I disagree.
This country was FOUNDED to allow people to exercise their free exercise of any and all religions. I don't see that the government endorsing one without any moneys being used or time expended on it's behalf is a problem.

And, the money says..........in
God we trust. It does not endorse any specific God or religion.
Just...God. Kinda like the Pope, LOL.

Putting "in God we trust" on currency endorses the idea of the existence of God, which is the root of a most religious concepts. That alone means it should not be put on currency created by a Government whose mandate is that they shall not endorse religion.

https://youtu.be/aaSpCM5XViY

---

https://archive.org/details/AUniversalLanguage

https://archive.org/details/TheDifferenceBetweenManAndBeast

https://archive.org/details/DelianQuest2015

I said elsewhere (in this thread, I believe) that I was not attempting to meaninglessly debate philosophy. I believe you have turned a point of the discussion into some meaningless tangent. The point was "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." (This is not a direct quote, as I am not going to waste even more time scrolling back to find my exact words.)

If thats the question you want answered then the answer is yes, some will undoubtedly think that. An other reason might be that they consider hell to be a real place and simply hate to see friends, family and other loved ones end up there because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ. It can be a blunt, annoying but genuine attempt from their side to help people and save them from eternal damnation.

Finally, you've given your answer to the question, which was repeated, what, 3 to 5 times?

Now, what about others who are not "friends, family and other loved ones"?

And what if those others reject God, or the God as presented to them?

As far as Religion in Government goes, I will state a fact of why good dialecticians create what you consider religious mythology.

The mind is responsible for the behavior of the body within which it resides. Good and bad behavior is biologically defined.

The ability to think itself depends on what many call Set Theory, factually set theory is based on the definition of a thing itself. There are two methods, by definition of a thing, to create anything, including human psycholoy.

Most people can only think primarily by enumeration. Others can think by definition. Those who can think only by enumeration cannot reason to a first principle, however, there is still a biologically defined good and bad behavior. In order to help these people who cannot think, a good dialectician realizes that their behavior can only stem from a raw emotional response. Plato, for example, was not religious, he created mythologies for the modification of human behavior for the good of that person because that person really cannot distinguish good and evil, right and wrong. Most people cannot reason to a first principle.

However, when these mythologies themselves get into the hands of the functionally illiterate like organized religions, they are not what was intended by the author, they become something else.

Religions are necessary, by fact, those who govern them are no different than stupid politicians.

So again, I point out, it is not the material being wielded that is the fault, it is the form imposed upon it by those who cannot actually do so.

Human behavior, of all types, is determined by the principles of language functionally resident in a mind. Therefore, if one cares the least for the good of one's neighbors, they must come to realize that religion is the only way that person can function not only for his own good, but for the good of the whole. This does not, and I repeat not, justify the atrocities of those who claim the ability to govern religion.

Factually, a good government is composed of both Church and State, each aimed at those who can think by definition and those who cannot. And, by the principles of language, logic and analogic, both must say exactly the same thing, be it in plain logic, or metaphor.

I am not here to promote the division of church and state, I am here to correct both and unite them into a functional whole. That can only be done when the leaders of each has a functional ability to comprehend Law.

When you correct a child, you have to find that emotion, that pain, which they respond to, or you are neglecting their behavior. One's eye must always be on what is required in order to achieve the good. Good, by definition, are those behaviors which maintain and promote life; or in a metaphor hidden to mankind;

To regulate behavior so as to turn the past into a future and to bring a future to pass.

It does not matter if you say,

The testimony of Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy; or a fact is verified by its repeatability.

Logics are indexing system for analog content, that analog content is the realization that we are simply a part of a life form which has a functional goal towards that life.

---

https://archive.org/details/AUniversalLanguage

https://archive.org/details/TheDifferenceBetweenManAndBeast

https://archive.org/details/DelianQuest2015

Hey, It's Time to Start Firing People who are Atheist and Scientific in Public. Can't Have Christian Religious Expression in Public, then Atheist and Science Expression in Public needs to be Banned. I'm OFFENDED by Science and Atheists. Got It? GOoD.

Yup

Yep

fO

shO

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Chicken Stacker, they do that in a lot in some parts of the world.

The idea of separation of church and State was to prevent a Government sponsored or mandated state religion -- specifically, such as the Church of England.

The "In God we trust" may not mean what it ostensibly says. It may have meant "we are fearless"

In time the majority may come to realize that there is no god; or if there is, --we can't trust her. But, for now it is at least as harmless as "One Nation under God" which I seem to remember reading somewhere.

But, for now it is at least as harmless as "One Nation under God" which I seem to remember reading somewhere.

...which wasn't in the original pledge. It was added in response to the Germans forcing their citizens to pledge allegiance to the state during the rise of Hitler, only we added it with a righteous twist. I'm in favor of removing that reference to God as well, and going back to the original pledge of allegiance.

By the way, the person who added "under God" was a Christian socialist.

By the way, the person who added "under God" was a Christian socialist

By the way it didn't mater weather he was a socialist or Capitalist or communist , first he was a Christian , and then all the other groups agreed with him at the time .

By your words it came in response to the Germans forcing their citizens to pledge allegiance to the state during the rise of Hitler

---

By the way, the person who added "under God" was a Christian socialist

By the way it didn't mater weather he was a socialist or Capitalist or communist , first he was a Christian , and then all the other groups agreed with him at the time .

No, it doesn't matter to me one bit. I only point out that he was a socialist because the heavily religious/conservative base we have here in the U.S. is very anti-socialist.

But, for now it is at least as harmless as "One Nation under God" which I seem to remember reading somewhere.

...which wasn't in the original pledge. It was added in response to the Germans forcing their citizens to pledge allegiance to the state during the rise of Hitler, only we added it with a righteous twist. I'm in favor of removing that reference to God as well, and going back to the original pledge of allegiance.

By the way, the person who added "under God" was a Christian socialist.

"One Nation Under God" (as long as it doesn't specify a specific religion), is not a problem to this Atheist.

It is preferable to 'One Nation Under The State, Under the Government, Under... (Name any Ideology)'.

Why 'under' anything? What's wrong with the pledge before 'under God' was added?

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I said elsewhere (in this thread, I believe) that I was not attempting to meaninglessly debate philosophy. I believe you have turned a point of the discussion into some meaningless tangent. The point was "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." (This is not a direct quote, as I am not going to waste even more time scrolling back to find my exact words.)

If thats the question you want answered then the answer is yes, some will undoubtedly think that. An other reason might be that they consider hell to be a real place and simply hate to see friends, family and other loved ones end up there because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ. It can be a blunt, annoying but genuine attempt from their side to help people and save them from eternal damnation.

Finally, you've given your answer to the question, which was repeated, what, 3 to 5 times?

Now, what about others who are not "friends, family and other loved ones"?

And what if those others reject God, or the God as presented to them?

Still wondering if anyone would like to comment on the use of the term "rejection of God" (see the youtube video linked) or otherwise comment on "
Now, what about others who are not 'friends, family and other loved ones'?"

Is it always about power? What about the reaction to perceived rejection?

Still wondering if anyone would like to comment on the use of the term "rejection of God" (see the youtube video linked) or otherwise comment on "
Now, what about others who are not 'friends, family and other loved ones'?"

Is it always about power? What about the reaction to perceived rejection?

Believe this video is from a perspective of a certain type of Atheist.

An Atheist who needs, for some internal reason, to diminish Theists.

Why some Atheists need to attack Theists rejection, and some Theists need to attack Atheists rejection. Is their individual internal problems.

There may be truth to your first sentence. I have watched 10-20 of his videos but do not entirely know where he's coming from. Nonetheless, the question is whether there psychological validity to his argument.

Furthermore, for those atheists that were believers previously, think of the amazing promises made by theists: we can handle, eventually, no Easter Bunny, no Santa, no tooth fairy. But if there's no eternal life as promised (for example), why would someone not be a bit mad at the biggest lie ever told?

Now here is a good reason for governments to rid themselves of religion.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

Now here is a good reason for governments to rid themselves of religion.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

Considering the tea party hardly a surprise.

---

Still wondering if anyone would like to comment on the use of the term "rejection of God" (see the youtube video linked) or otherwise comment on "
Now, what about others who are not 'friends, family and other loved ones'?"

Is it always about power? What about the reaction to perceived rejection?

Believe this video is from a perspective of a certain type of Atheist.

An Atheist who needs, for some internal reason, to diminish Theists.

Why some Atheists need to attack Theists rejection, and some Theists need to attack Atheists rejection. Is their individual internal problems.

There may be truth to your first sentence. I have watched 10-20 of his videos but do not entirely know where he's coming from. Nonetheless, the question is whether there psychological validity to his argument.

Furthermore, for those atheists that were believers previously, think of the amazing promises made by theists: we can handle, eventually, no Easter Bunny, no Santa, no tooth fairy. But if there's no eternal life as promised (for example), why would someone not be a bit mad at the biggest lie ever told?

Good question.

My perspective:

Leaving out the fear of eternal nothingness (Death). A certain percentage of Humans (perhaps majority), have a need to 'Believe' in something better and greater than themselves.

We also see this, in Non-Religious - Secular Ideology. People marching and waving Mao's Little Red Book, and Goose Stepping people chanting Sieg Heil.

How many of these people really Believe. Or, for their personal protection, say they Believe. Is an interesting question.

I can ask the same question about Religious Cultures.

As I have said many times. I am an Atheist to both Religion and Ideology. Believing they both serve the same need.

Upon further reflection, regarding the "author" of the video I provided a link to: I know he can be very sarcastic. I suspect something may have happened that he is at least a bit bitter about.

I suspect his videos are for those on the edge of agnosticism/atheism or those recently having decided on atheism. Though I may be projecting.

About a year ago I stumbled on his videos and those of many others: Aron-Ra, Dusty Smith, Jaclyn Glenn, King CrocoDuck, Steve Shives, TheThinkingAtheist and Thunderf00t among them. (Links can be provided.)

I find it very hard to believe that, whatever their experiences and approaches, that we can simply call everything they say "attacks" and lump them (as Michel has) into the "Dawkins' trolls", Each of them may have some "piece of the truth" (as I say about many of us here, as well). I would rather have the discussions, what's good and bad in what they say? In what we say here? What, if anything, can we agree upon here?

Now here is a good reason for governments to rid themselves of religion.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

I'm surprised they were able to find 27.6% non-religious children around the world. Not because of the numbers, but because they'd find that many parents and children willing to admit it so openly.

I suspect they did not control for "first generation non-religious" versus two or more generations. Whether this produces any difference in a replication of the study could be interesting.

Put another way: for millenia, it's been difficult to be a non-believer let alone admit being one and I suspect the percent of non-believers relative to the world population has been very small until the past century. And just where the ... ahem ... h311 ... did the non-believing children come from? Parents that until recently believed or a few generations back non-belief began. Perhaps a fair percentage of those moving to non-belief were those a bit more moral/ethical to begin with, regardless of the influence of religious beliefs on them?

Now here is a good reason for governments to rid themselves of religion.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

I'm surprised they were able to find 27.6% non-religious children around the world. Not because of the numbers, but because they'd find that many parents and children willing to admit it so openly.

I suspect they did not control for "first generation non-religious" versus two or more generations. Whether this produces any difference in a replication of the study could be interesting.

Put another way: for millenia, it's been difficult to be a non-believer let alone admit being one and I suspect the percent of non-believers relative to the world population has been very small until the past century. And just where the ... ahem ... h311 ... did the non-believing children come from? Parents that until recently believed or a few generations back non-belief began. Perhaps a fair percentage of those moving to non-belief were those a bit more moral/ethical to begin with, regardless of the influence of religious beliefs on them?

Also look at the countries where the study was performed. If you compare Muslims to Christians, you might get different answers because all the Muslims come from Turkey and Jordan while all the Christians are from South Africa, America and Canada and all the secular kids from China. Perhaps the country of origin and their somewhat wildly varying cultures somewhat colors the answers children give?

Now here is a good reason for governments to rid themselves of religion.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

I'm surprised they were able to find 27.6% non-religious children around the world. Not because of the numbers, but because they'd find that many parents and children willing to admit it so openly.

I suspect they did not control for "first generation non-religious" versus two or more generations. Whether this produces any difference in a replication of the study could be interesting.

Put another way: for millenia, it's been difficult to be a non-believer let alone admit being one and I suspect the percent of non-believers relative to the world population has been very small until the past century. And just where the ... ahem ... h311 ... did the non-believing children come from? Parents that until recently believed or a few generations back non-belief began. Perhaps a fair percentage of those moving to non-belief were those a bit more moral/ethical to begin with, regardless of the influence of religious beliefs on them?

Have you looked at the figures for the US?

Have a look at what the Pew Research Centre has found.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/age-distribution/

Their young group is from 18 - 29 but even there, those that believe to any extent are now down to 81%.

What you get when governments allow freedom of religions and speech.

Preacher Kevin Swanson

Their young group is from 18 - 29 but even there, those that believe to any extent are now down to 81%.

Down?

That is a huge percentage.

This anti-religion (Christian), suicidal attack against Religion in Government, Business, Public Displays, etc.

May result in 'Unintended Consequences'.

Just this Practical Atheist's belief.

It is down compared to the older age groups, and if you extrapolate the figures down to the next generation we could see figures lower than 60% having any belief.