Mittens goes non sequitur - again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/jay-carney-mitt-romney-god-currency_n_1...

In god we trust was first put on American currency in 1863 by the "Yankees" at the time to make the point that the north was on the side of angels and the south on the side of Satan in the uncivil war - the south being slavers and all.

Even though I am an atheist and live in the south I approved of the "in your face" gesture. As Carney said, when has Obama advised the removal of god from our coins?

So now god has become just a political football? Does it have any other uses?

Also - it is my understanding that Rmoney believes in the wrong god. So why is he bringing the subject up? Seems to me he would be well advised to avoid religion as a political topic, since it is Obama who is the christian here and thus a part of a vast American majority.

I think it's blasphemous to put God on the money in the first place. And it puts an odd twist on the story of the tribute money.

They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Yes, well, most christians don't read the bible, are ignorant of what's in the bible and thus it pretty much doesn't matter what is in the bible. E.g., their preachers could quote Shakespeare to them next Sunday instead of the bible and 90 per cent wouldn't know the difference.

The fact that some christians think putting the name of god on money is blasphemous and a great many others think it a tribute and get their panties in a wad if someone recommends taking it off - it just goes to show. Show what - I'm not sure.

Although the motto 'In God we Trust' was indeed first put on currency in 1863, it wasn't universally applied until 1954.

Which means, despite failing to praise God on Mammon's tokens, we managed to survive two world wars and several severe economic collapses.

Taking a wild guess, perhaps God is more concerned with actual deeds than repetitive praise.

God is preoccupied elsewhere.

God @TheTweetOfGod
I am going to go out of My way to make sure Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively have ugly, ugly children. #IAmAJealousGod

~3

A remarkably moderate and true set of observations.

>3 JGL53:

If the preacher sticks to phrases like:

This above all: to thine own self be true,
For ever and a day,
Pray you now, forget and forgive,
Now, God be praised, that to believing souls gives light in darkness, comfort in despair,

then everyone should toddle off home quite happy. For

God has given you one face, and you make yourself another,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

> 7 "...The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

Not just the devil - pretty much everyone can. And does.

>8 JGL53:: Yes, perhaps they can. I was just citing Shakespeare.

> 9

Yes you were. And why would you point out the obvious? That's a waste of time, not to mention electrons.

Just in case anyone thought that I might be doing what "pretty much everyone can", and citing scripture. As you said in #3, "90 per cent wouldn't know the difference".

> 11

You think 90 per cent of the people who post on this forum wouldn't know if a particular quote was from the bible or from Shakespeare?

I would like to think that per cent would be much lower.

But maybe you're right. E.g., there's been a preacher here who argued with me - an atheist - over whether a particular quote I gave was in the bible. I was right, as any fool couldand can discern just by looking it up.

So, again, maybe you're right.

>12 JGL53:: Many of the people who post on this forum would know the difference, but there are a silent majority who read the threads and do not post, as I do with many topics. And given that 75 per cent of statistics are made up on the spot, I'm not going to argue the point.