Doesn't "In God We Trust" violate the Constitution?
Isn't that a blatant violation of the First Amendment? Ignoring the fact that that nonsense only started after the Cold War, it doesn't matter when it happened, it's still a violation isn't it? It establishes a state-endorsed position on God, by saying that America, all of America, is a nation under the Christian god (it's obviously the Christian god because "God" is capitalized.) Last time I checked that was unconstitutional, no matter how many citizens are okay with it. BQ: Isn't it also a little arrogant to think that this god favors your country because you have his name on your money? If I was Christian I'd think it was pretty tacky and cheap to have God's name coated in dirt, cocaine, and stripper sweat as most dollar bills are.
Mitt romney is a mormon. explain whether his religious beliegs affect your opoion of him as a potential future?
Only a complete fool and traitor would vote for someone who makes such a big deal out of being a mormon while issuing disclaimers. Very bad news his class of massacre-mormon.
What do you think is better, Atheism or religion, and why? I personally am an atheist and I think it is more pragmatic and religion is full of nonsense.
Religion is better, in my opinion.By non-sense if you mean that their is nothing that can be perceived by the senses about God, soul, afterlife(the fundamental elements of religion) then you are right. Religion obviously is a matter of faith and faith does not depend upon sense experience.Religion gives you a moral code and ethical code and also gives you the reason to abide by it. Atheism cannot justify objective morality and there is no compelling reason for one to be moral and ethical in atheism(I am not saying that atheists are unethical or not moral).What is pragmatic is very subjective. If by pragmatic you mean that atheism allows for unhindered development in science then I think that the conflict between religion and science has been created unnecessarily by the religious clergy of all religions by extending religions to spheres it is not meant to guide, such as science.But if by non sense you mean that religious faiths such as faith in God is illogical then you are simply shooting in the dark. I believe in One God, who I think is the creator and is eternal and you don’t as you don’t accept anything beyond experience. But that is it, that is your choice, how can you call my faith in something beyond experience as ridiculous, you are passing judgment on something you haven’t experienced, that’s absurd and if I may, that’s utter NON SENSE!!!
Abortion position paper?
My opinion of this essay depends alot on what grade level your in. If it's middle school, you're probably OK. High school level would require a little more substance and evidence, plus the structure seems a little tangental, jumping from idea to idea without a clear path. You seem to understand the core arguments, but I'd be more inclined to focus on one angle - perhaps the "viability" argument is a good one, since it was fundamental to the Roe v. Wade decision. Viability in 1973 was completely different from what scientists understand as viable today. How does that difference in science affect the law, and why does science affect the law at all in the first place? These are compelling issues.
What is a current situation in the world in which at least one of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights is
Campaign finance reform legislation comes to mind.
Same-sex marriage: freedom of religion?
Marriage concerns ALL people. Not just ones who profess any specific religious belief. Certain religious organizations, for example the catholic church, complain that THEIR "religious freedom" is in danger by the civil authorities allowing same sex marriage, which they "believe" is immoral. But when they claim that only their belief system guide our civil laws, their religious freedom unjustly requires the discrimination of others and the curtailment of their civil rights under the law. They absolutely refuse to allow ANY OTHER person with a differing religious belief to be allowed THEIR "religious freedom" IF this would include gay marriage. Quite arrogant and totally hypocritical. And typical. We must understand that "religious freedom" is in no way absolute. Especially when it is merely a facade for persecution and unjust discrimination. Or when it brings harm to other people. There ARE those in this country who believe that gay marriage is totally acceptable. And many religious institutions support this concept. Why should some religious institutions be allowed to prevail in the arena of civil law while other institutions be ignored? The answer is that our government may NOT choose one particular religion over another. But it MUST protect the civil rights of ALL people -- even gay people who wish to marry the person they love.
Why not make America only for Christians, if Israel is only for Jews and Saudi Arabia only for Muslims?
Hi Robert, why would we make America only for Christians? I know nowadays there's references to your god everywhere, my home state for example has the phrase “In God we trust" on the flag, license plates, in every classroom and many other places, and of course after some time there were references to God on money, and in the Pledge, both pf which didn't originally have that. The founders of this country though, not all of them were even Christians, and even the ones who were probably would be appalled by some of those things I mentioned and definitely would be against us officially establishing a cointry religion. But hey, we've been ignoring the Constitution for awhile now about the religion thing, maybe you'll get your wish? It seems to be slowly, but unofficially, happening anyway. If you want to spead it up, try using war and fear of people with different beliefs, the latest Boogeyman is Muslims, so maybe use them if you really want to try. Or you know, prove your god even exists, or have him show himself and just make the entire world stop fighting over it. But I guess that would be too easy?