You don't know any court cases relating to Atheists or gays???Don't you read the news?I can think of a few with out even looking...

Gays suing the state for recent prop 8 victory


Atheists go to court to get "In god we trust of the money"

Atheists sue to have Anti Christmas sign displayed in Olympia

Atheists go to court to get "One nation under God" removed from pledge of allengance.

Atheists sue to remove prayer before football games.

Atheists lawsuit in Canada to ban churches from preaching anti homosexual sermons.Canada now considers anti homosexual church sermons "hate speech" and is forbidden.

Violence against a gay person carries additional years in jail as a hate crime.

Atheists sue to keep any mention of Jesus Christ in Obama's swearing in.

Crossdressing gay man sues company saying company would not allow him to use female restroom.

Atheists sue to get 10 commandments removed from courthouse.

I could go on and on.

Atheists go to court to get "In god we trust off the money"

Please find a link for that one in particular. I would be interested as the phrase "In God We Trust" on money is rooted in Ceremonial Deism and there is nothing to indicate that the 'god' they are referring to is Christian in origin. The only complaint I could see the Atheists having is that the word "god" is there at all. That is not a grievance with Christianity itself.

There is a whole website for it.


http://www.godoffmoney.com/

And the moron who started the lawsuit

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47387

in case you say that it is some right wing Christian website

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103424/

"Why does the phrase "in God we trust" appear on our currency? It is unconstitutional, offensive to a variety of individuals, and unnecessarily entangles church and state. As the web site www.godoffmoney.com points out, The United States is a country with a secular government and a citizenry consisting of a multitude of different beliefs. The wall of separation between church and state must be upheld. It is time for that phrase to be removed."

That is an excerpt from their letter. My personal opinion on this is that it makes sense from the standpoint of an Atheist and I can certainly have sympathy for their cause, however the phrase "In God We Trust" is not linked with the Christian interpretation of a godhead. This is what the phrase is defined as.

Ceremonial deism is a legal term used in the United States for nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. Proposed examples of ceremonial deism include the reference to God introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

So in that case, the phrase is not very worrisome to me on any personal level. However for an Atheist, who wants NOTHING to do with even the concept of a creator, then that would be offensive to them. I think it is a lot of hoopla over nothing and they could certainly be putting their efforts into other issues of more import in my opinion but they have EVERY right to peacefully petition for their their concerns to be heard.

Woudnt you agree?

The oldest book in existance,The Holy Bible,is an open book for those of you who think that "Freedom" is life on earth as we know it.True freedom is knowing that when we leave this place we will be "free". Those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior will never know what that freedom is.The bible is where to find the answer to any question you may have.Fellowship with other Christians is where you find the answers to getting on the right path to finding the only "freedom" you will ever need.

This country was founded on "In God We Trust", before any of the other "religions" ever came to be living here in our great country.It should be upheld and those who come here should understand that we, as American citizens, do not want our morals and values changed to suit anyone.

This country was founded by Deists.

Article 11 Taken from the Treaty with Tripoli

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

excellent example

I reactivated my account to respond to a few posts.

Free will is free will. There can be no free will if there is an almighty God who promises that the punishment for "sin" (obedience) is death, and by that law, demands unquestionable obedience. ("Sin" is disobedience of God and the "wages of "sin" is death, according to the Bible.)

There is not much free will with that kind of mentality.

If it were true, (and it's not) then humans would have to see if they can find out what God's laws are from the writings of old scripture, a so-called book inspired by God, written by men, two thousand years ago. God himself did not write the Bible. Men wrote it. Now humans all have different ideas of what is "sin" and what is not "sin."

So if Christians want to preach God's law (and what they think it is) that is okay with me, but they can't also go around claiming that people have "free will" under that law.

They should shut up about "free will" because they don't have any. They gave it back. To them, free will is the choice to become an obedient servant of a God or go to hell with the rest of the non-believers.

I believe in free will to direct your own life in every moment. This does not mean that I think "free will" is to choose to "sin" or break laws or be a criminal. (But those are among the options.)

The law of attraction and the law of cause and effect are the true laws of God and they will insure that you pay the consequences of your actions without the unnecessary threat of hell.

A person who practice "free will" is one who directs his own life, makes his own decisions, decides what is right and wrong, pays for his own crimes, accepts responsibility for his own actions, and keeps his own council. He (or she) is the final authority where it comes to their life. They do not look to a higher authority for their final decisions where their life and how they live it is concerned.

They learn from others and they seek self mastership. They do not follow a master, obey a God, or worship a deity other than their own spiritual essence.

They save themselves. They would not allow another to die for their crimes in their place as Christianity teaches that Jesus did.

If Jesus died to save humanity, he did so with no strings attached. That is unconditional love.

Now humanity is left to make its own choices, to live or to die. To love or to hate. To create or destroy. There are no strings or requirements. There is only the law of attraction and the law of cause and effect.

You will reap what you sow no matter what religion you are, or even if you are an atheist. You still create your own reality, and you still reap the consequences of your actions. Religion has nothing to do with that. The Law is in place. It is not a written law of right and wrong, its a scientific law of cause and effect.

I said I did not know of any court cases that "intrude" on others or the rights of others. How do these cases intrude on others?

Most of them are attempts to stop Christian or Deist intrusion into the lives of atheists or non Christians, or attempts to receive equal rights under the law.


1. ~I agree that "In God we trust" should be taken off the money. Good for them. This does not intrude into any lives.

2. ~I think gays should be able to get married. Let them me just a miserable at the rest of the married people.

3. If Olympia allows Christmas signs and decorations they should allow atheist signs too. And any other kind of religious belief to display their signs and symbols too.

4. "One nation under God" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance.

5. Violence against gays should be a hate crime if the motive is found to be hate prejudice against gays.

6. The name "Jesus" (or Allah, or Rah or the Spaghetti monster god) has no place in the swearing in of Obama or any president.

7. If a person is dressed as a woman, and living as a woman and looks like a woman, that person should be allowed in a woman's restroom. Unless you want to pass a law that three kinds of restrooms be available. Man, woman, and other. That would be good.

8. The ten commandments have no place on a court house lawn!


It is a shame that it takes an "atheist" who has to waste their time and money suing to prevent this kind of blatant Religion sanctioned government.

If you want a government that is run by religion, you should go to a Muslim country. There you will have it.

Here is the real information about in god we trust on money:


http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

So true.

If Christians want to put their hatred and bigotry into law let them start their own country.

The very first thing they would discover is that no two Christians will agree on what the laws should be. They would instantly start fighting among themselves in the name of God.

That's all they ever do. They fight and argue in the name of God.

They have no clue what "Brotherly Love" even means.

What societal woes have gays brought on you, Quick? You got gays knocking on your door trying to convert you? Shutter!!! Please describe the 'special' rights you think we want?

And what government funding has the gay community asked for that is something different than what you already have?

You do a fine impression of control freak yourself.

You say that this is a 'scientific law' but the so-called "Law of Attraction" as proposed by motivational speakers has never been scientifically established. On the contrary we see counter examples all the time.

We see examples of people being harmed who have done nothing to cause that affect.

The classic example is a young innocent boy or girl being raped and murdered. There are a myriad of other less dramatic examples all around us every day.

The way that this so-called "Law of Attraction" could be valid is if it includes a concept of reincarnation to suggest that appearent 'causes' could have existed before these people were born.

I think there is plenty to say for the established scientific laws of cause and effect. In other words, if you shot yourself in your foot you will indeed cause damage to your foot.

However, if someone else shoots you in the food damage will still occur even though you were not the cause of it.

Cause and effect are pretty obvious in many things that we do. But that's no reason to conclude that we are the cause of everything that happens to us. That just hasn't been shown to be true, and it most certainly hasn't been 'scientifically' established.

What motivational speakers refer to as the "Law of Attraction" is not a scientifically established law by far.

It's just a philosophical guess that can't be proven. And in that sense it's just another faith-based ideal.

It may or may not be true, but would clearly require a concept of reincarnation to be a valid law.

Ultimately you were part of the "cause of it." There is always cause at work and if you are involved in the effect of any cause you are partly responsible for it.

"Fault" and "consequences" are not the same thing Abra.

If you had not left your loaded gun on the table your pet chimp would not have picked it up and shot you in the foot with it.

If you had not been hanging around with a bunch of drunk cowboys you probably would not have been shot in foot with one of their guns.

If you had not been showing your nephew how to load the gun he probably would not have shot you in the foot.

If you and your partners in crime had not been robbing the bank the guard probably would not have shot you in the foot.

There is ALWAYS CAUSE. If you are involved, you are in some way, PART OF THE CAUSE.

This is my opinion, and I know you disagree. I say that this is an exacting and highly precise and very complex set of laws. Too complex to ever be proven to your satisfaction.

You want to go around with the belief that there are accidents, and victims and perpetrators and good guys and bad guys. Yes there are. But there is always cause involved.

Even the most freak "accidents" have a cause. If lightning strikes a tree and the tree falls on your head, you are partly responsible for not having sense enough come in out of the rain.

You are not AT FAULT, you are simply paying the consequences for your decisions.

Once again though, that would not explain the "consequence" of being BORN with some sort of issue. We have been over this...there is such a thing as RANDOM OCCURANCE in which our actions do not directly manifest consequence..

Yes I agree. But I am not speaking simply of "actions." I believe that we live in a thought universe. The slightest thought can change an event.

I am fully aware of all of the "impossible to explain" things and experiences that beset any soul who incarnates into this reality. For every decision they make, for every thought they think, there are consequences however large or small.

The cause behind "random occurrences" is so complex that you can honestly call it "random" because it will never be known by science or human consciousness. These causes will never be known. So call it random. But there are still quantum causes at work in everything and randomness is, in my opinion, the result of the will of every individual. By "individual" I mean any thinking creature, and any programed responses that become part of cause.

There are way to many people on this earth to think that each one is solely responsible for everything that happens to them.

You can always put a if to everything that you do but other ifs can also affect your own certainty.

I did not say that each one is "soley" responsible for everything that happens to them.

I said that each person is partly responsible for everything that happens to them, and that if they are involved in an effect, then they are partly responsible for the cause.