O'Reilly morally dumbfounded at how to respond to atheist about Romney speach

T

tomcat

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
169
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYdokWXkAZE

O'Reilly again distorts and spins around the issue of church-state separation in this interview with Lori Lippman Brown of the Secular Coalition for America (the first non-theistic lobbyist at our nation's capital). After his initial points are crushed, he then whines about atheist's whining...
 
I saw that, and the woman did a great job.

He tried to bring up the Declaration, and seemed really lost once she pointed out that the Constitution specifically has no mentioned of God.
 
Well, I'm not for using tax payers money and increasing taxes to cover the expense of redoing our currency just because people are offended by the word "God."

I could put hundreds of quotes from our Founding Fathers where they mention God.

And why all of a sudden in just the past few years has this become an issue?
 
allyinoh said:
Well, I'm not for using tax payers money and increasing taxes to cover the expense of redoing our currency just because people are offended by the word "God."

I could put hundreds of quotes from our Founding Fathers where they mention God.

And why all of a sudden in just the past few years has this become an issue?
Click to expand...

It's to rally the monkeys who don't think so they can feel they are oppressed.

Divide and conquer.
 
allyinoh said:
Well, I'm not for using tax payers money and increasing taxes to cover the expense of redoing our currency just because people are offended by the word "God."

I could put hundreds of quotes from our Founding Fathers where they mention God.

And why all of a sudden in just the past few years has this become an issue?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being offended, it's a matter of constitutionality. News Flash: In God We Trust was not put on our currency NOR was Under God in our pledge of allegiance until the 1950's and McCarthyism was rampant, and people were being fear-mongered into hunting down commmies.

Mentioning God and having a constitution that enables the language of god to be used on government things are different.

Keep it simple, keep it secular!
 
We have more important things to worry about than what is printed on the currency. I think Ian of Free Talk Live makes a great point. The question that is being asked is the wrong one. The question should not be if the word god should be on the currency, but the legitimacy of the currency it's self.
 
Im not bothered by it at all. But as the lady said, it is a campaign speech. If you want to shut out 30,000,000 voters in your speech, thats your fault.
 
As a strong atheist, I am not offended by other's public display of their religious faith. Since Federal Reserve Notes are the property of a private banking cartel and are only printed and issued by the United States Government for the FED, there is no violation of the First Amendment prohibition on making laws respecting or establishing religion despite the Treasury department designs actually printed on the paper. If however gold and silver coins were to be made legal tender and the minting and issuance thereof were to be conducted by the Treasury, then appearance of the term GOD or god or God on the coins would be a violation of the First Amendment. In such a case I would be offended though not by the empty and meaningless circularly self referential concept GOD/God/god but rather by violation of our First Amendment. I would also be amused and perhaps perplexed by the irrationality and pomposity of those who would defend the indefensible.
 
Last edited:
Dustancostine said:
I'm an atheist and have no problem with the word god.
Click to expand...

I'm an Atheist too. I dont have a problem with "moment of silences" in schools, or ten comandments in public buildings, but I do have a problem with "under God" and "In God we trust" because it suggests this nation is a Christian Nation and that we all believe in God, when we all dont.

Things such as the "silence" in schools, or the ten commandments in public buildings dont do such a thing, and are either there to respect the ability to practice religion, or its just respect for the historical laws that this country's laws were founded on, which happen to be the Testament's Commandments, because most of the country was Christian. Not only that, but "under God" in the pledge wasnt even in the original pledge, and was added by FDR, to unite Americans "as Christians" during rough times.

Not changing something because its "nconvenient"even though its whats is right, as was suggested above, is something very anti-American and goes against the very philosophy of this campaign...
 
I wonder if the people who say, "I don't have a problem with it" would have a problem with it if our currency said "In Zeus We Trust" or "One Nation Under Satan" or "In Mohammed We Trust"?

I guarantee they would be crying like bitches.

The Constitution forbids this type of religious endorsement by the government.
 
Did anyone else notice O'Reilly flashing the devil sign at around 4:26?
 
The pledge should be tossed out all together. It's has all the trappings of blind patriotism and also has collectivist under tones.
 
allyinoh said:
Well, I'm not for using tax payers money and increasing taxes to cover the expense of redoing our currency just because people are offended by the word "God."
Click to expand...

Well, since Ron Paul wants to overhaul our monetary system anyway, perhaps we can work in a re-design of the bills while we're at it :D
 
For those that are pushing a secular nation, I'll defer to Edmund Burke -

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
 
Then why are atheists LESS likely to be in prison and MORE likely to hold advanced college degrees than "believers"?
 
InRonWeTrust said:
Then why are atheists LESS likely to be in prison and MORE likely to hold advanced college degrees than "believers"?
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume the controlling power that is without. Additionally, atheists tend to be more educated and thus, less likely to be caught. They used to believe that an XYY gene made individuals more criminal. Turns out, they're just rather large individuals and tend to be stupid, and thus, often get caught.

I'm a deist, personally. I don't neccesarily care for religion, but I do see a neccesity for it. People are controlled through fear (I know we don't like this sort of thing, but it's true), so people can either be afraid of an invisible man in the sky or the government. I'll take the invisible man in the sky, personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top