[dawn]

I rec'd an email today that claimed that NBC took a poll and asked if people believed that in God We Trust, and the name God be included in our pledge on our money, etc. It went on to say that 86% of Americans believed that it should remain as a part of our philosophy by way of inclusion on our currency, oathes, etc. Then it went on to ask, "if 86% of Americans believe in the name of God, then why do we continue to cater as a nation to the 14%?

Weigh, I am curious.

[dusk]

I rec'd an email today that claimed that NBC took a poll and asked if people believed that in God We Trust, and the name God be included in our pledge on our money, etc. It went on to say that 86% of Americans believed that it should remain as a part of our philosophy by way of inclusion on our currency, oathes, etc. Then it went on to ask, "if 86% of Americans believe in the name of God, then why do we continue to cater as a nation to the 14%?

Weigh, I am curious.

Because that 14% of the collective wheels are squeakier than the other 86%?

Because while the 86% are watching TV and/or networking socially in the most asocial way imaginable (i.e. alone with a machine), the 14% are getting together to plan, plot, and "make it so" (aka actually doing something)?

Because God is seemingly paradoxically on the side of the 14% because the 86% self-righteously assume that muttering an occasional insincere prayer (or some similarly silly thing) is all you gotta do?

I suppose there are many explanations........

[dawn]

Because that 14% of the collective wheels are squeakier than the other 86%?

Because while the 86% are watching TV and/or networking socially in the most asocial way imaginable (i.e. alone with a machine), the 14% are getting together to plan, plot, and "make it so" (aka actually doing something)?

Because God is seemingly paradoxically on the side of the 14% because the 86% self-righteously assume that muttering an occasional insincere prayer (or some similarly silly thing) is all you gotta do?

I suppose there are many explanations........

Well, said. I am sure there are many reasons why the squeakie wheel gets the grease. Those of us who are content with the status quo have little reason to complain. The status quo is in alignment with our philosophy, real, or otherwise. I do think many people are afraid to not believe. It is the safer path to say yeah, I believe in a God as opposed to running the risk. I would hope that the 86% who are believers really believe. If that were the case then the issue would probably not come up for much discussion.

Now as for me, I rarely watch t.v., I utilize the social networking, but I am also very social, not only "asocial" at times. I get your point. Either way, it makes for great discussion.

[Dave]

I rec'd an email today that claimed that NBC took a poll and asked if people believed that in God We Trust, and the name God be included in our pledge on our money, etc. It went on to say that 86% of Americans believed that it should remain as a part of our philosophy by way of inclusion on our currency, oathes, etc. Then it went on to ask, "if 86% of Americans believe in the name of God, then why do we continue to cater as a nation to the 14%?

Weigh, I am curious.

Got a link to that poll by any chance, or is this just typical email glurge?

As for the "if 86% of Americans believe in the name of God, then why do we continue to cater as a nation to the 14%," correct me if I'm wrong. but aren't "In God We Trust" and "under God" still on our money and in the Pledge of Allegience?

Oh yeah, they are! What do you know? Where's that catering to the 14% you're talking about?

Personally, I think it's all hooey anyway. "God" isn't a name, it's a title, like "President" or "Chairman of the Board." I think there actually would be legitimate concern from citizens if the name of God was being used, because then there would be the necessity of choice.

Yahweh, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Ahriman, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu -- which name do you pick? Which name do I pick? Are they the same? If they're not, is there going to be a problem? I've been on an Egyptian mythology kick lately, I think I'll go with Apophis. You wouldn't mind having the name of my god on your money, would ya?

Or possibly we should follow the teachings of a wise man, and "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Which seems to me to be a good scriptural basis for separation of church and state. Keep your god off my money, and I'll keep mine off yours.

[Dave]

Hmm, and this claim about the NBC poll seems to be false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/godpoll.asp

NBC ran a poll asking people if they believed in God: False.

Though the article does go on to say NBC did run separate polls on the "In God We Trust" on money and "Under God" in the pledge issues, so mayhaps there is some factual basis for this.

It is also interesting that, in the example on the snopes page that the "catering to the 14%" question shows up as well.

So I'm going to assign the "email glurge" label to this with a high level of confidence.

[dawn]

Hmm, and this claim about the NBC poll seems to be false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/godpoll.asp
Though the article does go on to say NBC did run separate polls on the "In God We Trust" on money and "Under God" in the pledge issues, so mayhaps there is some factual basis for this.

It is also interesting that, in the example on the snopes page that the "catering to the 14%" question shows up as well.

So I'm going to assign the "email glurge" label to this with a high level of confidence.

And why are we so quick to trust everything Snope says, is he the new god? The world according to Snopes is exactly that...

[Dave]

And why are we so quick to trust everything Snope says, is he the new god? The world according to Snopes is exactly that...

Who ever said anything about trusting everything said on snopes.com? Not a he, incidentally, the primary person over at snopes is a woman.

But I've been a fan of snopes for a long time, and while they certainly don't claim to either be gods or speak for them, I think they're pretty trustworthy, and verifiable. At least as worthy of my trust as someone who signed up on an internet message board less than three weeks ago, about whom all I know is their user name. Oh, yeah, in interest of full disclosure, as a Moderator I also know everyone's IP address. So if you have links to reliable independent sources refuting the information on that snopes page I linked to, pony up.

Incidentally, any response to my post #4?

[dawn]

Who ever said anything about trusting everything said on snopes.com? Not a he, incidentally, the primary person over at snopes is a woman.

But I've been a fan of snopes for a long time, and while they certainly don't claim to either be gods or speak for them, I think they're pretty trustworthy, and verifiable. At least as worthy of my trust as someone who signed up on an internet message board less than three weeks ago, about whom all I know is their user name. Oh, yeah, in interest of full disclosure, as a Moderator I also know everyone's IP address. So if you have links to reliable independent sources refuting the information on that snopes page I linked to, pony up.

Incidentally, any response to my post #4?

Dave, this was with out a doubt very intimidating and completely inappropriate.

[Dave]

Dave, this was with out a doubt very intimidating and completely inappropriate.

Huh? Intimidating because I asked you to back up what you said?

Or are you referring to the IP address thing? How is it intimidating if I know if you're using AOL or Comcast? It's not like an IP address tells where your house is, for crying out loud.

Every message board has admins and moderators that can see IP addresses. It's necessary for the operation of the board. You happen to be member #981. If you look at the front page of the board, you can see that we currently have 292 registered users. The admins have banned hundreds of spammers from here already. It's helpful for them to know if a spammer is trying to register for the 13th time from a server in Singapore so they can block them, hopefully before they splatter porn links all over the site. As far as I know, banning is something admins do -- they're the "gods" on a message board, lowly moderators are just archangels.

And incidentally, if you think anyone posts something that's inappropriate, click on that little "report" button in their post, and state your objection to the post. A message will be generated which will go to all the admins and mods with your objections in it. If you do so for one of my posts, and after consideration southsider decides I did something wrong, he'll take me to the woodshed just like he would anyone else on here.

But, to get back to the subject at hand, are you going to address post #4 or not?

This post has been edited by Dave: Jan 22 2010, 01:30 AM