GOD COPS: NEW MOTTO GRACES POLICE CARS

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know I would; however, if they served a population of which the majority agreed with this sentiment; then I don't see how I could agree against them showing that they support the views of their community. 

The sticker is harmless; it's just Gilgamesh got a population spun up over it by embellishing the action. It is what he does.

I'm not personally offended by "in god we trust".  It's not that big of a deal to me.  I do see the other side being offended by "in God we don't trust" though.  I think I'm just really used to a Christian society, so it doesn't bother me as much personally.  I just think that our public servants should not be taking sides on religious topics.  I don't even want my police taking sides on political topics, really.  It doesn't have anything to do with the majority/minority to me....the police are there for the entire populace.  This small statement is inclusive toward 80% of the population....but no statement would be inclusive toward 100%.

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know I would; however, if they served a population of which the majority agreed with this sentiment; then I don't see how I could agree against them showing that they support the views of their community. 

The sticker is harmless; it's just Gilgamesh got a population spun up over it by embellishing the action. It is what he does.

I wouldn't be "offended."  I would disagree with it, but if that's what the town truly wanted, then so be it.  

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 12:53 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I'm not personally offended by "in god we trust".  It's not that big of a deal to me.  I do see the other side being offended by "in God we don't trust" though.  I think I'm just really used to a Christian society, so it doesn't bother me as much personally.  I just think that our public servants should not be taking sides on religious topics.  I don't even want my police taking sides on political topics, really.  It doesn't have anything to do with the majority/minority to me....the police are there for the entire populace.  This small statement is inclusive toward 80% of the population....but no statement would be inclusive toward 100%.

You're intimating that the police somehow wouldn't be protecting the entire populace if they had In God We Trust on the car.  They would still be protecting 100% of the public whether 100% agreed with them or not.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 12:51 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: That's just wrong. You're the one being dishonest by attributing opinions to me that are not my own.  If I was a police officer and my town decided to put a "We Don't Believe in Your God" sign on my car, I'd just make sure God knew he was invited into my patrol car at all times, and I'd be praying to Him for protection.  How dare you attribute opinions to me or tell me what my opinions are!

"Ugh....how dare you! I'm so offended!"....but I thought society needed to stop getting offended so much?

I don't believe you, plain and simple, and I'd respect your opinions more if you were honest with me.  I know I'm assuming here, but I've read your posts before and consider this to be a pretty safe assumption.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and you can curse me as the asshole all you want, but I'm betting that I'm not wrong.  Only you know the truth.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 12:53 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I'm not personally offended by "in god we trust".  It's not that big of a deal to me.  I do see the other side being offended by "in God we don't trust" though.  I think I'm just really used to a Christian society, so it doesn't bother me as much personally.  I just think that our public servants should not be taking sides on religious topics.  I don't even want my police taking sides on political topics, really.  It doesn't have anything to do with the majority/minority to me....the police are there for the entire populace.  This small statement is inclusive toward 80% of the population....but no statement would be inclusive toward 100%.

I think you may be confusing a local Sheriff's Department with a Federal organization. You may have a point if the White House was light up with In God We Trust 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 12:58 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: You're intimating that the police somehow wouldn't be protecting the entire populace if they had In God We Trust on the car.  They would still be protecting 100% of the public whether 100% agreed with them or not.

I don't know what intimating is.

Really, this isn't that big of a deal.  I've already stated that it doesn't bother me several times, and I know that lawfully, they're required to still serve 100% of the population whether they'd like to or not.  No matter, I still believe that cops should remain neutral on issues such as this.  Their statement excludes a portion of the population that they're sworn to protect.  No statement at all would include 100%.

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 12:58 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: "Ugh....how dare you! I'm so offended!"....but I thought society needed to stop getting offended so much?

I don't believe you, plain and simple, and I'd respect your opinions more if you were honest with me.  I know I'm assuming here, but I've read your posts before and consider this to be a pretty safe assumption.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and you can curse me as the asshole all you want, but I'm betting that I'm not wrong.  Only you know the truth.

It is offending that you claim to know what I think and then tell me what my opinion is.  I don't know if it's because I'm a Christian or some other reason.  But it is wrong.   And since I don't post here regularly, I don't think you know enough about me to decide what my answers are.  I would argue that you couldn't do that for anybody on this board.  I think you are stereotyping in a big way. 

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 01:05 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I don't know what intimating is.

Really, this isn't that big of a deal.  I've already stated that it doesn't bother me several times, and I know that lawfully, they're required to still serve 100% of the population whether they'd like to or not.  No matter, I still believe that cops should remain neutral on issues such as this.  Their statement excludes a portion of the population that they're sworn to protect.  No statement at all would include 100%.

The statement may not be agreed with by 100%, but they would still protect 100%, whether they agree with them or not.  You can't find 100% of people who agree on anything anymore.  Not these days. And intimating means to hint or imply.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you may be confusing a local Sheriff's Department with a Federal organization. You may have a point if the White House was light up with In God We Trust 

I'm not confusing them at all.  I don't think that a local sheriff's department should produce a religiously inclusive sign on their vehicles.  I cannot say it more basic and to the point than that.  

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 01:08 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I'm not confusing them at all.  I don't think that a local sheriff's department should produce a religiously inclusive sign on their vehicles.  I cannot say it more basic and to the point than that.  

It's the same statement we have on our money.  So I don't think they can legally remove it until the PC crowd gets it off the money.    

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 01:07 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: The statement may not be agreed with by 100%, but they would still protect 100%, whether they agree with them or not.  You can't find 100% of people who agree on anything anymore.  Not these days.

I know that you can't find a statement that 100% of people agree on.  This is why I've been saying all along: "No political or religious statements on a police cruiser.".  Having the jurisdiction's name and emergency contact information would not exclude a single human being.  

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 01:10 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: It's the same statement we have on our money.  So I don't think they can legally remove it until the PC crowd gets it off the money.    

I know it's the same statement that we have on our money.  The statement that we have on our money should not be legal though.  Shit, I don't even think it is legal.

And trust me, it will be removed from currency soon enough.

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 01:11 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I know that you can't find a statement that 100% of people agree on.  This is why I've been saying all along: "No political or religious statements on a police cruiser.".  Having the jurisdiction's name and emergency contact information would not exclude a single human being.  

Nobody is excluded from protection.  No matter what is on the car.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 01:08 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I'm not confusing them at all.  I don't think that a local sheriff's department should produce a religiously inclusive sign on their vehicles.  I cannot say it more basic and to the point than that.  

Even if that population supports it? Weird.

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 01:13 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I know it's the same statement that we have on our money.  The statement that we have on our money should not be legal though.  Shit, I don't even think it is legal.

And trust me, it will be removed from currency soon enough.

Of course the PC crowd will have it removed.  Liberals are starting to talk about banning books now too.  Years ago, it used to be Christians who wanted to ban books (which I did not agree with. I am a huge Harry Potter fan and furiously defended it)  Now the tables have turned.  Liberals want to ban Gone With The Wind and other books because they are offensive.   Eventually they will completely rewrite history.  But what does that make them?  Liberals used to call people who did that fascists.  

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 01:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Even if that population supports it? Weird.

Yes...even if that population supports it.  I'm in favor of a separation of church and state.  There is nothing weird about that.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-26-2015, 01:18 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: Of course the PC crowd will have it removed.  Liberals are starting to talk about banning books now too.  Years ago, it used to be Christians who wanted to ban books (which I did not agree with. I am a huge Harry Potter fan and furiously defended it)  Now the tables have turned.  Liberals want to ban Gone With The Wind and other books because they are offensive.   Eventually they will completely rewrite history.  But what does that make them?  Liberals used to call people who did that fascists.  

Oh, Jesus Herbert Christ, liberals are not going to ban your books.  Remove the tinfoil hat and stop with the ridiculous statements.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2015, 01:13 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: Nobody is excluded from protection.  No matter what is on the car.  

Even if that is true its even more of a reason for it not to be there.  It serves no purpose.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 01:19 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Yes...even if that population supports it.  I'm in favor of a separation of church and state.  There is nothing weird about that.

There is perhaps no more misused phrase than this and this is another example of such. Folks even think this is in the Constitution; it was simply a statement uttered by Thomas Jefferson, but that is an entirely different discussion.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Even if that is true its even more of a reason for it not to be there.  It serves no purpose.

Even if it gives its occupants a sense of security as they put their lives on the line on a daily basis?