 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Imran - quote:
Just the response I wanted. If there is 'coercion', it is not by the state. The state isn't locking up anyone for not saying the pledge. |
Wrong, the coercion is created by the state when it "asks" children to publicly affirm allegiance to the state's God. Locking someone up is not the only kind of coercion...
quote:
Teachers and other students are private individuals who are not acting for the state. |
The teacher is an agent of the state.
quote:
Saying the state 'creates the situation' is a cop out, affirming that the state isn't doing any coercion. |
The teachers who are agents of the state are the one's "asking" for this pledge of allegiance to the state's God. To argue that is "private" coercion ignores that the state made the law - Congress shall make no law - and the teachers acting on behalf of the state's orders are the people asking for this allegiance on behalf of the state.
quote:
Furthermore, in public schools, the state prohibits discriminatory treatment by the teachers on the basis of religion. |
That's irrelevant, the child who refuses to recite the pledge understands that retaliation by the teacher is a possibility - that makes the pledge coercive. I'm sure discriminating against conservative students is prohibited too but many conservative students understand their views may impact how their teacher grades them. Besides, you're ignoring that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law establishing religion and nothing in the Constitution authorises Congress to do anything about schools - Congress directing school children to pledge allegiance to the God of Congress violates both the 1st and 10th Amendments.
Mr Fun - quote:
Since I don't believe that the pledge as it is, is a violation of separation of state from religion, I don't see how it in turn, violates one's Christian faith. |
I'll quote you again, "Christianity, Judahism, and Islam are monotheistic religions, because they believe in the existence of only one God so how could one choose to believe in other spirits without violating their faith?"
They can't!!! That's the point... The state is coercing children to pledge allegiance to someone else's faith. Can you imagine agents of the state coming into your home to ask your kid to pledge allegiance to Satan? Do you think that would violate the separation of church and state?
The 1st Amendment and what it means is irrelevant to what you said in that quote. Furthermore, it was Christians who first sued because of the pledge and, like "separate but equal", the SCOTUS came up with a "solution" that did not solve the problem. In 1943 Christians sued because their children were required to recite a pledge that didn't even have the words "under God" in it. Their objection was that their children were being told to pledge allegiance to a flag - an idol to them. But those children who were allowed to opt out as a result of the SCOTUS decision in '43 were still being put in the position of facing ridicule and retaliation by both teachers and students, so the coercion merely became less overt.
quote:
I do have a problem though when people are compelled by some schools to say the pledge -- they ought to have the right to choose whether or not they want to say the pledge. |
Children not only face peer pressure, but the prospect of losing the respect etc of their teacher - that means their decision as to whether or not to recite the pledge is not freely made, it is a coerced decision. Besides, the 1st Amendment can't be anymore clear - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That means Congress cannot "ask" us to affirm or pledge allegiance to any God, much less the God Congress claims to believe in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Christianity, Judahism, and Islam are monotheistic religions, because they believe in the existence of only one God so how could one choose to believe in other spirits without violating their faith?
To the faithful, God has already proven his existence to them even if others refuse to believe in God's existence. |
I think you're missing the point- freedom to practise your religion does not mean freedom to impose your religion on others, nor to compel others to reveal thier belief or non-belief.
Despite being non-religious, I campaigned for the rights of Soviet Jews, not because I believed in the god of the Old Testament, or any god, but because I did not believe that it was the right of a state to compel faith, or restrict a faith when that religion was not injuring others.
Similarly I believe that Chinese Catholics should have the right to adhere to Roman Catholicism and acknowledge the Pope as their pontiff, without interference from the Chinese Communist Party.
Clearly you do not believe that people in the United States should have the same freedoms to be free of any compulsion in religion- otherwise why would you agree with a government which assented to the inclusion of religious wording in a pledge which previously was free of it?
Do you think that John Adams was wrong when he signed a treaty which asserted that the United States was founded without respect to any faith?
"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary"
or more simply, the Treaty of Tripoli.
Article 11 :
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Muslims; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I think you're missing the point- freedom to practise your religion does not mean freedom to impose your religion on others, nor to compel others to reveal thier belief or non-belief.
Despite being non-religious, I campaigned for the rights of Soviet Jews, not because I believed in the god of the Old Testament, or any god, but because I did not believe that it was the right of a state to compel faith, or restrict a faith when that religion was not injuring others.
Similarly I believe that Chinese Catholics should have the right to adhere to Roman Catholicism and acknowledge the Pope as their pontiff, without interference from the Chinese Communist Party.
Clearly you do not believe that people in the United States should have the same freedoms to be free of any compulsion in religion- otherwise why would you agree with a government which assented to the inclusion of religious wording in a pledge which previously was free of it?
|
Nope -- I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. The schools that still compel their students to say the pledge whether they want to or not, need to stop doing that, and give them a choice.
As long as they have a choice whether or not to say the pledge, I think it's nonsense for people to whine about some imagined violation of the separation of state and religion.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Do you think that John Adams was wrong when he signed a treaty which asserted that the United States was founded without respect to any faith?
"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary"
or more simply, the Treaty of Tripoli.
Article 11 :
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Muslims; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." |
I'm all for separation of state and religion -- we should not have any laws that are based on any religious theology but rather, laws that are based on more secular standards of morals -- such as the obvious example that killing is wrong (let's not get into the exceptions where killing is acceptable, which would be besides the point of our discussion).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:36
|
|
Newdow's opinion as a parent doesn't really matter anyway, as I believe the girl's mother, who has majority custody, is pro-"under god." At the very least she should have an equal say, right? Whether you think parents should have the right to sue on these grounds or not, Newdow is out of order.
And this reminds me strongly of the line about how homophobics are really just scared that they might turn gay if they were stuck on a desert island with Brad Pitt, and prove otherwise to themselves and the world by abusing gays. I'm not sure of the psychological validity of that argument there, but in this case there's no other explanation. Atheism is an entirely negative belief-it says nothing but that another system of belief is incorrect, and grounds itself in a school of thought based on naturalistic reasoning. The only harm that can be done by the people around you is that they will influence you (with their OBVIOUSLY faulty creationist logic) to think like they do. Aside from the fact that, if the atheist philosophy is correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest what we believe, to posit that others might coerce you to go with the crowd in the face of Superior Reasoning sort of undermines the whole idea of calm reasoning as the determinant of human events in the first place. The only imposition here is from an idea that offends you, which doesn't infringe on your rights, or that you might find yourself agreeing with somebody. Oh, no...
As for hazing problems, if the teacher does it that needs to be fixed. If the students do it, well, kids will be cruel on any pretext. In a relatively liberal district, the kids will mock and jeer at the stupid backwards creationist kid who doesn't believe in evolution. That does not indicate coercion by the state to force a belief in evolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Atheism is an entirely negative belief-it says nothing but that another system of belief is incorrect, and grounds itself in a school of thought based on naturalistic reasoning. |
This is wrong in so many aspects it's hard to know where to begin. However, I am growing very tired of people with religious beliefs defining what atheism or my belief system is, when clearly they don't know or understand it at all.
Atheism is not believing in a god, or deities- in that respect, to many atheists it is the same as not believing in superstition, astrology, ouija boards, ghosts, Lady Luck or animism.
From recollection, quite a few Christians (and adherents to other faiths) would say that not believing in those things would be a positive thing- that their faith (in its supposed superiority) has done away with idolatry, belief in many gods, or nature spirits inhabiting trees or springs or the sea.
Atheism does not say that another belief system is incorrect, since there is no one faith or belief system called 'atheism', and to find out which god or gods an atheist does not believe in, you would have to ask them.
I can however think of several religions that say other belief systems are incorrect- Islam, Judaism, Christianity, to name but three.......
"
What is Atheism?
There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god - if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.
Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.
There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what t is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.
Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts. "
http://atheism.about.com/library/FA...blathd_what.htm
"If one believes in a god, one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist - he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God. "
Chapman Cohen, President of the National Secular Society of Great Britain
MrFun-
" I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. "
Then you'll support the removal of 'In God we trust' and 'under God' from currency and the Pledge of Allegiance?
Otherwise, you're maintaining that religious freedom includes also the right to impose religious wording or references into state pledges, and coin of the realm. I fail to see why the actions of a minority group (such as the Knights of Columbus) should mean that religion is forced upon people whether they like it or not. Both you and Imran seem to imply that the right to be without religious influence or to keep one's beliefs private, is not as great or equal, to the right to practise freely your religion.
You might as well say that English Recusancy laws in the 17th Century didn't force Catholics to believe in Protestantism, although they did compel attendance at Protestant church services- which again would be missing the point.
Saying that they don't have to recite 'under god' or the altered pledge is merely compounding and condoning an error and an injustice. The pledge was changed to suit a particular religion- look at the quotes from Thomas Jefferson and the Treaty of Tripoli and tell me if you think that either Jefferson or John Adams had the official recognition or encouragement of any religion by the state in mind, when founding the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
MrFun-
" I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. "
Then you'll support the removal of 'In God we trust' and 'under God' from currency and the Pledge of Allegiance?
|
Eh -- I don't give a **** whether those words in there or not. It's a non-issue with me -- I don't care if those words are in there or if we remove those words.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Otherwise, you're maintaining that religious freedom includes also the right to impose religious wording or references into state pledges, and coin of the realm. I fail to see why the actions of a minority group (such as the Knights of Columbus) should mean that religion is forced upon people whether they like it or not. Both you and Imran seem to imply that the right to be without religious influence or to keep one's beliefs private, is not as great or equal, to the right to practise freely your religion.
You might as well say that English Recusancy laws in the 17th Century didn't force Catholics to believe in Protestantism, although they did compel attendance at Protestant church services- which again would be missing the point.
Saying that they don't have to recite 'under god' or the altered pledge is merely compounding and condoning an error and an injustice. The pledge was changed to suit a particular religion- look at the quotes from Thomas Jefferson and the Treaty of Tripoli and tell me if you think that either Jefferson or John Adams had the official recognition or encouragement of any religion by the state in mind, when founding the United States. |
One can be free from religious conversion even when they hear other people say the pledge.
Secondly, your historical England example is of a different caliber/level, don't you think? That was a form of indirect discrimination against another group of people.
I still maintain that if all schools did not compel everyone to say the pledge but still had others say it as part of their routine day, then there is no discrimination against atheists.
And I agree with you about the Founding Fathers -- they were certainly not devout Christians in the more traditional sense, but were deists. So you're right -- our country was not founded as a Christian nation based on theocratic laws.
But let's face it -- our nation is not the same nation that was founded in 1776 and then reestablished in 1789. And some of those changes have been for the worse, while other changes have been for the better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Mr Fun - quote:
Nope -- I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. The schools that still compel their students to say the pledge whether they want to or not, need to stop doing that, and give them a choice. |
It IS an imposition for one group of people to use public schools funded with taxes to coerce other people's children into pledging allegiance to someone else's God.
quote:
As long as they have a choice whether or not to say the pledge, I think it's nonsense for people to whine about some imagined violation of the separation of state and religion. |
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What do you think it means to establish religion? Fine, if that doesn't work for you, where in the Constitution have you found the congressional power to either create public schools, fund them, or direct what children attending those schools say, much less pledge allegiance?
quote:
I'm all for separation of state and religion -- we should not have any laws that are based on any religious theology but rather, laws that are based on more secular standards of morals -- such as the obvious example that killing is wrong (let's not get into the exceptions where killing is acceptable, which would be besides the point of our discussion). |
And what do you think it means to pledge allegiance to the God of Congress?
quote:
One can be free from religious conversion even when they hear other people say the pledge. |
True, but once again you're missing the point. It's not about hearing someone express a belief in their God, it's about the state coercing children to pledge allegiance to the state's God. That's why commencement speeches where the speaker wants to share their thoughts about their God does not violate the Constitution even if the speaker is an agent of the state. There's a difference between hearing about God and being coerced into pledging allegiance to this God.
Elok - quote:
Newdow's opinion as a parent doesn't really matter anyway, as I believe the girl's mother, who has majority custody, is pro-"under god." |
He has a say in how the state treats his daughter.
quote:
At the very least she should have an equal say, right? |
Yes, and her say stops when she is asking the state to coerce other people's children to pledge allegiance to her God. If she wants her kid to pledge allegiance she can do that on her own time, not on my dime and not with my kid.
quote:
And this reminds me strongly of the line about how homophobics are really just scared that they might turn gay if they were stuck on a desert island with Brad Pitt, and prove otherwise to themselves and the world by abusing gays. I'm not sure of the psychological validity of that argument there, but in this case there's no other explanation. Atheism is an entirely negative belief-it says nothing but that another system of belief is incorrect, and grounds itself in a school of thought based on naturalistic reasoning. |
All religions maintain they are the correct belief system and others are incorrect.
quote:
The only harm that can be done by the people around you is that they will influence you (with their OBVIOUSLY faulty creationist logic) to think like they do. |
That's the same argument used by creationists who object to evolution being taught, that it will pollute the minds of their children. The difference is their children are not coerced to affirm a belief in no God.
quote:
Aside from the fact that, if the atheist philosophy is correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest what we believe, to posit that others might coerce you to go with the crowd in the face of Superior Reasoning sort of undermines the whole idea of calm reasoning as the determinant of human events in the first place. |
We're talking about children, not the superior reasoning of adults. Furthermore, we're talking about a state that is prohibited from establishing religion coercing these children into pledging allegiance to the state's "god".
quote:
The only imposition here is from an idea that offends you, which doesn't infringe on your rights, or that you might find yourself agreeing with somebody. Oh, no... |
Then Christian parents shouldn't have any problem with the state coercing their children into pledging allegiance to Satan, true? Oh, the shoe doesn't quite fit the other foot now? Parents have a right to raise their kids with their spiritual, religious, or non-religious beliefs - that is the right being violated.
quote:
As for hazing problems, if the teacher does it that needs to be fixed. If the students do it, well, kids will be cruel on any pretext. |
First, the state/teachers "hazing" children? All that is required for coercion to exist in the mind of a child is an expectation they will be treated less than the compliant children. When a teacher stands up and "asks" children to pledge allegiance, children understand their refusal might upset the teacher, ostensibly a person they want to like them. As for other children, it's the state that is creating the atmosphere of coercion...
quote:
In a relatively liberal district, the kids will mock and jeer at the stupid backwards creationist kid who doesn't believe in evolution. That does not indicate coercion by the state to force a belief in evolution. |
That's true, gee, aren't liberals tolerant too?  But the state is not coercing anyone to stand up and pledge allegiance to no god. If it was, then the state would be creating an atmosphere of coercion...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest."
Thomas Jefferson |
 
Mr Fun - quote:
Berz -- which religion is the government sanctioning? |
Christianity, it sure wasn't Islam or Judaism.
quote:
Since the God included in the pledge is the same God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in. |
It isn't the same God, Christians believe Jesus is their God and the Jews and Muslims view Jesus as a prophet at best. C'mon Mr Fun, this thread has become ridiculous enough without trying to pretend a bunch of Christians were thinking of Allah when they put "under God" in the pledge.
quote:
And as I have already stated, yes it is wrong for any school to coerce students into saying the pledge. Let them have a choice in whether or not they want to participate. |
The "choice" is coerced. If you were an atheist or a Hindu (or even a Christian who belongs to a sect that views the flag as an idol and condemns oath taking) and your teacher "asked" you to stand with your classmates and recite the pledge, your "choice" is to do as told or risk the negative consequences, i.e., become a target of "god-fearing" students and losing the respect of the teacher you look up to. Remember, the pledge used to be compulsory, then it became "voluntary", but it became a way for "patriots" in the 1950's to show everyone that we were different than those evil godless commies. To admit you were an atheist was akin to an admission of immense immorality.
Let's put this in terms you might understand better.
Assuming you knew of your sexual inclination in grade school, how would you have reacted if your teacher "asked" you to stand and tell everyone if you
were a homosexual? Would you lie out of fear of what might happen or would you be bold and tell the truth? Strange that someone who should understand the nature of homophobia or hatred of homosexuals can't see that in many parts of the country atheists evoke similar resentment...
quote:
It's not the responsibility of the federal government to quash peer pressure and teasing among students. |
It isn't the job of the federal government to be involved with schools at all, much less create or use peer pressure to coerce children to pledge allegiance to the state's god.
quote:
When that turns into real harrassment, then that is the responsibility of each school to take action against such harrassment. |
It isn't the responsibility of a public school to coerce children into pledging allegiance to the state's god.
Civman - quote:
I don't even think that the coercion aspect is crucial. |
You're right there are 2 issues here - the coercion and the establishment clause, but they are related since we can identify when the establishment clause is being violated by identifying the coercion. For example, Judge Moore down in Alabama put up a monument to the 10 Commandments and that was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Now think about that... A judge puts a piece of stone in a courthouse rotunda and that violates the 1st Amendment, but teachers - agents of the government - "ask" children to stand and pledge allegiance to the state's god and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment? Sheesh!!! Anyway, Moore's monument was neither a law or directive for anyone to do anything, no one was being coerced to do anything. Therefore, his monument did not violate the establishment clause. Leave it to the SCOTUS to get it backwards... That's what happens when political hacks dressed in black robes are appointed to a court by a bunch of political hacks, that's when we get screwy decisions that make no sense...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:36
|
|
Atheism is also in the unique position that it is NOT a religion. There are no "atheist values" to be raising kids by except general contrariness to the god crowd. Atheism is a philosophy. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a violation of church and state if atheism were a religion.
If it comes to that, evolution isn't really "scientific." Without a time machine, there's no way to determine what happened that long ago. We have a proven short-term phenomenon (natural selection) which we have applied as the mechanism of the rise of life on this planet. Evolution "fits the facts," but so would a theory that we are all the miscarried fetuses of the cosmic koala, dumped onto the earth at different stages of development. It's as much a sign of faith as any testament to god. The question it purports to answer is entirely outside the realm of genuine factual inquiry with the technology available today. Yet I do not raise a stink about it. Why? Because it doesn't freaking matter. People are going to believe what they're going to believe, and that's that. And the theory of evolution is, as I have frequently whined to all of you, irrelevant, because it has no application. "The human race developed on this planet as a result of a, b, and c." That's very nice, but what can you do with that information? Nothing. Which is why, from an educational standpoint, which dream you choose to believe makes no difference. Same rule here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
I'd hate to see what would happen to this thread if the debators realized that our official national motto is:
quote:
The national motto originated with Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase during the Civil War. Prompted by a letter from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, of Ridleyville, Pennsylvania asking for a recognition of "the Almighty God in some form in our coins.", Chase requested Congress to pass a law changing the composition of the 2-cent piece to include the motto "In God we trust". The law as passed on April 22, 1864. Eventually the motto appeared on many U.S. coins and currencies.
When the double eagle and eagle of new design appeared in 1907, it was soon discovered that the motto had been omitted. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the act of May 18, 1908, made mandatory its appearance upon all coins which it had heretofore appeared. The act approved July 11, 1955, makes appearance of the motto "In God we trust" mandatory upon all coins of the United States. (69 Stat. 290. 31 U.S. Code 324a)
On July 30, 1956 a law was passed stating that "the national motto of the United States is hereby declared to be 'In God we trust'." (70 Stat. 732. 36 U.S. Code 186). The House Judiciary Committee recognized that the phrase E Pluribus Unum had also received wide usage in the United States, and the joint resolution did not repeal or prohibit its use as a national motto. In 1963 the Department of State took the following position: "'In God we trust'" is the motto of the United States. It seems to the Department, nevertheless, that there is ample basis both in history and in law for calling 'E Pluribus Unum' a motto of the United States." The Congress has used both. |
Cite: http://www.usscouts.org/flag/sealmotto.html
"E Pluribus Unum" you say? 'Tis only the motto on the Great Seal:
quote:
E Pluribus Unum means "out of many, one". It comes from a popular publication during revolutionary times entitled Gentleman's Magazine which carried that legend upon the title page. The magazine was well known to literate Americans of the time. The Gentleman's Magazine obtained the legend from an earlier and long out of print publication called the Gentleman's Journal which used the motto in 1692. And perhaps ultimately to Virgil, St. Augustine or Horace. It was first used extensively in the United States only after it was introduced on the Great Seal. |
quote:
Have federal court cases cast doubt on the constitutionality of the motto "In God we trust"?
The federal courts have held that the motto symbolizes the historical role of religion in our society, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 676, formalizes our medium of exchange, see O'Hair v. Blumenthal, 462 F. Supp. 19, 20 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd sub nom. O'Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), and cert. denied, 442 U.S.930 (1979), fosters patriotism, see Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242, 243 (9th Cir. 1970), and expresses confidence in the future, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 692-93 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The motto's primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is a form of "ceremonial deism" which through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief. Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 625 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring); id. at 716 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Finally, the motto does not create an intimate relationship of the type that suggests unconstitutional entanglement of church and state. O'Hair, 462 F. Supp. at 20. "After making [inquiries], we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase "In God we trust," would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion. (Gaylor vs USA, 10th Cir. 1996) |
Note the word "reasonable." I highlighted it for those not wanting to read the text.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Atheism is also in the unique position that it is NOT a religion. There are no "atheist values" to be raising kids by except general contrariness to the god crowd. Atheism is a philosophy. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a violation of church and state if atheism were a religion.
If it comes to that, evolution isn't really "scientific." Without a time machine, there's no way to determine what happened that long ago. We have a proven short-term phenomenon (natural selection) which we have applied as the mechanism of the rise of life on this planet. Evolution "fits the facts," but so would a theory that we are all the miscarried fetuses of the cosmic koala, dumped onto the earth at different stages of development. It's as much a sign of faith as any testament to god. The question it purports to answer is entirely outside the realm of genuine factual inquiry with the technology available today. Yet I do not raise a stink about it. Why? Because it doesn't freaking matter. People are going to believe what they're going to believe, and that's that. And the theory of evolution is, as I have frequently whined to all of you, irrelevant, because it has no application. "The human race developed on this planet as a result of a, b, and c." That's very nice, but what can you do with that information? Nothing. Which is why, from an educational standpoint, which dream you choose to believe makes no difference. Same rule here. |
This is bullsh!t. Of course evolution happens why do you think we have to keep inventing new antibiotics against bacteria? They are evolving resistrance to the drug, DUH!!! Natural selection is a fact, the discoveries in genetics and population biology in the past 50 years show that.
Creationists are stupid. Throw rocks at them!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Atheism is also in the unique position that it is NOT a religion. There are no "atheist values" to be raising kids by except general contrariness to the god crowd. Atheism is a philosophy. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a violation of church and state if atheism were a religion.
|
Oh good grief- or better yet, for the religionistas, great jumping Judas on a bicycle.
Which part of atheism does this guy actually understand?
It isn't a belief system, it isn't a philosophy, it is at its simplest, disbelief in a deity, or deities.
Atheists can be Communists, anarchists, capitalists, socialists, social democrats, anarcho-syndicalists, libertarians, and hold a bewildering array of differing ideologies and philosophies- almost as many different beliefs as there are Christian or Islamic sects.
That being said, they could espouse a variety of values or beliefs, some positive, some negative dependant upon their belief system. The a-theism part is neither negative nor positive in that respect.
As for evolution having no more value than creationism, I think we can all see where he's coming from.
I hope all the 'Poly scientists will now disregard any theory utilising any thinking relating to or tangential to evolutionary processes or concepts, and rely instead on astrology, ouija boards or the advice of Benny Hinn or Morris Cerrullo.
Good luck defeating multi-drug resistant staphylococcus and tuberculosis using wishful thinking and creationist 'science' (if ever there was an oxymoron, that's a beauty).
"It is very disgraceful and mischievous, and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian ... should be heard ... talking such nonsense that the unbeliever can hardly restrain himself from laughing."
Saint Augustine in "De Genese ad litteram"
Oops, too late!
The American Physical Society (but hey, what do they know?)
'
81.1 STATEMENT ON CREATIONISM
(Adopted by Council - 22 November l98l)
The Council of the American Physical Society opposes proposals to require "equal time" for presentation in public school science classes of the biblical story of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. The issues raised by such proposals, while mainly focused on evolution, have important implications for the entire spectrum of scientific inquiry, including geology, physics, and astronomy. In contrast to "Creationism", the systematic application of scientific principles has led to a current picture of life, of the nature of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete, is constantly being tested and refined by observation and analysis. This ability to construct critical experiments, whose results can require rejection of a theory, is fundamental to the scientific method. While our society must constantly guard against oversimplified or dogmatic descriptions of science in the education process, we must also resist attempts to interfere with the presentation of properly developed scientific principles in established guidelines for classroom instruction or in the development of scientific textbooks. We therefore strongly oppose any requirement for parallel treatment of scientific and non-scientific discussions in science classes. Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements of the human experience. Attempts to present them in the same context can only lead to misunderstandings of both. '
http://positron.aps.org/statements/81.1.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:36
|
|
Okay, it seems you have ALL missed my point:
*There is proof of natural selection over the short term, as Odin mentioned, what with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. This may be called "evolution," but it is not an example of the rise of a new species. It is merely survival of the fittest, which is not unique to evolution. Hey, it's how capitalism works, ain't it?
*There are sets of fossils from X number of years ago that look like primitive fish with legs, fossils from a later period that look like lizards, other fossils that look like weird hairy lizards, other fossils of actual mammals, and so on.
*The explanation is that survival of the fittest has worked over the long term, and that all these critters are in fact part of the same extremely distant family tree.
Can you spot the enormous assumption, boys and girls? Maybe it seems "obvious" to some of you, but there is absolutely no proof that natural selection was the mechanism of change, or that the creatures are even related at all. Scientists applied a known phenomenon to an unknown one on a vastly enlarged scale and called it obvious. Darwin's theory of evolution is only slightly more valid than Lamarck's, which took the phenomenon of increased fitness through exercise and applied it on a ludicrous scale without proof. The only difference is that adaptation by selection is not eliminated by heredity. It's still a Rorschach answer, and no more likely to be correct than the aforementioned Cosmic Koala.
The fact is that there is no way of knowing such a vast chunk of history for certain without a time machine, and it doesn't really matter. I'm sure it answers a deep yearning to know the truth about the origin of our species and so on and so forth, but when the knowledge is not practically useful or provable, it differs from a religious belief in what way?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-2004 09:17
|