The Lord is my Co-Pilot?

Color me confused.

Ok, what's so hard to understand guys? The original poster stated in no uncertain terms that the "God" in "In God we trust" refers to a Christian God. I'm saying, no, it doesn't, regardless of how people are using it.

Is there some kind of vagueness here? Am I not writing in comprehensible English? What's up? I know that wasn't the gist of his argument, but it's no less a valid point.

He could be saying that his only point was that "God" refers to the God of Abraham common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Which is comprehensible but irrelevant. Or he could be saying that the phrase is understood as promoting established religion but isn't really promoting an established religion even though it is understood as such, which is relevant without being comprehensible.

EDIT - Note that this was written prior to the previous post.

but later he said this:

So why nitpick? I guess that's why I'm confused. But it's OK, you've stated your position. I vote for moving on.

edited: damn my spelling sucks today

We're getting warmer. It doesn't refer to any god in particular, and if we assume that it does, we're only legitimizing those that say it does.

Because by blatantly assuming that it's referring to the God of any one religion, we're helping those that want to establish that religion.

Is it a stupid phrase? Yes. I don't know who this "we" is, nor who this "God" dude is, but I don't want any part of it. Despite being our official national motto, it's a stupid one. I'd much rather have "E pluribus unum", which I think perfectly represents exactly what this country is.

Then I'm guessing you're for changing the national motto?

To protect the world from devastation!

To rape the worlds natural resources.
I mean...
To protect...

I'm for thinking the current national motto is lame, but I'm also for thinking there are more important things to be legislating than national mottos.

No offense, but then your objection doesn't really carry that much force. But that's neither here nor there. Also, I'm done with this conversation. It's going nowhere.

My main objection is that this is a silly argument. When we point out and argue about things as stupid as what our national motto is, it is to the detriment of things that are actually worth talking about. Subjects like this are the reason a majority of otherwise moderate free thinking Americans loathe us commie-pinko liberals and therefore many legitimate ideas we stand for are brushed aside without merit.

The correct response is "To unite all peoples within our nation!"

Google it.

lol...I got responses from Pokemon mottos to Jesse Jame's rocket bike club or whatever motto, but I have a feeling it's something more insidious.

Nope. That's the one. It'd still be an improvement.

I don't know if you're talking about an actual license plate but if you are- that's turtle money. When they offer tags like that (i.e. the salmon plate in Oregon) the money goes to the cause. If everytime someone elected to get one of the God plates, money was donated to a religious organization, that would be an apt comparison. As it stands, I don't see how it's any different than having In God We Trust on our currency.

Um, I wasn't being serious about denying the turtles my money, and I'm obviously aware that's where the money is going. The essence of my point was that they should have to pay extra to have a non-standard plate not that all plates should be free. Where the money goes I don't care. Basically, you have the standard plate, all others should cost extra.

To be clear, I'm not taking issue with the fact the IGWT is on the plate, just the fact that it's free. Donate bastards! And they claim it's to show your patriotism, so the money could go to the state VA association or whatever, ya know? Same with the turtles and salmon.

Yeah, I don't know how I could have gotten confused about that.

It's called context, but I still love you.

So are you claiming sarcasm now? Those seem like two completely contradictory statements. Why don't you quit the patronizing virtual head-patting and explain what the context was that I missed.

Really, enlighten me. And see if you can keep from intoning that dismissive sweetheart vibe.

Yes, that's exactly what the original comment was--sarcasm (that's precisely what it I meant by "context"). I'm so very sorry, I didn't mean to offend. And for the record, I didn't mean to be condescending. I thought we were friends. I was just trying to be friendly. Wow, so very sorry... really, I am.