"Listen close, I will not repeat myself"

This is an exchange over a friend's link posting. I've included his original post.

For those of you who have heard my webcam story, Robert was the guy who threw the "party"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert

That's right, do everything you can to get God out of your lives and off of your dirty money. But then when catastrophe strikes and your world caves in around you, ironically, who do you go whining to? Who is it that you beg for mercy?

God doesn't forget these things although he still loves you despite your arrogant ignorance.

In God ...I trust with my life,
Robert Welch

High court again asked to rule on 'In God We Trust'

www.azcentral.com

High court again asked to rule on 'In God We Trust', WASHINGTON - California attorney and dedicated atheist Michael Newdow is making another run at ''In God We Trust,'' with a new Supreme Court petition challenging the national motto.

3 hours ago

• • Emily Watson

    The separation of church & state is a major part of this country's identity & is its key to true individual freedom but Christianity still has a heavy, and in the eyes of many an unwelcome, hand in government. I do not trust in any god, let alone a Christian god and while I'm not bothered by the phrase appearing on money, it is a move that I feel needs to be made if we ever hope to honor the Constitution & fully sever church from state.
    
    Freedom of religion includes freedom from it.
    
    You don't need "In God we trust" on your money to maintain your faith and it's unfair to Americans who don't subscribe to monotheism to have the government salute it. At the same time, there's no loss of faith by removing it. It doesn't mean people believe any less it just means we believe in the Constitution & equality more than we used to which is good.

    
    

    2 hours ago
    
    
  • Dean

    There is a big differance between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. The constitution grants us freedom of religion and a seperation of church and state. For those of you that are to stupid to know the true meening of those list...en close, I will not repeat myself.
    
    Freedom of religion. As American citizens we are free to warship the God of our choice, or none at all.
    
    Seperation of church and state. Congreess may pass no laws restricting ones freedom of religion.
    
    In God we trust on our money, 10 commandments in courthouses, nativity scenes and other such in NO WAY violate either.
    
    You have a right to offend me with your views, you also have a right to be offended by mine.

    
    

    48 minutes ago ·
    
  • Emily Watson

    I disagree but this is an interpretation issue. I see the endorsement of monotheism on our money and in our courthouses as a violation of the separation of church and state. While the First Amendment states simply "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" the meaning of "establishment of religion" can be applied to the money/court issue by suggesting that the "In God We Trust" motto (and therefore our government who put it there) endorses monotheistic religions.
    
    I also feel that "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion" are almost the same when it comes to this topic. I believe you might have misinterpreted my definition of "freedom from religion" though. What I mean is not that I should be shielded from any type of religion (an unrealistic idea and unfair to believers to expect them to worship in hiding), but rather that my government and everything that comes down to me from it should be free of religious imagery, endorsement or obligation.
    
    I'm sorry if you're offended by my views but I cannot afford you the same courtesy. I understand that there is no right or wrong answer here and therefore I am not offended by views that differ from my own. Since this is a matter that has no definitive right or wrong answer, the proper way to handle it is to appeal to the court system to make that decision by weighing its validity based on interpretation of the Constitution, as interpretation of the law is the Judicial branch's entire purpose. Whichever side loses the final battle needs to understand that the system worked as intended, whether they like it or not.
    
    I'm also sorry that you felt it necessary to not only resort to personal insults in your response but that you felt so strongly about needing to insult that you stuck it in the first paragraph. There's a certain irony to you calling me stupid (you can pretend you didn't mean me but you were retorting to no other) in a response laden with spelling errors on words we learned in 4th grade. Perhaps in future you will give your argument validity by not resorting to insults and instead present your case with respect, as I did mine.

    
    

    7 minutes ago