help with the stress and trauma experienced by the responders on this event, it was absolutely horrific, both the loss of the child, the circumstances that led to the event, and having to do that sort of resuscitation effort on someone that small and vulnerable.
I can't even imagine. I am so impressed that that team showed up right after the event. That's when you need it most. Your company seems pretty progressive in a lot of this stuff. We were promised for the 11 yrs I worked there, a therapist to meet with us monthly to process the bad stuff. In 11 years, no one in our 7 county-wide agency found one. Not a priority when it really should be in these types of jobs. So they encouraged the chaplains and social workers to make support groups for us that either no one attended or turned into work bitch and moan sessions. We really needed an outsider. So we made our own group outside of the office, Whine, Wine and Cheese. I got more than enough from that! (not really but it helped our bond)
ToomuchStuff
9-4-15, 2:01am
First, let me put on my pretend clothes for a minute (flame suit on)...............
In my best gimmethesimplelife impression.................
It is missing the certainly not the police, after the in god we trust.
Now, I am with the other agnostics/atheists in thinking this has no place on it. I would like to see someone who is a taxpayer there (as it is "their" vehicles), place a which, addendum on the vehicle. (Zeus, Thor, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh)
I would also like to ask what does the local law enforcement agency due to people who are seeing and/or talking to people that are not there, and how they handle them having weapons?
What about if they trust god, then why do they need their firearm, pepper spray, etc?
See......this situation shows how the "freedom for all ", and "everyone is created equal" is getting us into trouble. By the very nature of who the U.S. is, these problems are going to happen. (I'm referring to so many people with different beliefs, feeling like it is their right to do what they want).
Oh, as to the question of "if you had a patient who was dying and wanted you to pray with them".......speaking as a former critical care nurse (and an atheist), I would say that I would probably give them whatever they needed in their last moments. If they wanted me to pray with them, then I would "pretend"........whatever they needed, I would probably give them.
See......this situation shows how the "freedom for all ", and "everyone is created equal" is getting us into trouble. By the very nature of who the U.S. is, these problems are going to happen. (I'm referring to so many people with different beliefs, feeling like it is their right to do what they want).
This is one of the reasons I identify with this Krishnamurti quote:
“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”
Also, Thich Nhat Hanh's 1st of 14 Mindfulness Trainings:
The First Mindfulness Training: Openness
Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.
So, I don't belong to any church and I appreciate the teachings of many, many Eastern and Western religions. At the apex of all of them, they say the same thing anyway. However, I do have strong Buddhist leanings, and emotional ties to Catholicism. The piety that I experienced from family members growing up was the comforting and expansive kind--not the judgmental kind, and I admit to being hardwired for religion. What 7 year old builds an altar in their bedroom? that was me.
(Just as an aside, bae, I am amazed at this reveal of yet another side of you.. I love the Jesuits--Anthony deMello is one of my favorite authors and I went to a Jesuit college.)
I'm not PRO putting "In God We Trust" mottos on police cars and I see some good reasons not to. But it IS our national motto. And I still agree with Alan on the use of the word "God" from a constitutional standpoint. You may hate it, want to change it, despise the idea of God or the "intrusion" on your beliefs (and atheism IS another "ism"), but it's all still legal, in my mind, just as if they printed the whole Star Spangled Banner on their doors.
First, let me put on my pretend clothes for a minute (flame suit on)...............
In my best gimmethesimplelife impression.................
It is missing the certainly not the police, after the in god we trust.
Now, I am with the other agnostics/atheists in thinking this has no place on it. I would like to see someone who is a taxpayer there (as it is "their" vehicles), place a which, addendum on the vehicle. (Zeus, Thor, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh)
I would also like to ask what does the local law enforcement agency due to people who are seeing and/or talking to people that are not there, and how they handle them having weapons?
What about if they trust god, then why do they need their firearm, pepper spray, etc?
In Glock we trust?
This is one of the reasons I identify with this Krishnamurti quote:
Also, Thich Nhat Hanh's 1st of 14 Mindfulness Trainings:
The First Mindfulness Training: Openness
So, I don't belong to any church and I appreciate the teachings of many, many Eastern and Western religions. At the apex of all of them, they say the same thing anyway. However, I do have strong Buddhist leanings, and emotional ties to Catholicism. The piety that I experienced from family members growing up was the comforting and expansive kind--not the judgmental kind, and I admit to being hardwired for religion. What 7 year old builds an altar in their bedroom? that was me.
(Just as an aside, bae, I am amazed at this reveal of yet another side of you.. I love the Jesuits--Anthony deMello is one of my favorite authors and I went to a Jesuit college.)
I'm not PRO putting "In God We Trust" mottos on police cars and I see some good reasons not to. But it IS our national motto. And I still agree with Alan on the use of the word "God" from a constitutional standpoint. You may hate it, want to change it, despise the idea of God or the "intrusion" on your beliefs (and atheism IS another "ism"), but it's all still legal, in my mind, just as if they printed the whole Star Spangled Banner on their doors.
When segregation was the law in the South would you have said: "You may hate segregation, want to change it, despise the idea of government-mandated racism...but its all still legal..."?
In Glock we trust?
Saw this one coming 100 miles away.
When segregation was the law in the South would you have said: "You may hate segregation, want to change it, despise the idea of government-mandated racism...but its all still legal..."?
I might, I would recognize segregation as being wrong and complete injustice BUT unfortunately lawful, and then I would have been in line to change the law. I'm sorry that I was only 10 when the Civil Rights era began.
So, who wants to start a campaign to change the national motto?
BTW, IMHO there is no way you can equate the legal use of the word "God" with institutionalized racism.
Biodiversity. Why shouldn't it apply to humans? Just remember.....a lot of what I say is just thinking about things, and not necessarily saying it's what "needs" to happen in an "open/civilized" society or not.
I think about why there is so much strife among different peoples, and have to wonder if it's just the way of nature......to be with your own kind, and to have your kind's own type of culture/rules. I know we're way past that point. I'm just trying to understand why so much bad is happening. Humans try so hard to not be in the animal world, but I truly believe some things in us are just hard-wired/instinctual. But we're always trying to deny it......saying it doesn't exist.
Too many people with too many ideas with too many pasts, with too many expectations of what they do or don't want.......
And there seem to be 2 different types of brains.........the ones that can get along with anyone, and the ones that require to be with their "same".
It's like the difference in brains between Democrats and Republicans...............(just for a simple example).
I might, I would recognize segregation as being wrong and complete injustice BUT unfortunately lawful, and then I would have been in line to change the law. I'm sorry that I was only 10 when the Civil Rights era began.
So, who wants to start a campaign to change the national motto?
BTW, IMHO there is no way you can equate the legal use of the word "God" with institutionalized racism.
How do you feel about Islamic extremist nations using the word "god" in their legal matters?
How do you feel about Islamic extremist nations using the word "god" in their legal matters?
I think you're projecting your own stuff here. The word God is provoking all kinds of bad stuff in your mind. For other people, the word God provokes many positive feelings. Both may be based in reality; much based on faulty perceptions on both sides.
So if you take these negative projections that are filtered through your own experiences out of it, can you see that in any country or culture, God may be used for good or ill? To use the oft-quoted NRA line: God doesn't kill people. People kill people. God for some people is a tool for power, dominance, and outright evil, but that's not a God problem. That's a people problem.
When segregation was the law in the South would you have said: "You may hate segregation, want to change it, despise the idea of government-mandated racism...but its all still legal..."?
I suppose that would depend on how much value you placed on the principle of rule of law as weighed against your opposition to whichever law you found uncongenial.
I think you're projecting your own stuff here. The word God is provoking all kinds of bad stuff in your mind. For other people, the word God provokes many positive feelings. Both may be based in reality; much based on faulty perceptions on both sides.
So if you take these negative projections that are filtered through your own experiences out of it, can you see that in any country or culture, God may be used for good or ill? To use the oft-quoted NRA line: God doesn't kill people. People kill people. God for some people is a tool for power, dominance, and outright evil, but that's not a God problem. That's a people problem.
I am just a reality-based adult. So the ideas of god, superstitions, and other supernatural things strike me as a bit nutty. But hey, I get it. Life is wacky, scary, odd, sometimes joyful. People want explanations for things and want to avoid the labor of critical thought -- and more so -- the responsibility that rests on their shoulders in the absence of their god delusions.
I suppose that would depend on how much value you placed on the principle of rule of law as weighed against your opposition to whichever law you found uncongenial.
I wonder what LDAHL would have said and done during the civil rights era...
I wonder how anyone could conflate the abuses on human rights in earlier eras with a National Motto referencing God.
I wonder how anyone could conflate the abuses on human rights in earlier eras with a National Motto referencing God.
Uh... you are missing the point. Go back and read through this thread again.
I wonder what LDAHL would have said and done during the civil rights era...
I would have supported the rule of law, which includes working to improve the body of existing law.
To that end, I would have supported the Republican lawmakers of the time, a greater proportion of whom than Democrats voted for civil rights legislation. Much as earlier generations of Republicans overcame the opposition of Democrats to abolish slavery and enfranchise women.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 10:01am
I would have supported the rule of law, which includes working to improve the body of existing law.
To that end, I would have supported the Republican lawmakers of the time, a greater proportion of whom than Democrats voted for civil rights legislation. Much as earlier generations of Republicans overcame the opposition of Democrats to abolish slavery and enfranchise women.
I am more of a civil disobedience guy myself.
Uh... you are missing the point. Go back and read through this thread again.
That's OK, you don't have to answer. There's no test at the end of the thread.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 10:05am
That's OK, you don't have to answer. There's no test at the end of the thread.
Same applies on your side of the street. I will not be expecting a book report from my request for you to re-read the thread.
I am more of a civil disobedience guy myself.
I suppose there's a place for attention-seeking tantrums like Occupy Wall Street in the great theater of American politics. I just don't see it moving the needle much in terms of actual impact.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 10:19am
I suppose there's a place for attention-seeking tantrums like Occupy Wall Street in the great theater of American politics. I just don't see it moving the needle much in terms of actual impact.
The needle seldom moves in our direction, but it often moves in your direction. Which is bad for the vast majority of people... probably for you too. But... What's The Matter With Kansas? I'll never understand. ;)
rodeosweetheart
9-4-15, 10:22am
I wonder what LDAHL would have said and done during the civil rights era...
He's right here, Ultra, you do not have to talk about him (or her, for all I know) in the third person--that's a bit creepy, as though you are trying to enlist people against another poster. I'm sure you don't mean to come off that way, but it seems a bit well, baiting, to me, but I am sure you would not bait anyone, right?
Ultralight
9-4-15, 10:27am
He's right here, Ultra, you do not have to talk about him (or her, for all I know) in the third person--that's a bit creepy, as though you are trying to enlist people against another poster. I'm sure you don't mean to come off that way, but it seems a bit well, baiting, to me, but I am sure you would not bait anyone, right?
LDAHL and I are razzing each other a bit. I am not taking it too seriously. I hope he isn't either.
rodeosweetheart
9-4-15, 10:30am
LDAHL and I are razzing each other a bit. I am not taking it too seriously. I hope he isn't either.
None of my business anyway, I suppose.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 10:31am
None of my business anyway, I suppose.
This is an internet forum! It can be anyone's business. :)
Same applies on your side of the street. I will not be expecting a book report from my request for you to re-read the thread.
Thank you! This book is more a series of short novellas and I'd probably choose the wrong one to report on without more input from Teacher.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 10:44am
Thank you! This book is more a series of short novellas and I'd probably choose the wrong one to report on without more input from Teacher.
That is an excellent point!
That is an excellent point!Yes, but you still haven't answered the question.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 10:58am
My point was to illustrate that we need to be careful about leaning on maxims like "they were products of their time" or "follow the rule of law" and such because these, in my view, give excuses and licenses to people who do horrible things.
Hank Thoreau could have been a "product of his time" but instead he shuffled folks through the underground railroad. Rosa Parks could have "followed the rule of law" but instead she broke the law and moved civil rights forward.
But this thread ventured away from being solely about "In god we trust" into other areas of discussion, as human conversations often do. So I think it is a bit simplistic (and not in a good way) and misleading to suggest I conflated these topics and/or subtopic and/or tangents.
The needle seldom moves in our direction, but it often moves in your direction. Which is bad for the vast majority of people... probably for you too. But... What's The Matter With Kansas? I'll never understand. ;)
If only that were true.
What I have difficulty accepting is your base premise that you and Mr. Frank have a better idea than I do of my interests. That I somehow fail to grasp that if I would only accept your invitation to join some sort of class war and vote for policies that will move us in the direction of Greece or Venezuela, that I will ultimately be better off.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 11:07am
If only that were true.
What I have difficulty accepting is your base premise that you and Mr. Frank have a better idea than I do of my interests. That I somehow fail to grasp that if I would only accept your invitation to join some sort of class war and vote for policies that will move us in the direction of Greece or Venezuela, that I will ultimately be better off.
Thanks for sharing. Good talk!
But this thread ventured away from being solely about "In god we trust" into other areas of discussion, as human conversations often do. So I think it is a bit simplistic (and not in a good way) and misleading to suggest I conflated these topics and/or subtopic and/or tangents.Don't take it personally dude. It just helps when you challenge someone with a vague statement to know which tangent it's coming from. A blanket "re-read the thread" isn't always helpful.
Ultralight
9-4-15, 11:47am
Don't take it personally dude. It just helps when you challenge someone with a vague statement to know which tangent it's coming from. A blanket "re-read the thread" isn't always helpful.
Duly noted. No hard feelings on my end.
This is a lot of posting for a comment without a link to the original news source.
Nor have a I seen a comment about the removal of the Protect & Serve. If the sheriff dept isn't there to protect the citizens, what is their role?
What are the tax dollars paying for?
iris lilies
9-4-15, 12:54pm
What county? Has to be somewhere downstate.
On a unrelated note, I'm listening to the scanner traffic from Lake County, IL after a cop was shot and killed today in Fox Lake, IL. Manhunt for three suspects on going. About 40 minutes away from.
thugs here in St. Louis are taking it upon themselves to assassinate cops. Fortunately, the cop in a recent incident put his bullet vest on after seeing unsavory types hanging around. They did, in fact, shoot right at him. The police officer got one of them, though but not enough to kill him. Too bad.
Dhiana.......I posted that link a little later in the thread. Here it is again:
http://www.register-news.com/news/sheriff-s-office-motto-stirs-up-debate/article_32f4ab34-42e3-11e5-8a43-17221c25621e.html
Wow, I go away for a day and a half and this thread grows 9 pages and UA surpasses my post count. Well, my time out was worth it.
ApatheticNoMore
9-4-15, 9:53pm
I'd like to see the new Pope come out against xmas shopping. Not that he takes requests from me. He'd have some credibility obviously, who better to speak about Christmas to a large section of Christianity. And he hates consumerism and the economic system (hit in in the heart then! show no mercy! It depends on the commercialization of a religious holiday to stay solvent aka "black Friday", at least in it's current form).
Since he networks with environmentalists, maybe could recommend Bill McKibbens' "$100 Holiday" (I think I read that or was it another of his books, years ago when I had jury duty which usually seems to consist of sitting in a room waiting with 200 other people all day, and being dismissed at the end of the day - almost as absurd as going to work!). $100 (or even the inflation adjustment of $100 since that book was written) is intended as a limit for rich westerners of course, who go on spending binges with holiday shopping.
I'd like to see the new Pope come out against xmas shopping. Not that he takes requests from me. He'd have some credibility obviously, who better to speak about Christmas to a large section of Christianity. And he hates consumerism and the economic system (hit in in the heart then! show no mercy! It depends on the commercialization of a religious holiday to stay solvent aka "black Friday", at least in it's current form).
Since he networks with environmentalists, maybe could recommend Bill McKibbens' "$100 Holiday" (I think I read that or was it another of his books, years ago when I had jury duty which usually seems to consist of sitting in a room waiting with 200 other people all day, and being dismissed at the end of the day - almost as absurd as going to work!). $100 (or even the inflation adjustment of $100 since that book was written) is intended as a limit for rich westerners of course, who go on spending binges with holiday shopping.
He's already got Matthew 19:24 and a considerable body of theology developed over many centuries. Who needs Marx or McKibbens when you've got that?
Ultralight
9-8-15, 11:29am
He's already got Matthew 19:24 and a considerable body of theology developed over many centuries. Who needs Marx or McKibbens when you've got that?
Appeal to tradition fallacy. And some appeal to authority fallacy too.
Appeal to tradition fallacy. And some appeal to authority fallacy too.
Perhaps, but there's a reason certain ideas survive long enough to become tradition. Why be so quick to replace it with the trendy froth of the moment?
Ultralight
9-8-15, 11:46am
Perhaps, but there's a reason certain ideas survive long enough to become tradition. Why be so quick to replace it with the trendy froth of the moment?
More appeal to tradition fallacy.
Watch this:
Racism has been around for centuries -- thousands of years, in fact -- why replace it with a trendy idea like racial justice/integration/open-mindedness? There is a reason certain ideas survive long enough to become tradition, right? Same could be said for homophobia -- why replace it with some fancy-pants ideas like GLBTQ rights and marriage equality?
Appeal to tradition fallacy. And some appeal to authority fallacy too.
Living according to Matthew 19:24 is not exactly a "tradition" Christians live out or even believe. In fact, I'll bet you more likely to believe what Jesus said in Matthew 19:24 (with perhaps a very broad and loose interpretation of "heaven) than the vast majority of Christians, at least in this country.
If you read Laudato si' (the new Papal encyclical on the environment), from the little I know about you, Jake, I'll bet you'd be amazed at how lock-step you are with the Pope on many of the issues he presents. If he can use his authority to inspire a better world, is that fallacy?
Ultralight
9-8-15, 12:01pm
Living according to Matthew 19:24 is not exactly a "tradition" Christians live out or even believe. In fact, I'll bet you more likely to believe what Jesus said in Matthew 19:24 (with perhaps a very broad and loose interpretation of "heaven) than the vast majority of Christians, at least in this country.
If you read Laudato si' (the new Papal encyclical on the environment), from the little I know about you, Jake, I'll bet you'd be amazed at how lock-step you are with the Pope on many of the issues he presents. If he can use his authority to inspire a better world, is that fallacy?
This is Matt 19:24:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Most Christians would say: "I'll take my chances with the eye of that needle! Gimme that cash!"
But as an atheist and an anarchist, I must say I dig on Matt 10:34! ;) haha!
My problems with the Pope go deep, real deep. I grew up half-Catholic. What I think is that if the Pope and his crew at the Vatican want some social justice, then dole some wealth out from their own coffers. They got a whole heaping mountain of it over there on The Boot and throughout their empire.
Also: Pope needs to get rid of the creeper priests!
And they also need to deal with the issue of evidence, of which there is none for G dash D, the "power" of prayer, or miracles (send me the link to one on youtube.). :)
Forgive my colorful language. :)
I grew up half-Catholic.
It's not a genetic condition.
Ultralight
9-8-15, 12:35pm
It's not a genetic condition.
It sure felt like it! My mom was Catholic, my dad was a "religion is a crutch for the weak-minded" type guy. That is what I meant.
ToomuchStuff
9-8-15, 3:04pm
More appeal to tradition fallacy.
Watch this:
Racism has been around for centuries --
When a self perpetuating word is used, it will continue to be around. Racism, is a view that there are different races and not just one. Prejudice is the view that something isn't good because it is different. (and prejudice may be right or wrong, example walk into a "gang related area" and see a bunch of people wearing one color)
Racism is self creating and will continue.
Prejudice can be viewed for how right or wrong it actually is.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.