 |
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. It is therefore equally valid to describe the United States as a "Deist country".
Again, this has nothing to do with "our foolish forebears". The phrase "in God we trust" does not belong on US currency, just as "under God" does not belong in the pledge. The correct motto is "E Pluribus Unum".
Claiming that such things are "historical" and intended by the Founding Fathers is an attempt to rewrite history. It is pure propaganda.
Will there be a Christian "Ministry of Truth" next? |
In addition to being a founding father of the United States George Washington was also a founding father of the Protestan Episcopal Church of the United States. His signature is on the original charter.
Thomas Jefferson donated land to the Episcopal Church to build a church adjacent to his Poplar Forest estate and drew up a design. I attend this church. It features one of Jefferson's signature scalloped walls.
John Adams and John Hancock had their own reserved pews at a church in Boston.
Do these sound like the actions of deists?
Ben Franklin and Thomas Payne were definitely deists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If it is, it would be full of Red Herrings (no pun intended). |
You wish. Does the short history of atheist political philosophy bother you Boris? Well then, you can always close your eyes and deny it. When you open them it will still be there though, so just go to sleep. There you can live in your alternate rea;ity all you want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I'm willing to bet that Dad has some plan to use this brouhaha to further his custody case. He can always contest any result not to his liking as having been influenced by publicity. He also might get away with demanding that the judge reveal his/her religious persuasion and manipulate the situation to a condition in which he gets to pick a judge of his liking.
Mon may have held her tounge precisely because they're in the midst of a court proceeding.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oh baloney. Stalin and Mao were about advancing their own power and that of their party. Communist ideals, while certainly encompassing state atheism, weren't focused on it. There is a difference between acts commited by a political regime wherein athiesm is one of many tenets and those committed expressly in the name of a deity by organizations whose sole focus is the worship of said deity. Stalin and Mao didn't act as representatives for Atheism, they acted as Communists. The two do not necessarily go together. |
They acted to cleanse their nations of Christianity and other religions. This included murdering millions of Christians. They did this because they adhered to a political philosophy which was avowedly atheist and which considered religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity, as the mortal enemy. It is a prime article of Marxist faith that religion is an enemy of Marxism's atheistic philosophy and must be destroyed. It is ridiculous to argue that they were merely furthering their power when they undertook their purges because neither of these men faced serious opposition from religious organizations in their country ( up to the point where they began murdering clergy and believers ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
It is astonishing how many straw men are getting trotted out by the theists in this thread. It is equally astonishing that after being asked numerous times, none of them has ever answered the common question: Would you care if the pledge said "without god" or "under Satan" or some other non-Christian variation on the theme?
As for the bull**** being spewn about no-one being expected to state "under God", it just isn't true. "Under God" is in the pledge my five year old has been taught in kindergarten, and we've told her that she is expected to do what her kindergarten teacher tells her. If that ain't an expectation I have no idea what is.
Also, I'm trying to raise my kids in a way that will enable them to make their own decisions about theism. After a year of kindergarten, my daughter now has the idea that God's existence is an unshakeable truth. She certainly didn't learn that at home. It pisses me off that she learned it in public school. My wife is a deist, I'm an atheist and both of us have been careful to tell our kids that it is an issue of belief that they have plenty of time to make their own mind up about. I would thank the school system to stop undermining all our hard work.
Last edited by - Groucho - on 10-07-2002 at 23:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
So you'd have no objection to personally being expected to swear to "Satan, Prince of Darkness"? |
You see no difference between God and Satan?
YOU having to say God is like US having to say Satan?
Wouldn't it be us having to say "under nothing", rather than Satan?
quote:
After a year of kindergarten, my daughter now has the idea that God's existence is an unshakeable truth.She certainly didn't learn that at home. It pisses me off that she learned it in public school. My wife is a deist, I'm an atheist and both of us have been careful to tell our kids that it is an issue of belief that they have plenty of time to make their own mind up about. I would thank the school system to stop undermining all our hard work. |
You are assuming that administrators in the public school taught her that God is real. Did you consider the possibility that maybe it was the influence of class mates?
How upset would you be if your daughter came home after a year of kindergarten with the idea that God's NON-existence is an unshakeable truth?
On a side note, it's funny how many of you say we should make up for the mistakes of the '50s, because of the no-tolerance, heavy Christian atmosphere that caused "under God" to be added. Now, why didn't we have Columbines in the 50s? My dad remembered one student actually bringing a rifle to school, as part of a history project, and it was ok. They didn't worry about the student shooting up the school.
I wonder why not...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
The 9th circuit court, if the news is correct, or haven't you noticed?
This thread is like any anti-religion thread, "Look at all the evil done in the name of religion" while totally ignoring that the concept of religionless society is less then a century and a half old, in other words, such a comparison is absurd.
So far, the attempts at "religionless" societies have been far worse then any religion at it's worst, we can dismiss the appolgists who say "it was Stalin/Mao/whomever's greed that did it!"
Are the people who say that smart enough to realize the things done in the name of religion that were evil were also done of the greed of whomever was in charge in each instance? 
Apparently not, from the silly things said by quite a few here. 
The seperation is simple and well defined, no "church of the USA", no bishop, cardinal, or such, making direct political decissions.
When somebody tries to violate that, then come see me, but stop wasting my time complainging about a pledge if you don't believe, just don't say it.
And bare this in mind, if the athiests want a showdown with the theists, the atheists will lose, there are far more thiests then the inverse.
This nation still functions on the rule of the majority, the minority cannot be permitted to control the majority in the fashion that court is attempting.
That's life in the real world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
So why does it matter if those two words are in there or not? |
Because the MAJORITY of Americans want them there, and THAT is the basis of American society, not small pressure groups.quote:
They are offensive to some, if there is no particular purpose in them, then why not drop them and allow everyone to add or refrain from saying whatever they would like in that slot. |
It is offensive to MOST to remove them, who is being unreasonable, think about it.
Where does it end?
I don't like "he", so let's strike that.
The term "In other words" offends me, let's ban that.
Stupid nonsense, just like this.
This country is built on the will of the PEOPLE, not the special interest minority groups.
quote:
If the words 'under God' do serve a purpose in the Pledge, then please explain what that purpose is. |
That this nation was forged and mainted under god.
You don't want to believe that, that's your problem.
Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in.
quote:
This isn't about stopping people from saying 'under God' in the Pledge. You are free to say just about anything you'd like on your own time. This is about the class time in publicly funded schools, and how it should be used. |
It will be used by the will of the majority of Americans, just as all our laws and customs always have.
God help us if we let the pressure groups ditate to us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Because the MAJORITY of Americans want them there, and THAT is the basis of American society, not small pressure groups.It is offensive to MOST to remove them, who is being unreasonable, think about it.
Where does it end? |
So if the majority of Americans were to want there to be ritual sacrifice in the classroom that would be ok? It's an extreme scenario, but one which your line of reasoning seems to support. One which the constitution refutes as well as common (hopefully) sense.
quote:
Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in. |
"And this is precisely the sort of "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Thank you for proving my point." - Jack the Bodiless
quote:
It will be used by the will of the majority of Americans, just as all our laws and customs always have. |
Anyone now begining to see why minority groups sometimes feel threatened by seemingly small issues which are forced upon them by the majority? It's not the specific issue, but the underlying principle of statements like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like" and "It will be used by the will of the Majority of Americans". "It" being classroom time in this case.
I'm not saying that the majority feels the way Chris seems to. But that is the type of mob rule concept that we need to protect ourselves against. Just saying "the majority wants it" and not considering the constitutional limits against such reasoning.
So anyone else have an answer to the question...
What is the purpose of the Pledge, and why should it be retained (in whole or in part) in the classroom?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
We have a situation here where a parent is putting forth a lawsuit allegedly in the child's interests but against the wishes of the child and the other parent. The custody status of the child is in question. It is not clear that the father had the right to bring this suit in behalf of the child. It would not surprise me if the full court does not put the case on hold until the custody question is settled. Come to think of it, it may have been a judicial lapse for the judge who issued the decision to not have considered the fact of the uncertainty of the child's custody status in the first place.
It certainly appears that the father may have had more in mind here than a legal question of the seperatiopn of church and state. The suit may have been filed largely out of spite against the mother. He also might have considered using it as a springboard to restricting the mother from giving the child religious instruction and there by setting himself up with a means of contesting her custody in the future. It is also possible that he thought that he'd better get the lawsuit in now just in case he lost custody of the child and thereby lost the right to launch the suit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Spoken like a true totalitarian. What you call "tyranny of the minority" is otherwise known as liberty. You do not believe in the freedom of minorities not to conform to the majority? |
Nobody has to conform to anything. Saying the pledge is a choice.
quote:
This is a majority attempting to impose their religion on a minority. |
In what way is a religion being imposed on anyone? Saying "under God" is not endorsing any religion or forcing anyone to believe anything.
quote:
You may not consider this a serious imposition, and neither do I. But that is what it IS, despite all the denials. That is abundantly clear. It is becoming clearer with every additional rant about the power of the majority, about America being a "Christian nation". It is becoming clearer with every stubborn refusal to give up these "insignificant" words that were never in the original pledge. |
Which is better? To have most of the people happy with the pledge or only a minority? The answer is obvious.
quote:
There is a principle at stake. It is the principle behind the First Amendment: the principle of freeedom from conformity to a state standard of religion. |
The first amendment says nothing of the sort. You just added your own spin to it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof |
What law says you have to recite the pledge? How does reciting the pledge "respect an establishment of religion"? Saying "under God" is nondenominational.
Stopping people from saying "under God" is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
case closed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Spoken like a true totalitarian. What you call "tyranny of the minority" is otherwise known as liberty. You do not believe in the freedom of minorities not to conform to the majority?
Nobody has to conform to anything. Saying the pledge is a choice. |
All too often, it is not.
But why are you now talking about a choice of not saying the pledge? Patriotic American atheists WANT to pledge their allegiance to the US in true and proper fashion!
And that's the problem. You are, in effect, saying "It is un-American to be an atheist, but that's OK, I forgive you". It is NOT un-American to be an atheist!
Or it wasn't until 1954, when it became un-American to be an atheist. And most Christians want it to stay that way.
quote:
In what way is a religion being imposed on anyone? Saying "under God" is not endorsing any religion or forcing anyone to believe anything. |
It is the official pledge of allegiance to the United States of America. Sheesh, why can't you see what that means? To properly pledge allegiance, you must believe in God to be a true, loyal American! THAT is the message, and THAT IS WHY THE PLEDGE WAS CHANGED IN 1954.
quote:
Which is better? To have most of the people happy with the pledge or only a minority? The answer is obvious. |
Yes, the answer is obvious. Most people hate atheists. Most people want to affirm that atheism is un-American. This is OK with you?
quote:
There is a principle at stake. It is the principle behind the First Amendment: the principle of freeedom from conformity to a state standard of religion.
The first amendment says nothing of the sort. You just added your own spin to it. |
OK, what do YOU think the First Amendment is for, if it isn't a guarantee of freedom from conformity to a state standard of religion?
While you're at it, what do YOU think that the Pledge of Allegiance is for?
And what do YOU think that the addition of "under God" was for?
And which of the following hypothetical pledges would YOU find acceptable, and why:
1. Under Satan.
2. Under Stalin.
3. Without a God.
4. None of the above.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-07-2002 22:28
|