I don’t see why people care if “In God We Trust” is on our money or if it isn’t. It hardly matters if is printed. It’s not hurting anyone. It doesn’t stop Muslims from practicing their religion, it doesn’t force atheists to practice a religion. But I still agree with Illithid, some of the people posting in the comment section of that article care far too much about having that little phrase printed on pieces of paper. They need to understand that the government wasn’t made to be a Christian government or Muslim government; it was made to be completely separate from churches of any kind.
So you don't see why people would care that all money printed in the USA has a slogan that states that those who don't "trust" in a monotheistic god don't count as Americans?
And if it matters so little, then why not get rid of it if people are bothered by it?
I got the impression that QueenQuinlin was apathetic, and only leaned toward leaving it because would cost money to change the printers. Quick note though, Islam has the same God as Christianity.
I especially like how most of the comments in support of keeping the motto on money are filled with angry hate, xenophobia, and typing and grammatical errors.
I got the impression that QueenQuinlin was apathetic, and only leaned toward leaving it because would cost money to change the printers. Quick note though, Islam has the same God as Christianity.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are 3 different religions and have 3 different Gods. They share common origins, and the Gods described by each religion are similar, but still different. Each religion can make claims that it's the same God and the other to are worshiping incorrectly, but they are not considered to be the same God by most theologists.
Theologists observe beliefs but don't believe. What they say has no more merit than what anyone else says. They call them separate Gods just to make it easier to categorize things. It's not an important distinction anyway since the reference in question just generically says God and doesn't specify. We can understand that they had a Christain God in mind when putting it there but taken to the letter it could mean any God.
Still I haven't been following this topic at all. So I shall say this:
"Give back to Ceasar what is Cesar’s and to God what is God’s". Why put God's name on something that is not God's? I'd just say let them take it off. It's always seemed strange to me that it's even there in the first place.
Meh, best we can do is vote for politicians and hope for the best. In addition, people of my age group can't even do that, and I am thus apathetic and lack the drive to present a valid argument. *Goes off to hot topic*
Well, God Dammit all! I had a Theology teacher (he wasn't a prof. yet) explain the different with the capital letters for God and His pronouns. I'm pretty sure it's specifically referring to either the Jewish or Christian god when you Capitalize it. It can't be totally generic, if it was generic monotheistic it would have to be, "In a god we trust", if generic polytheistic or laterally acknowledging many gods, "In gods we trust". "In God We Trust" (even if it was all lower-case) definitely uses "god" as a proper noun. So that narrows it down to monotheistic religions that don't use a name when directly referring to their god.
Not that any of it matters anyway, because the manliest of us will all be feasting and battling in Valhalla when we die.
Fuck.
Yes.
Anyway, I don't really see a point in having it on the money. It definitely seems like it should never have been put on in the first place. But for most people defending it, it's how it's always been, so they see the change not as fixing a mistake, but as an attack on their lifestyle. If we did change the money though, how would they enact it? Would they just stop printing money that says "In God We Trust" and wait for the old money to phase out?
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
-- President Theodore Roosevelt, 11 November 1907
I think this is an effective argument that defenders of the 1st Amendment should be embracing: the Separation of Church and State is meant to protect the Church from the State as well as the State from the Church. Religious groups have a strong interest in remaining independent from state regulation. That's the reason why people are currently far more religious people in America than in other Western countries -- American religious groups have never had their fortunes directly tied to the ebb and flow of popular opinion in the political realm. When a church is heavily involved with administration of the state, you either have a scenario like England where the state church becomes a rather bland anachronism that acts as proxy for the state in primary education and historical preservation; or in Quebec, where the dominant politically linked Catholic church was associated with the corrupt Union Nationale government in the 40s and 50s, after which lead to Quebec becoming one of the most (functionally) secular regions on earth despite still being overwhelmingly nominally Catholic.
With the Republican Party's embrace of Christian fundamentalism however, we may finally see America have to settle and reckon with the role of religion in its society like the rest of the West has done. All these flare ups of reactionary far-right Christian Dominionist groups may be the wild flailing of a drowning movement.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims are sometimes referred to as the "People of the Book" because some of their fundamental beliefs and holy writings are so similar.
Also, many Jews refuse to spell out God, capitalized, or may write it as G-d, due to a rule about respecting His Name which I admit I don't completely understand.
It is my understanding that “Allah” is the Arabic word for “God” and it has been that even before the existence of Islam.
The names “Allah” and “God” are generally interchangeable within the Muslim religion and in Middle Eastern cultures. Some English translations of the Qu’ran (Koran) use the name “God,” others use“ Allah.” This sometimes comes as a surprise to Christians who were raised in Western cultures.
I'm not sure if I like this article.... it kinda feels like the author doesn't think that comic books are capable of deep expression. That's a myth that I'm very much against... comics are a burgeoning art form that simply needs to be experimented with and grown. This sort of attitude will keep people thinking they're trash.
Of course, perhaps this wasn't a good comic book... but the medium is still capable of profundity, people!
What the hell just happened I posted like twenty times in a row.
Anyway, what I was saying is, perhaps a book that is set in a dystopic future where literature is all but dead and all that remains is a neutered education system and TV and comic books that amount to little more than tripe, perhaps is not the best book to be making into a comic book.
It just seems to me that the person that decided to do this adaptation is missing the point.
Maybe that IS the point... or could be PART of the point. I'm sure the reason why Bradbury chose comic books as his "mindless medium" is because comics were generally REALLY REALLY shitty until the 80s. Most people took that to mean that the medium was useless garbage. Perhaps the author of this comic was trying to show that that mindset is wrong... that comics aren't necessarily mindless.
But of course, there's always the possibility that someone wanted to make some money by adapting Fahrenheit 451 to another medium and they decided to make a comic book. It could go either way. But my point is, the author didn't necessarily miss the point or the irony involved and may in fact be using it.
Michigan police say a 35-year-old mother used the Internet to track down the son she gave up for adoption a decade ago, seducing and raping the teenage boy when she found him after an online search.
Aimee Louise Sword of Waterford Township, near Detroit, was arraigned this week on three charges of criminal sexual conduct for the alleged rape of her biological son, whom she put up for adoption more than 10 years ago, MyFOXDetroit reported.
Prosecutors say the boy is still a minor, but won't disclose whether he knew the woman was his mother — a situation that has horrified mental health experts who are calling the case "an abomination."
"I don't think I've heard of another case like this in my career," said Dr. Gerald Shiener, chief of Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry at Sinai Grace Hospital in Detroit.
"Our first reaction to hearing about something like this is that this is every man's nightmare. It's an abomination," he told MyFOXDetroit.
"I'm at a loss for words because it's something that we consider to be so out of the normal, so prohibited in every culture that it unnerves every man just to think about it."
Sword surrendered to Waterford Township police on April 24, the Oakland Press reported, but was freed on bond Wednesday following her arraignment. The house at her listed home address is abandoned.
Sword's attorney Kenneth Burch told the Press that his client "maintains her presumption of innocence" and said the accusations of incest have been very difficult for her.
But Sword herself has spoken since she first was arrested, writing on her MySpace page that she was inspired by rapper and former jailbird Lil' Kim because "she rises during the worst of obstacles."
"Reminded me of myself," Sword wrote on the Web page, where she uses the name Aimee Pope.
• Click here to see her MySpace page.
Though Sword is apparently confident of her ability to recover from the charges, Shiener, the psychiatric doctor, worries that if the allegations are true, the damage to the boy could be long-lasting.
"This could be his first sexual experience, and his first sexual experience could be something so conflicted, so unusual, so prohibited that it will stay with him for life," Shiener said.
The freaky procedure was carried out to turn a body-art fan's eye blue.
And it took FORTY insertions of the needle to get the job done.
Volunteer Pauly Unstoppable, from Canada, has perfect vision but jumped at the chance to be the first punter.
See the toe-curling shots in the gallery below. But be warned - the pictures are very graphic.
((gallery not linkable, see original article))
Brave Pauly said he had full confidence in the team working on him - but urged people not to try it at home.
He added: "The procedure was extensively researched and done by people who were aware of the risks and possible complications and that it should not be casually attempted.
"Now that this experiment has been started, please wait for us to either heal or go blind before trying it."
Blue-in-blue! A telltale sign of melange addiction!
Hm, wonder why anyone would want an eye tattoo. Honestly, it's so small, no one would really get a god luck at it, plus you'd never be able to get a job with one.
Hm, wonder why anyone would want an eye tattoo. Honestly, it's so small, no one would really get a god luck at it, plus you'd never be able to get a job with one.
It's not a design, it's just coloring. And I don't know if this is the world's first. I saw a guy doing this on Discovery Channel or History channel a few years ago. He wasn't finished yet, but when the guy was done, he was gonna have all dark blue with black-light speckles in his eye, so it would look like stars.
Yeah, I saw the third person to get one done about a year ago on Taboo. He was from New Zealand, and they showed him getting his entire sclera dyed black (he was the first to have the entire sclera done).
Comments
And if it matters so little, then why not get rid of it if people are bothered by it?
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are 3 different religions and have 3 different Gods. They share common origins, and the Gods described by each religion are similar, but still different. Each religion can make claims that it's the same God and the other to are worshiping incorrectly, but they are not considered to be the same God by most theologists.
Still I haven't been following this topic at all. So I shall say this:
"Give back to Ceasar what is Cesar’s and to God what is God’s". Why put God's name on something that is not God's? I'd just say let them take it off. It's always seemed strange to me that it's even there in the first place.
Clearly we need to have a giant Colosseum constructed and mandate deathmatchs for anyone over 55.
Fuck.
Yes.
Anyway, I don't really see a point in having it on the money. It definitely seems like it should never have been put on in the first place. But for most people defending it, it's how it's always been, so they see the change not as fixing a mistake, but as an attack on their lifestyle. If we did change the money though, how would they enact it? Would they just stop printing money that says "In God We Trust" and wait for the old money to phase out?
-- President Theodore Roosevelt, 11 November 1907
I think this is an effective argument that defenders of the 1st Amendment should be embracing: the Separation of Church and State is meant to protect the Church from the State as well as the State from the Church. Religious groups have a strong interest in remaining independent from state regulation. That's the reason why people are currently far more religious people in America than in other Western countries -- American religious groups have never had their fortunes directly tied to the ebb and flow of popular opinion in the political realm. When a church is heavily involved with administration of the state, you either have a scenario like England where the state church becomes a rather bland anachronism that acts as proxy for the state in primary education and historical preservation; or in Quebec, where the dominant politically linked Catholic church was associated with the corrupt Union Nationale government in the 40s and 50s, after which lead to Quebec becoming one of the most (functionally) secular regions on earth despite still being overwhelmingly nominally Catholic.
With the Republican Party's embrace of Christian fundamentalism however, we may finally see America have to settle and reckon with the role of religion in its society like the rest of the West has done. All these flare ups of reactionary far-right Christian Dominionist groups may be the wild flailing of a drowning movement.
Also, many Jews refuse to spell out God, capitalized, or may write it as G-d, due to a rule about respecting His Name which I admit I don't completely understand.
Muslims, of course, use Allah.
So no, they don't all worship the exact same God.
I think... I think something just broke. In my brain.
Of course, perhaps this wasn't a good comic book... but the medium is still capable of profundity, people!
Though if I could get a job that would be pretty spectacular.
Anyway, what I was saying is, perhaps a book that is set in a dystopic future where literature is all but dead and all that remains is a neutered education system and TV and comic books that amount to little more than tripe, perhaps is not the best book to be making into a comic book.
It just seems to me that the person that decided to do this adaptation is missing the point.
But of course, there's always the possibility that someone wanted to make some money by adapting Fahrenheit 451 to another medium and they decided to make a comic book. It could go either way. But my point is, the author didn't necessarily miss the point or the irony involved and may in fact be using it.
Edit: I think I posted at the exact same time as Andrew below, so it says I have the most recent comment on the main page bit, even though he does.
Blue-in-blue! A telltale sign of melange addiction!
Sword found her adopted son, tracked him down and raped him, CLICK HERE TO SEE HER MYSPACE.
It's not a design, it's just coloring. And I don't know if this is the world's first. I saw a guy doing this on Discovery Channel or History channel a few years ago. He wasn't finished yet, but when the guy was done, he was gonna have all dark blue with black-light speckles in his eye, so it would look like stars.