 |
| |
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
But you do see the point that our laws are based on contemporary (as to when they are enacted) thinking and morality, not some absolute dictation by God? It's not very helpful to just say 'there is some absolute truth, lets stick to it'. There needs to be intellectual debate about what that truth is for it to become defined and actually be used as a basis for anything.
You have to consider the contemporary mindset back when the DoI was written. Africans were viewed as subhuman, they didn't qualify as human any more than dogs did according to many people. The Bible (as the word of God) was used to support that position.
For the founding fathers to say that all men are created equal, and to hold slaves, wasn't necessarily hypocritical, although it certainly was wrong. Their classification of those of African descent was where they went wrong, but they were still observing the indelible rights given by God to man, as preached by religion at that time. To use modern religious ideology to determine God's will, and apply that to their actions, doesn't show hypocrisy on their part. It only shows that the rights of man, or rather what constitutes 'man', has changed in that view over time.
The point is, that morality claimed to be based on God is not based on God. It is based on religion, which doesn't offer a very clear description of God, and only offers human interpretation of God's will. For all we know, the Prophets and authors of the Bible were hallucinating or deliberately lying. That doesn't change the fact that there are good ideas in the Bible, it doesn't matter one bit.
Any idea, any moral, should be judged on it's own merits. Not on the merits of the source. There is inherant value in an idea, just as in physical objects. For physical objects we have very direct senses to evaluate worth, how food tastes, how something looks, ect. If the Bible said that liver (if you like liver, insert whatever food you dislike) tastes good, would it to you?
We also have 'senses' which we can use to evaluate ideas. They are logic, reasoning, and indirect observation through the effects that idea has on people and society as a whole. We can use these senses to come to our own conclusions about value of ideas, we don't need someone to dictate to us what that value is.
Last edited by Aeson on 16-07-2002 at 05:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
Dr. Strangelove
That was a reather amusing cartoon you linked to. 
As for the commentary, about Christmas, I don't celebrate it or any other holliday. That is my right, and it is the right of anyone else to celebrate it or not, as they will. The government shouldn't be endorsing it one way or the other. I don't see allowing time off work during that time of year as endorsing it officially, people are free to do whatever they would like in that time. Including me. Much like if the phrase 'under God' was removed from the pledge, and people allowed to add what they will in that slot.
There is a bit of conflict, as with the Pledge, when children in public school are given time for Christmas parties and the like. That really doesn't have any place in the classroom either. In my grade school there were some JW children who at that time were forced to say the Pledge (since taken care of), and who had to sit through the different holliday celebrations that happened during class hours (AFAIK that is still required). It really wasn't fair to them, and they had to deal with the added problems of children teasing them over both issues.
I would support removing holliday celebration activities from being held on official classroom time, and if they happen in government jobsites. The best solution would be to allow additional time off from school, which parents of the children can fill with a Christmas (or whatever holliday) party if they so choose. Public funding should not be given towards the formation of these parties, and neither should Public grounds be used, unless it's use is paid for.
Overall, the commentary at that second site was overgeneralized and inflammatory. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Newdow recently had another case thrown out of court. He sued President Bush over referrences to God in his inaugeral speech with the intention of getting the court to issue a restraining order forbidding him from mentioning God again while in office. The court threw out that suit, deciding that the freedom of speech applied to the President as well as everyone else.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/polit...p-3704157c.html
Heehee, here's another site to contemplate:
http://www.xmission.com/~maddox/pledge.html |
Newdow is a fanatic. I cannot see how a rational atheist can support what he is doing. Now he wants to enjoin the president from speaking unless his words are approved by the head atheist in charge of 'free thinking'. The guy needs to get a life. The second article though crude I think expresses the feelings of a lot of people. I wonder if this guy stays awake at night thinking about all the evil ways that the dreaded word 'God' can be used. He should be on TV so that we can turn him off.
Aeson,
Sorry, I had to vent. Now back to your reasonable arguments. My personal morality is based upon a life changing encounter with God who put love in my heart for perfect strangers and especially teenagers who were neglected and abused. It was a supernatural imposition although that is not the right word. My life changed entirely from being a commercial pilot and a selfish individual to the eventual ministry to the kids. My morals are based upon that love that God put in me for others. I don't say that I have lived up to that moral standard but it is not at all something that I do for fear of burning in hell or because a book said I should do it. I won't bore you with the details but I have followed that spirit for about 25 years. The words of Jesus directing us to love our neighbor as ourselves seem to fit quite well with a reasonable moral standard regardless of the passing of time and changing customs and traditions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Dr. Strangelove
That was a reather amusing cartoon you linked to.
As for the commentary, about Christmas, I don't celebrate it or any other holliday. That is my right, and it is the right of anyone else to celebrate it or not, as they will. The government shouldn't be endorsing it one way or the other. I don't see allowing time off work during that time of year as endorsing it officially, people are free to do whatever they would like in that time. Including me. Much like if the phrase 'under God' was removed from the pledge, and people allowed to add what they will in that slot.
There is a bit of conflict, as with the Pledge, when children in public school are given time for Christmas parties and the like. That really doesn't have any place in the classroom either. In my grade school there were some JW children who at that time were forced to say the Pledge (since taken care of), and who had to sit through the different holliday celebrations that happened during class hours (AFAIK that is still required). It really wasn't fair to them, and they had to deal with the added problems of children teasing them over both issues.
I would support removing holliday celebration activities from being held on official classroom time, and if they happen in government jobsites. The best solution would be to allow additional time off from school, which parents of the children can fill with a Christmas (or whatever holliday) party if they so choose. Public funding should not be given towards the formation of these parties, and neither should Public grounds be used, unless it's use is paid for.
Overall, the commentary at that second site was overgeneralized and inflammatory. |
If you remove Christmas, Easter and Thnksgiving celebrations from the school calender a generation of children will grow up hating you. Is that what you want? Just think what they will do when they grow up!
Like the rest of those posting here who have supported removing the words "under God" from the pledge you seem to have difficulty grapppling with the sleazier side of the suit. Dr. Newdow brought the suit on behalf of a child who is his daughter by biology alone and in utter disregard for her wishes. He seems to have misrepresented himself to the court, failing to mention that the child's name is Banning, not Newdow, that there he was never legally united with the mother, and that the child's religious beliefs which he found so distressing and which he attributed to the alleged illegal surrepitious instruction at school instead stemed from the influence of the mother who is in fact the girl's sole custodian. The guy should be hauled up before the California Bar.
Last edited by Dr Strangelove on 16-07-2002 at 08:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
I'm not familiar enough with Newdow or his case to agree or disagree with it, or his motivations. From what I can tell he seems like a bit of an extremist nut. The issue of the phrase 'under God' has merit though, Newdow's character doesn't change it one bit. His character only affects the viability of his particular case, not the issue of whether the phrase 'under God' is constitutional or not.
quote:
If you remove Christmas, Easter and Thnksgiving celebrations from the school calender a generation of children will grow up hating you. Is that what you want? Just think what they will do when they grow up! |
Kids would still get their Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving parties, just not on classroom time. My suggestion could very well lead to more out of classroom time which at least some would prefer over classroom time for celebrations. If they hate it they hate it. I hated school altogether, but that doesn't mean there should be no school.
As for what they will do when they grow up, hopefully they could see the reasoning behind the change, just like I now see the reasoning behind being forced to go to school.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Jesus made clear how the commandment "Thou shalt not kill was to be interpreted:
"...if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Mt:19: 18,19)
And Jack, the morality in the Soviet Union was based on survival of the fittest. (Even though I did not say that a temporal moral structure must be based on that concept. I said that anyone can devise a moral code but without an enduring foundation it can be overthrown). In the case of the eloquent (albeit in word only) moral code of Stalin it woud appear that the "fittest" were those who Stalin saw fit to allow to survive.
And yes I agree (agree with Jack???!!!) that American capitalism is rather a dog eat dog system. Too bad they forgot the admonition of Jesus to love their neighbors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
CG, It also is celebrated in India and Japan, and AFAIK, the whole world. However, everyone also knows that Christmas is Christ's birthday and Santa Claus is a Christian saint. To celebrate this day without acknowledging these simple facts is hypocrisy.
Christmas and its trappings are vulnerable to a Newdow attack if the Supreme’s sustain his victory against the Pledge. I don't see a court sustaining the constitutionality of Christmas based on a theory that it already is secular. It may have that "meaning" to some Americans, but not to most. |
I can believe that the Japanese might celebrate it, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone other than the tiny Christian minority in India celebrate it. There is a sort of revival of Hinduism going on in India recently, and they seem to be rather defensive about their religion these days.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-07-2002 05:06
|