For example, we have evidence that Jesus was actually a person (regardless of whether or not you believe he was the Son of God), we (Catholics) can also trace our history and our lineage of Popes all the way back to the apostles, over 2,000-plus years of history.

That sounds like some pretty darn strong evidence if you ask me.

Haha – you’re not serious!? The fact that we have a record of who the Popes were is a reason to believe in God?

Perhaps because the Politburo has a record of past Party Chairmen right back to the founding of the Party, maybe that’s “pretty darn strong evidence” too of the essential Truth of their doctrines as well?

Hey, I really appreciate the obviously sincere offer to get proselytized one on one, but I’m going to pass for now.

I’m very secular. Extremely so. I don’t believe religion should play any part in the motivation of our government. I think our government exists to serve us as a whole people, not to serve the interests of a particular subset over those of another.

As secular as I am, I recognize the origins of my nation, its heritage and traditions. I take pride in them.

ACHefty put it well with his opening statement in comment #1.

National Motto. Deal with it.

One has become super-sensitive to anything with God in it. And quite frankly, what I think doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord.

I guess, if someone thinks its divisive I should agree and go about my way.

Divisiveness is an issue in this country and we have a long way to go before we are all singing Kum Ba Yah. However, I for one believe that the very thing that can bring us all together is the very thing that you nad others claim is tearing us apart.

Do you believe that a loyal American would not be able to repeat that motto because they truly do not believe in God?

If you feel that that situation may happen, than it is in fact divisive because you would also have to agree that believing in God is not what makes an American an American.

It is divisive because it splits loyal Americans into a group that supports the statement and a group that does not. Earlier you said that someone who believes differently than you is not a lesser American, but if their beliefs make them unable to, in good faith, repeat the national motto or pledge of allegance, what exactly does that make them?

If you feel that the above situation can never happen, well, I guess you’re right. We are never going to agree.

I didn’t know what your handle meant…

You said it yourself that the issue you have is with any religion being a focal point:

But 30pcs, it’s not Christianity that’s offensive. If Islam were more popular, it would be Islam. If Judiasm was more popular, it would be judiasm. What’s offensive about the motto is that if you do not believe in it, by definition, you are less of an American. By definition. You do see why some would be opposed to that, yes?

So, Christianity isn’t the only religion in your rhetorical crosshairs… How then are we to find common ground? You say take it out and I say keep it.

I don’t see the divisiveness of it. Not being disengenuous, just my opinion.

Let’s be honest here no matter which angle or position I take, I don’t think we are going to agree…

Ad hominen attacks, what?

I think you’re being a bit disingenuous. I believe that you do know why people might be offended, but you either don’t agree with that reason or feel that should just suck it up, both legitimate positions. But you definitely know why people may be offended.

Regarding my handle, it’s simply two randomly picked letters followed by the first word I thought of that sounded good with it. M-P-Chops. What’d you think it meant?

And what’s all this talk about filling some void? Where the hell did that come from? I think you’re completely missing my point.

My point is that the phrase alienates a segment of the citizenship. The country was founded on the principle of majority control and minority rights(in principle. Practice has been completely different). I, as an American, have a right not to trust in God. So when the motto of my country is “In God We Trust”, that motto may not speake for me and I may not be able defend that motto(or pledge allegiance to it). It causes an unneeded division since it’s really not a principle of the country and merely a description of the times during its founding.

You’re basically defending it by appealing to tradition, which is a pretty weak defense.

And can we please stop the ad hominem attacks. I believe in God. The Dr. Phil routine is cute but off base.

I’ve been wondering why, if we live in a democratic republic and all of our elections are decided on the will of the majority, the courts seem to think the majority needs to bend to the will of one?

One reason is the founders were very suspect of government, even a democratically elected government, stepping on the liberty of citizens and amassing power for itself. The 3 branches are important for checks and balances.

The court may overreach, but its role is to make sure the “Constitutional” part of the “Constitutional Democracy” is supported.

I wish you didn’t feel like you were less of an American. I don’t know your religion of choice but I would hope that it could fill whatever void you have. If it helps at all (and hopefully you do not fit this description), my definition of someone who is a lesser American is someone who denigrates America, our troops, etc… Someone who chooses to believe differently than I do is not a lesser American. This country is great and anyone who is willing to admit that, is ok with me.

I do know that no one likes to feel like they are in the minority. And if this is how you feel, there isn’t much I can say to change that. I do understand your position, however, I respectfully disagree with it, if you are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.

Instead of having some left wing judge decide this stuff, hold a local election and let the will of the people decide.

In this case, next time this school board is up for reelection, this vote should be foremost in the minds of the voters.

All of these things were in schools and in government prior to and that didn’t seem hinder anyone from turning to Atheism or any other religion for that matter. So, I am confused by the need to change things like this that are deemed petty and ridiculous on the face of it.

I think “Under God” defines the whole world…but that’s my two cents.

But 30pcs, it’s not Christianity that’s offensive. If Islam were more popular, it would be Islam. If Judiasm was more popular, it would be judiasm. What’s offensive about the motto is that if you do not believe in it, by definition, you are less of an American. By definition. You do see why some would be opposed to that, yes?

But 30pcs, it’s not Christianity that’s offensive. If Islam were more popular, it would be Islam. If Judiasm was more popular, it would be judiasm. What’s offensive about the motto is that if you do not believe in it, by definition, you are less of an American. By definition. You do see why some would be opposed to that, yes?

What exactly would you have been offended about if the vote did not past? Do you think the statement accurately describes the United States of America, or should be used as a description of this country?

What exactly would you have been offended about if the vote did not past? Do you think the statement accurately describes the United States of America, or should be used as a description of this country?

I still don’t know why Christianity is so offensive. Or maybe I do but I just don’t understand how it could be. To each his own…