In God We Trust

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Excellent.

Is that Cleets?

Which one?

[93henfan]

Excellent.

Is that Cleets?

Which one?

Ironed shirt. Duh.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Still not clear.............

[Chizzang]

I do enjoy guns...
and my girlfriend is damned near a marksman (it's scary)

[93henfan]

I do enjoy guns...
and my girlfriend is damned near a marksman (it's scary)

Marksperson, you heathen.

[Baldy]

I think you're missing the part about clinging to their guns and religion, gotta throw that in there too.

Oh, and speaking of guns, Tennessee actually has a state gun - the Barrett M82/M107. I had no idea. Thank goodness they passed that bit of legislation. I haven't looked, would be fascinated to know how many states have an official state gun.

Barretts are made in Christiana, TN.

Btw, a whole bunch of guns are made in the deep blue states of CT (Colt), MA (S&W, Springfield), and NH (Sig Sauer). Somehow I doubt they'll pass state gun legislation.

Your best hope would be SC (FNH makes the M-16, M-4, M-240, and M-249 in Columbia) or GA (Glocks made in Smyrna).

Daniel Defense just outside Savannah. They make one of the finest AR's on the market.
https://danieldefense.com/

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I do enjoy guns...
and my girlfriend is damned near a marksman (it's scary)

Marksperson, you heathen.

I noticed that too, he probably forces her to let him iron her shirts as well.

#ToxicMagicSizingSyndrome

[93henfan]

Barretts are made in Christiana, TN.

Btw, a whole bunch of guns are made in the deep blue states of CT (Colt), MA (S&W, Springfield), and NH (Sig Sauer). Somehow I doubt they'll pass state gun legislation.

Your best hope would be SC (FNH makes the M-16, M-4, M-240, and M-249 in Columbia) or GA (Glocks made in Smyrna).

Daniel Defense just outside Savannah. They make one of the finest AR's on the market.
https://danieldefense.com/

That they do, but it's a fairly niche market for them. And they're overpriced. They're the GA version of MD's LWRC. Btw, I just purchased another AR from FN on Wednesday. They're overpriced too, but I got the military discount (my ID has indefinite expiration ). Trying to stock up on as many as I can before the big ban goes through here. It won't be long.

[JoltinJoe]

Interesting and of course there's precedent as it's "a part of our national anthem". Question...would they be ok if someday in a school district or a state it was replaced with "Allahu Akbar"? Or how about "In Satan we trust"?

If you really understood the First Amendment, you wouldn't ask this question. When smart guys ask questions like this, all it proves is that this nation badly needs a basic civics lesson.

Public pronouncement of a generic faith in God, even by government, does not "establish" any particular religion and does not violate the First Amendment.

"Allahu Akbar" simply means "God is great," albeit in a language that is spoken primarily by Muslims. Because of the strong association between the expression and the Islamic faith, it is likely that a court would conclude that posting "Allahu Akbar" tends to "establish" Islam. On the other hand, the English expression "In God We Trust" is not strongly associated with any particular religious faith.

As for "In Satan We Trust" -- it's a purely hypothetical question today, because no governmental board would ever vote to post such a message today. Presently, if some governmental agency did vote to post this message today, a court would likely conclude, I think, that the message is hostile to the free exercise of religion (the other clause of the First Amendment dealing with religion).

In other words, as of today, I don't see posting such a message as an non-establishment clause issue, since no religious group that exists today actually pronounces a belief in Satan (any expression of belief in Satan is done satirically). Instead, I see the posting of such a message as government action that hinders the free exercise of religion because the message has the effect of the government expressing hostility to religion.

[kalm]

Interesting and of course there's precedent as it's "a part of our national anthem". Question...would they be ok if someday in a school district or a state it was replaced with "Allahu Akbar"? Or how about "In Satan we trust"?

If you really understood the First Amendment, you wouldn't ask this question. When smart guys ask questions like this, all it proves is that this nation badly needs a basic civics lesson.

Public pronouncements of a generic faith in God, even by government, does not "establish" any particular religion and does not violate the First Amendment.

"Allahu Akbar" simply means "God is great," albeit in a language that is spoken primarily by Muslims. Because of the strong association between the expression and the Islamic faith, it is likely that a court would conclude that posting "Allahu Akbar" tends to "establish" Islam. On the other hand, the English expression "In God We Trust" is not strongly associated with any particular religious faith.

As for "In Satan We Trust" -- it's a purely hypothetical question today, because no governmental board would ever vote to post such a message today. Presently, if some governmental agency did vote to post this message today, a court would likely conclude, I think, that the message is hostile to the free exercise of religion (the other clause of the First Amendment dealing with religion).

In other words, as of today, I don't see posting such a message as an non-establishment clause issue, since no religious group that exists today actually pronounces a belief in Satan (any expression of belief in Satan is done satirically). Instead, I see the posting of such a message as government action that hinders the free exercise of religion because the message has the effect of the government expressing hostility to religion.

So christians can post their message but other religions can't.

Got it!

[JoltinJoe]

If you really understood the First Amendment, you wouldn't ask this question. When smart guys ask questions like this, all it proves is that this nation badly needs a basic civics lesson.

Public pronouncements of a generic faith in God, even by government, does not "establish" any particular religion and does not violate the First Amendment.

"Allahu Akbar" simply means "God is great," albeit in a language that is spoken primarily by Muslims. Because of the strong association between the expression and the Islamic faith, it is likely that a court would conclude that posting "Allahu Akbar" tends to "establish" Islam. On the other hand, the English expression "In God We Trust" is not strongly associated with any particular religious faith.

As for "In Satan We Trust" -- it's a purely hypothetical question today, because no governmental board would ever vote to post such a message today. Presently, if some governmental agency did vote to post this message today, a court would likely conclude, I think, that the message is hostile to the free exercise of religion (the other clause of the First Amendment dealing with religion).

In other words, as of today, I don't see posting such a message as an non-establishment clause issue, since no religious group that exists today actually pronounces a belief in Satan (any expression of belief in Satan is done satirically). Instead, I see the posting of such a message as government action that hinders the free exercise of religion because the message has the effect of the government expressing hostility to religion.

So christians can post their message but other religions can't.

Got it!

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

[kalm]

So christians can post their message but other religions can't.

Got it!

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

So is "God is great". It's just a different language.

And what about those who chose to not believe in a god or any one god?

Monotheistic bias I say!

[JoltinJoe]

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

So is "God is great". It's just a different language.

And what about those who chose to not believe in a god or any one god?

Monotheistic bias I say!

I already addressed your first point.

And what about those who choose not to believe in God, or any one God? What's your point? That the Constitution forbids even generic expressions of faith because of the objections of non-believers? Despite what you might read on the internet, that is not what the non-establishment clause forbids. The government can show a generic preference toward expressions of belief, and has frequently done so over the past 230 years.

[kalm]

So is "God is great". It's just a different language.

And what about those who chose to not believe in a god or any one god?

Monotheistic bias I say!

I already addressed your first point.

And what about those who choose not to believe in God, or any one God? What's your point? That the Constitution forbids even generic expressions of faith because of the objections of non-believers? Despite what you might read on the internet, that is not what the non-establishment clause forbids. The government can show a generic preference toward expressions of belief, and has frequently done so over the past 230 years.

1). You addressed it inadequately. Allahu Akbar does not occur in the Koran and Arabic speaking Christians have been known to use it.

2). It’s not the government’s job to promote either belief or non-belief.

[JoltinJoe]

I already addressed your first point.

And what about those who choose not to believe in God, or any one God? What's your point? That the Constitution forbids even generic expressions of faith because of the objections of non-believers? Despite what you might read on the internet, that is not what the non-establishment clause forbids. The government can show a generic preference toward expressions of belief, and has frequently done so over the past 230 years.

1). You addressed it inadequately. Allahu Akbar does not occur in the Koran and Arabic speaking Christians have been known to use it.

2). It’s not the government’s job to promote either belief or non-belief.

I addressed the first point more than adequately.

As for your second point, what forbids the government from expressing a general preference in favor of belief? What is your source for that contention?

[Vidav]

This doesn't really bother me...
It is exactly the opposite type of reasoning used to build this nation
and it flies in the face of the concept of our Republic for which it stands

But when people get scared they go backwards
and I am not surprised Tennessee is scared of the rest of big scary America

phpBB [video]

[kalm]

1). You addressed it inadequately. Allahu Akbar does not occur in the Koran and Arabic speaking Christians have been known to use it.

2). It’s not the government’s job to promote either belief or non-belief.

I addressed the first point more than adequately.

As for your second point, what forbids the government from expressing a general preference in favor of belief? What is your source for that contention?

1). No you didn’t and you continue to shy away from it but that’s ok.

2). The constitution

[Chizzang]

Interesting and of course there's precedent as it's "a part of our national anthem". Question...would they be ok if someday in a school district or a state it was replaced with "Allahu Akbar"? Or how about "In Satan we trust"?

If you really understood the First Amendment, you wouldn't ask this question. When smart guys ask questions like this, all it proves is that this nation badly needs a basic civics lesson.

Public pronouncement of a generic faith in God, even by government, does not "establish" any particular religion and does not violate the First Amendment.

"Allahu Akbar" simply means "God is great," albeit in a language that is spoken primarily by Muslims. Because of the strong association between the expression and the Islamic faith, it is likely that a court would conclude that posting "Allahu Akbar" tends to "establish" Islam. On the other hand, the English expression "In God We Trust" is not strongly associated with any particular religious faith.

As for "In Satan We Trust" -- it's a purely hypothetical question today, because no governmental board would ever vote to post such a message today. Presently, if some governmental agency did vote to post this message today, a court would likely conclude, I think, that the message is hostile to the free exercise of religion (the other clause of the First Amendment dealing with religion).

In other words, as of today, I don't see posting such a message as an non-establishment clause issue, since no religious group that exists today actually pronounces a belief in Satan (any expression of belief in Satan is done satirically). Instead, I see the posting of such a message as government action that hinders the free exercise of religion because the message has the effect of the government expressing hostility to religion.

In god we trust was plastered all over everything in the 50's
because this great nation was making decisions based on fear

It replaced E Pluribus Unum as our nations unofficial motto because of fear
Most of Humans worst decisions are made as a response to fear



The day American Christians come forth united
and ask that America's motto be returned to what our founding fathers designed
That's the day I'll believe you Joe...

Until then... Blah blah blah is all I hear

[Gil Dobie]

I addressed the first point more than adequately.

As for your second point, what forbids the government from expressing a general preference in favor of belief? What is your source for that contention?

1). No you didn’t and you continue to shy away from it but that’s ok.

2). The constitution

GOD as some understand God in a non-religious form is:

Good
Orderly
Direction

[CID1990]

So

I grew up in Caswell County, NC where other than bright leaf tobacco, the only iconic thing is the historic Caswell County Courthouse. Before the town was named Yanceyville it was called Caswell Courthouse.

Here’s a pic of it:



It has looked like that since well before the Civil War.

A couple years ago, some organization (I forget the name) that advocates for putting “In God We Trust” on public structures came in and lobbied the knuckleheads on the county council...



I raised hell on the county historical website and Facebook page, along with other people who thought it was defacing a historical structure

Of course I burned a few very old ties to home, but screw it - these assholes talk about tradition and then they put a damn placard up on a two hundred year old building that never had it before

This is why I don’t like the In God We Trust motherfvckers

[Gil Dobie]

I raised hell on the county historical website and Facebook page, along with other people who thought it was defacing a historical structure

Of course I burned a few very old ties to home, but screw it - these assholes talk about tradition and then they put a damn placard up on a two hundred year old building that never had it before

This is why I don’t like the In God We Trust motherfvckers

I take it, this wasn't your plate?

[CID1990]

I raised hell on the county historical website and Facebook page, along with other people who thought it was defacing a historical structure

Of course I burned a few very old ties to home, but screw it - these assholes talk about tradition and then they put a damn placard up on a two hundred year old building that never had it before

This is why I don’t like the In God We Trust motherfvckers

I take it, this wasn't your plate?

Negative

[houndawg]

Interesting and of course there's precedent as it's "a part of our national anthem". Question...would they be ok if someday in a school district or a state it was replaced with "Allahu Akbar"? Or how about "In Satan we trust"?



https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/r ... 442884002/

No one knows there are four verses of the Star Spangled Banner poem, which is where the "In God We Trust" is located. The national anthem is the first verse, it's long enough and no one has ever heard the other three verses sung.

As for this particular item, I see no reason for schools to have to spend more money throwing up mandated mottos because the state legislature thought it was a good idea. It's like how we end up with kids having to waste time learning about the state bird of Tennessee (they have two, actually, the mockingbird and the bobwhite quail) and the state tree of Tennessee (the tulip poplar btw). I mean, we need Jeopardy categories, sure, but why waste the little time schools have now on crap like this?

It's actually in the magnolia family

[Ibanez]

So christians can post their message but other religions can't.

Got it!

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity. Same as “Ally Ackbar” and Islam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity. Same as “Ally Ackbar” and Islam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. And that's exactly how it was intended.