You know...You don't have to see a movie when you don't feel like it or know you're not going to like it.
This violates so many "freedom of"s that it makes me rage. Besides, how can you prove that someone is "intentionally causing outrage"? This really is stupidity taken to a whole new level.
I've decided to lie low for now. I understand that there is nothing "wrong" with removing the phrase from the coins, theoretically. It's probably something we need to see for ourselves. If the change does make it past those conservative gung-ho's you'll have it removed and I'll keep close track of the differences it will make. Depending on how smoothly it will go and the quotes that make it to the Belgian papers I'll either think "Glad it went this well." or "Holy crap there are a bunch of nutcases with high positions in the US!". And I won't be the only one. Your reputation, despite the bill having passed, can still be affected either way. Risky thing when it's the main reason you're even bothering with this. There's no way for me of knowing how it would go though. My knowledge of US politics is nearly naught. Note that the debate hasn't even started up yet though. Perhaps no one wants to risk his/her career over this. If such would really be the reason, then the fact that there's still a risk to it should tell you whether the US is really ready for the debate. But that's of course but a humble hunch. But I promise I'll congratulate you all when the bill does pass. Stupid analogy. In your example you narrow the participation in the poll down to only teens. Your statistics would be biased. But if so many people are disagreeing, then how do you know you're doing the right thing? Not that I completely disagree with you, but it's a risky motto to live out. Well said.
Youth club. Had a class reunion there. It was pretty cool. The whole countdown thing was kinda disappointing because I received a text message...
Speaking of New Year's Eve; what are your plans?
I was in such a good mood today that I was going to rep the first person to post a good reply in this thread. :) But sadly, nobody qualifies. Not even me.
Congratulations. You're a geek.
But you said later in your post that it's not the action of the removal that counts. The "message" (which people with a sliver of common sense know is outdated) on the bills sounds about as culturally significant as the monarchy. Just save yourself the frustration and think of the conservative message It's not a better example by the way. Would the sword even cause a discussion? There are those with mild religious beliefs as well as strong atheists. Also, a religious holiday isn't exactly the same as reciting the pledge. I repeat my point, and I'll use short and simple words doing so. The. Church. Isn't. Tainting. The. State. More. Now. Than. It. Will. When. You. Do. Make. The. Change. You aren't going to lessen the amount of Christians, let alone conservative ones by erasing a remnant of history. Nor are you going to weaken the church's power because it has been crippled by events far more significant than removing a sentence in the US currency. You might set a standard for future changes but somewhere you'll find yourself at a dead end. Take the currency, the pledge and some other minor alterations and you're stuck. Nothing that would actually matted in my eyes. It's actually laughable that you believe that you're actually going to reduce religious conservatives this way. It really is. Besides, why would you want to send a message? To attract immigrants to the US? Believe me, the ones who are willing to adapt will come, message or no. And the ones who don't...Would you even want them to come to the US? In what way? To anything, ranging from the economy to relationships with foreign countries.
Making four Shrek movies was the plan in the beginning though. I don't think it counts as milking if they stick to the original idea...If they stick to the original plan (the Christmas special has made me worry).
But that attempt to turn the US into a Christian nation didn't connect long enough to be alive today. Now it too has become a part of history. A lot has changed in those 50 years. Guardian_Soul said it's not required to recite the pledge (in most cases). Yet a lot people still do it with the reference to God, and how many people care? You won't see many atheists refusing to recite it because of the reasons you guys mention. They're being a good sport and know it has no meaning to them. I think the word I'm really looking for here is "maturity". You're only thinking of the process itself. There's a lot to be done before it can even start: proposals have to be discussed and approved which can drag on if some conservative Christians decide to be stubborn. Heck if they shout loud enough their quotes may reach foreign ears which won't help America's(false) reputation as a Christian nation. Of course I'll choose your side when the debate eventually arises. I'm just not too eager to commence it since the discussion could kick up a cloud of frustration, plus I don't see it making much of a difference when you do win the plight. It was the church messing with the state's affairs. Now it's a part of history. And history and culture are ever so closely linked, in fact one is part of the other. It's arguable whether it's happened "only 50 years ago" or "50 years ago already". Whichever it is, I'd leave it to the sands of time. These things work themselves out and I don't see the need to interfere. Wait long enough and you may get a scenario like the one Матвей охотник illustrated. Huzzah for you guys if the debate does arise and you draw the long end of the straw, but we'll see whether it will actually make a tangible difference. Because in my opinion, those are the only differences that really matter.
Don't worry. I'll wait until you can't even remember that you are in a home. I can a wait a couple of days.
You don't want your parents to know? And yeah, I know that winter break brings a lot of busy days.
I will do so soon enough. Thanks for being around and closing it.
Don't worry about it, it's dealt with now. Guess it was silence before the storm huh?
You might wanna check out the Suggestions section. Sorry for being impatient but keeping an eye on that thread is the only thing between me and a...
Piss off, geezer. Your time is up.
Nah. Spoiler I turned 20.
Nope. Try once more. Then I'll tell.
You're the one who likes guessing games don't you? Have a go.
Show me anyone who will say "I don't belong here because God is mentioned on my dollars" and I'll show you a loser. Guess it's up to us to be smarter than they were. To "see the light" and realise that it's just not worth the trouble. It won't be any easier because you seem to forget that people just don't give a ****. If you lived in America, or even if you planned to live there, would you back off or move out just because you disagree with your money? That, good sir, is what I'd find ridiculous. You seem to forget (you're pretty forgetful today, what's the matter?) that it's not an imaginary friend to some/many. Your argument is thus invalid. The religion or lack thereof that we as debators have is irrelevant (e.g. we're both atheists but I think "just leave the damn coins alone and go do something useful"). Allow me to make an analogy on something I haven't mentioned yet. We in Belgium still have a king. Hell, he even has a sword as part of his attire. Now people can be morons and call us primitive because we still have a sword-wielding king. Or they could use their brains and see that this protocol is a remnant of history and a part of our culture (granted, this is different). Culture can justify a lot of things. It can take away the discriminatory connotation to that sentence. When some non-Christian, be they Jewish, Buddhist or atheist comes up to you and says "yo mofo me no like yah dough dawg" you just go right ahead and say "Yeah, it's to remind us of those ol' days where we still had more people caring about God".
