 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
"For instance, the UK has an "established" religion: Anglicanism."
Please name the established religion of the United States, Jack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
If I say that the Soviet Union was an atheist society would that make me an atheist? Could someone who lived thirn have been a believer and still pledge to support the nation? The pledge says nothing about 'believing' in God and no one has to lie by repeating the fact that the nation is under God whether they believe in a diety or not.
The motives of congress were to make a non- binding pledge that showed that our system of government was different from communism. If some liked the idea that a particular God was to be exalted then they cleverly left that out of the words they inserted into the pledge. So what remains is the words "under God" with no reference to any particular God. As it stands now the pledge merely states the fact that this nation is indeed under a legal framework that is based upon theistic reasoning. The pledge is 'to the flag' not to God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
You don't know American history Jack. Read some of John Locke, Roger Williams, James Madison and get back to me. Their reasoning was based on a belief in a supreme being. If they were atheists then the Declaration of Independance would have to be re- written.
And you will have to do better than "Worship of the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God." Where are the bishops, popes, preachers, pastors or monks? What is the order of worship? You said correctly that the Anglican church was an example of a state supported church but now the only comparrison that you can make is a statement that you devised in your mind. Where is this church?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Here is an en example of the writings of James Madison. Of course James Madison wrote was largely responsible for the writing of the 1st ammendment. Read the line in bold type if you are short of time.
A Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.
Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.
Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?
Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Vriginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
You don't know American history Jack. Read some of John Locke, Roger Williams, James Madison and get back to me. Their reasoning was based on a belief in a supreme being. If they were atheists then the Declaration of Independance would have to be re- written. |
Did I say they were atheists?
I said that they wisely created a secular Constitution irrespective of their personal beliefs.
It is a FACT that they created a secular Constitution, Lincoln.
quote:
And you will have to do better than "Worship of the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God." Where are the bishops, popes, preachers, pastors or monks? What is the order of worship? You said correctly that the Anglican church was an example of a state supported church but now the only comparrison that you can make is a statement that you devised in your mind. Where is this church? |
Every church, synagogue and mosque in America is part of it. As is every pastor, priest, rabbi, imam. They all worship the same God, the "Almighty" of Eisenhower, the God of "under God".
"...an establishment of religion..."
And how do you infer that Anglicanism is a state-supported church? Does it receive government tax revenue? Nope, it has its own funds. The "support" is minimal: a few archaic laws which produce gasps of amazement when dusted off and used (last trial for blasphemy 1970 IIRC).
It is an established (officially-recognized) church.
quote:
...Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe:... |
What part of "irrespective of their personal beliefs" do you not want to understand, Lincoln?
However, if you wish to pursue that line...
quote:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
-Treaty of Tripoli
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The Calvinist, who damns children of a span long to hell to burn forever for the glory of God (and this is called Christianity), and the Universalist who preaches that all shall be saved and none shall be damned (and this also is called Christianity), boasts alike of their holy [reveled] religion and their Christian faith...
...But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work...
...Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.
-Thomas Paine |
So, Lincoln, it is abundantly clear that IF the Founding Fathers had religion in mind, IT WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY.
Are you prepared to turn your back on Jesus in order to seek out the "American" religion?
Or would you rather accept that they intended there to BE no "American" religion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Let's see, you have proved that Jefferson was not a Calvanist, Thomas Pain was a diest and that the United States was not a Christian nation (according to one document among thousands). Anyway what is the relevance of all of that? Did you prove that they did not believe in God? That after all is the issue, not Christianity.
And why do you evade the question? You said that the founders did not reason on the basis of their theism but that fact was only incidental to their secular reasons. But the line I put in bold type proved that you were wrong didn't it? Madison assumed that people were subject to God. Here's the quote again, incase you missed it:
"Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe"
The Declaration of Independance affirms again that we are entitled BY GOD to certain rights. In other words we are one nation UNDER GOD. You are simply trying to revise history to fit with your atheist beliefs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
One of the passages from the Madison piece reads as follows:
"A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. "
One clearly sees in this quotation what later apparently became the "religion" clause ouf our First Amendment. Madison, and others of the Founding Fathers, has a very clear animus against organized religion, but not of religion, pe se.
The intervention by the mother will probably moot this case - preventing a Supreme Court review. However, I hope that doesn't happen, because we really need the Supremes to look at this case. Does reciting "under God" "establish" religion? Clearly it does if, as the 9th Circuit held, the establishment of "Monthesism" violates the First Amendment even though no organized religion is "established."
Can Congress constitutionally endorse Monotheism? That is the question. It is squarely presented in this case. We need the Supreme Court's views.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Are you prepared to turn your back on Jesus in order to seek out the "American" religion?
Or would you rather accept that they intended there to BE no "American" religion?"
Good questions.
1. No. I think that the America's form of Christianity that led to the slaughter of the Indians and the enslavement of Africans and various other forms of hypocrisy is the opposite of what Jesus taught.
2. They intended that there not be a state religion.
In essence, I think that history is what it is regardless of whether I think it is right or wrong. Madison was brilliant as far as I am concerned. If you read the above paper I think you will agree. It just so happens though that through all of the wisdom of seperating church from state their remained a theistic basis for our liberties. We cannot escape that fact regardless of the implications.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Let's see, you have proved that Jefferson was not a Calvanist, Thomas Pain was a diest and that the United States was not a Christian nation (according to one document among thousands). Anyway what is the relevance of all of that? Did you prove that they did not believe in God? That after all is the issue, not Christianity. |
Their belief in God is NOT the issue, Lincoln. These were LIBERAL Christians (and Deists): people who passionately believed in religious freedom, the freedom of everyone to "do their own thing" as far as religion is concerned.
And Madison kept his beliefs OUT of the Constitution for that reason.
He would have been appalled at the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge. And so would Francis Bellamy, the Christian Socialist who wrote it.
Incidentally, I doubt that Eisenhower ever knew that his anti-commie pledge was originally written by a pinko...
quote:
Today, the Pledge: Tomorrow, Christmas |
...You mean the Holiday Season? Already done. 
It was never Christian at all, of course. I doubt if it was even a religious holiday of any sort at first. The Festival of Yuletide is basically a celebration of the fact that the darkest part of winter, the solstice, has passed.
I'll drink to that.
And I don't consider an excuse for a party to be "oppressive" anyhow. I've never met an atheist Puritan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Again you entirely miss the point, Jack. Madison's beliefs are what caused him to keep religion and state seperate. He believed along with John Locke and Roger Williams that religion should not be compelled. That is why there is no compulsion to this day. And that is why you do not have to say the pledge.
The problem you have is the words 'under God'. Those words represent the foundation of morality that is the basis for the laws and traditions of this country. Those words undergird the whole structure. They have nothing to do with establishing a state religion or respecting one over another. They do however recognize the foundation upon which the republic is laid. For example:
A system of government based upon atheism has no moral foundation because there is no moral source to fall back on. Now if the foundation was based on a particular atheist man or woman then that could be the basis. You could call that society 'The United States of Madelene Murray O'hare' for example.
A purely atheist society however that honors no one in particular must base its morality and laws that reflect that morality on nothing. There is no basis for the laws if they are not based upon either God or an esteemed person or party. The morality of pure atheism is based on dirt and survival of the fittest. After many years of pretending that the society is moral, people begin to question the basis for it. They find that it is based on nothing except base animal instincts.
Now consider the foundation of a theistic society. In America the assumption that the republic is under God guarantees the right to equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The founding document declares that specifically these rights were 'endowed by the Creator'.
Regardless of why the words 'under God' were added to the pledge, they cannot be illegal because they state a fact that is incorporated into the civil government. To remove them now is simply an attempt to pretend that history is different than it is. And it is an attempt to undermine the moral and legal foundation that protects the rights of citizens and all people everywhere. Why would you want to do that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
A purely atheist society however that honors no one in particular must base its morality and laws that reflect that morality on nothing. There is no basis for the laws if they are not based upon either God or an esteemed person or party. The morality of pure atheism is based on dirt and survival of the fittest. After many years of pretending that the society is moral, people begin to question the basis for it. They find that it is based on nothing except base animal instincts.
|
Honestly Lincoln, I thought we've been through this bullshit before. But you keep making the same troll over and over and over, you in all your self-righteous "holiness" telling me that me and my fellow atheists have no morals to speak of, other than "survival of the fittest."
So you know what? Up yours. I no longer have time for that sterling example of intellectual smegma.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I did not say that you have no morals. But you obviously have no problem with disrespecting another person. I won't return the insult, thanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Separation of Church and State is meant to keep the government from forming a state religion, which is why many people left Europe.
George Washington and others KNEW, or, perhaps for some of you, only BELIEVED, that the United States of America came to pass only because of Divine Intervention. He prayed many times for help in the War of Revolution.
The United States has been, from its birth, been a Christian country.
Look at the Declaration of Independence:
quote:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Is that "Creator" a mention of God?
quote:
...the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
There they go again...
Whether you like it or not, America was founded by many religious persons, whose ideals were passed on to many of the documents they made.
What about US currency? "In God We Trust". Was that another example of our foolish forebears who didn't know anything? Are my five dollar bills unconstitutional?
If the people of the United States want that to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance...well, there's always Canada. |
That says "creator" and you can logically assume that means god, but then in the next sentence, it says "nature's god". What is meant exactly by the phrase Nature's God? It sounds druidical and certainly not christian. It is well known that the founding fathers were deists and not fundamentalists. The first amendment was added to avoid turning our nation into a fundamentalist regime, among other things. Everyone seems to forget that we have no national religion and that is the way it is supposed to be. Haven't you guys ever heard of "freedom of religion."
Why don't we change the pledge to "One nation under Allah," that should fix it. We would still be respecting a god and the nation can still supplicate the blessings from a divine being. The god supporters here will certainly think that is an inadequate compromise as all they want is to force their religious views on all the people of our nation. A nation that is supposed to respect ALL religions not just the dominant one.
To argue that placing god in the pledge is harmless is to ignore the countless other beliefs in our nation. To argue that, "What is the big deal?" is to dismiss our fine history of fighting for equality and tolerance for all.
Our nation is supposed to respect all beliefs. Respecting only the dominant belief goes against the very principles this nation was founded on. One nation under god sounds harmless, but it is offensive to our muslims, buddhists, sikhs, wiccans, agnostics, atheists, etc.
Can't we all just get along? This attitude of "I'm OK, you're so-so," just isn't going to cut it.
Last edited by MosesPresley on 14-07-2002 at 04:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
If "under God", doesn't refer to a specific deity as some here have dubiously claimed, as we all know that God is the "name" of the Judeo-Christian deity, ever since Yahweh was removed from the bible, how about changing the pledge to say "under a god"? Any thoughts?
*This may look trollish, but it is a legitimate question.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
His own words in that article consist of just two sentences:
"I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs"
"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me"
The first is hardly controversial.
As for the second: it sounds like he wants to draw attention away from his daughter. He may also be referring to the recent attempt to accuse him of perjury: the false allegation that the case is based on his daughter's alleged atheism, rather than his own.
It's Newdow himself, not his daughter, who is upset by the school forcing or encouraging his daughter to say a pledge which directly slanders HIM.
So he's right: "The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me".
Newdow is a lawyer himself, I think he knows what he's doing. |
He's not the custodial parent, he has no right to bring the suit. Our local high school had a serious mold problem, but I don't go to that school, neither do my kids. I can't just run out and sue the school when I have no personal injury from the mold. If I were divorced and one of my kids went to the school I might be able to launch a suit, but if my wife had sole custody I'd have to have her permission first. This guy never even married the woman, so his claim to represent the child's interest is even more tenuous.
If the main thrust of the suit is him he has no basis for a suit. No one is forcing him to say the pledge. He can not claim that the child is being forced to say the pledge with the words "under God" against his wishes because as non-custodial parent his wishes don't count. He didn't even marry the girl's mother.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
Still not carin' one way or the other, eh Lincoln? |
quote:
Honestly Lincoln, I thought we've been through this bullshit before. |
Rest assured he's been at it for a long, long time Dig through the archives, find a thread involving religion or homosexuality, and you'll find Lincoln, perniciously grinding his same old broken axe.
Don't bother using logic, he is impervious to it. Personally I suspect he is a troubled man, how else to explain his ceaseless compulsion to slight "dirty", "base", "immoral" atheists and "child-eating" gays. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
Dr Strangelove:
Newdow isn't the custodial parent, but nor is he denied access to the child. He seems to be in the same situation as any normal divorced or separated father: with visiting rights and a legitimate interest in his daughter's welfare and education. This has been agreed by the court, hence he "has standing": it is not in doubt.
Lincoln:
Given that we do not believe in the existence of God (and nor do non-monotheistic theists), you cannot expect us to agree that that the American government is "under" an actual God. Therefore, if you believe that religion is a key ingredient, your wording should be "under belief in God" or something similar.
Naturally, WE are not "under belief in God".
So we can't pledge allegiance?
Again, this is certainly NOT what either Bellamy or the Founding Fathers intended.
And I suggest you do some reading on Secular Humanism, social contract theory, and the evolution of altruism in social creatures. Neither an actual God, nor a shared belief in a God (real or not), is necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Now if anyone would bother to read my posts instead of trying to read something into them that I did not say they would find that I never accused atheists in general of being immoral or bad or evil persons -- not one time.
I said that their system of morality must logically have a foundation of nothing (or animal evolution) or the reasoning of a certain person or group of people. That does not mean that atheists are immoral, only that the basis has no firm foundation because it's origin can be traced back to the fickle minds of men or the transient thoughts of a mortal man or woman.
That is the clear difference between the American system of government and atheists systems. Eventually the people start to do some research on their own to discover the roots of their society. A thinking person would soon see that the American system is based upon God given rights that cannot be changed or usurped by men. It is an unmovable and firm foundation that has nothing to do with government. The rights are there regardless of the thoughts of men or the oppression of governments so they can always be logically retrieved like they were in the American Revolution.
Last edited by Lincoln on 14-07-2002 at 18:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Now if anyone would bother to read my posts instead of trying to read something into them that I did not say they would find that I never accused atheists in general of being immoral or bad or evil persons -- not one time.
|
Oh please. The Bill Clinton "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is" defense? I expect better of you, though I'm not entirely certain why anymore.
quote:
I said that their system of morality must logically have a foundation of nothing (or animal evolution) or the reasoning of a certain person or group of people. That does not mean that atheists are immoral, only that the basis has no firm foundation because it's origin can be traced back to the fickle minds of men or the transient thoughts of a mortal man or woman.
|
So then what can a Christian's morality be traced back to?
For that matter, what is "atheist morality"? What is "Christian morality"?
Here's a hint, Lincoln: ain't no such critter.
Individuals have their own sense of morality, derived from their own brain.
So, once again, get off your high horse. Your sense of morality has no more, nor no less validity than mine, and neither does it have a more stable or legitimate foundation.
You do cause no help by arguing such inane nonsense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I said that their system of morality must logically have a foundation of nothing (or animal evolution) or the reasoning of a certain person or group of people. That does not mean that atheists are immoral, only that the basis has no firm foundation because it's origin can be traced back to the fickle minds of men or the transient thoughts of a mortal man or woman.
|
The latter sentence is exactlt what all religious morality is based on. It just happens that those fickle minds put their transient thoughts in scripture thousands of years ago, so you think it's due more reverence than it should be given.
This "basis or morality" is a red herring, anyway. Who says morality of a society has anything to do with a basis? Who says it needs one? Societies are perfectly capable of coming to rational conclusions over what is right and wrong without any religious basis. It's called following common sense and what is best for the group while protecting the individual (sounds like the Constitution, don't it?). Any society can, without a shred of religious dogma, conclude that murder is immoral because of the destructive influence it has on society. Same with theft, bigotry, abuse, molestation, etc.
Plenty of very famous philosophers discussed morality from a secular basis, not a religious one. And few if any arrived at a conclusion that without God in the equation there would be no morality.
In short, your argument is bunk, because it's asserting there needs to be something that isn't there anyway--a "basis." Your "basis" is fictional.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Dr Strangelove:
Newdow isn't the custodial parent, but nor is he denied access to the child. He seems to be in the same situation as any normal divorced or separated father: with visiting rights and a legitimate interest in his daughter's welfare and education. This has been agreed by the court, hence he "has standing": it is not in doubt.
|
He can't bring this suit against the wishes of the custodial parent and the child. Since he deliberately kept the child out of the suit and the mother is just being heard from it is apparent that neither were consulted throughout the entire proceedings. At best he shares an interest in the child's education, and as a non-custodial parent his interest takes a back seat to the mother's and the child's.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-07-2002 00:56
|