Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

I am glad to hear it. À government should encourage inquisitiveness in its population. That is what I believe is the essential factor for any democracy. Religion is like any illution. Useful until you see through it. To maintain it for any longer than that is to work against oneself.

0 Replies

Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

hyper426 wrote:

Resolved: Democracy is best served by stricty separation of church and state. Here is the new NFL/TFA topic. Have at it!

Was it not the "Church" that instituted democracy in the first place?!

0 Replies

And it was Hitler who built the foundations of what is the modern infrastructure of Germany today. The nazis, and the experiments they performed on humans put medical science ahead by decades. I think we can agree that though we all benefit from these things we do not have to say that everything the nazis put forward is correct or of the good.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I have heard that nearly half the states in Usa are not allowed to teach evolution theories

Cyracuz,
The U.S. Supreme Court made a specific decision in 1968 that no state can prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools (Epperson v. Arkansas).

0 Replies

Cyracuz, welcome to A2K. Despite what some imply here, and ignoring the very few groups of religious nuts that crop up here and there, the religious are not asking that religion be taught in the schools. Those who believe in a form of Creationism as taught in the Bible simply do not want that summarily dismissed as foolishness as it cannot be disproved. This is in the interest of the schools not intentionally attempting to destroy the religious faith of children.

They largely acknowledge that neither can Creationism be proved and think it is fine for the schools to say that and then go on to teaching solid science.

0 Replies

Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

hyper426 wrote:
Resolved: Democracy is best served by stricty separation of church and state. Here is the new NFL/TFA topic. Have at it!

Was it not the "Church" that instituted democracy in the first place?!

No.

Lemme rephrase that...

NO!

0 Replies

That sounds more like a parctical way of dealing with matters. The primary objective should be to coexist with our differences, not to make it so that everyone thinks the same.

0 Replies

well yeah, that's exactly what I heard from the KKK. Well that and "anybody bring rope?"

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyracuz, welcome to A2K. Despite what some imply here, and ignoring the very few groups of religious nuts that crop up here and there, the religious are not asking that religion be taught in the schools. Those who believe in a form of Creationism as taught in the Bible simply do not want that summarily dismissed as foolishness as it cannot be disproved. This is in the interest of the schools not intentionally attempting to destroy the religious faith of children.

They largely acknowledge that neither can Creationism be proved and think it is fine for the schools to say that and then go on to teaching solid science.

Cyracuz...

...despite Fox's rather self-serving assessment...

...the "groups of religious nuts" are not "few" at all...and since they think they have the upper hand at the moment, they are exerting muscle way beyond what their numbers should allow. Mostly, that is because of the help, wittingly or unwittingly, given by the likes of Fox.

I do agree with her, though, that most are not asking that religion be taught in school...but if she thinks they "simply do not want that summarily dismissed as foolishness as it cannot be disproved"...she is even more naive than I think she is...and I think she is VERY naive.

But there are plenty of us who see the religious agenda for the danger that it is....and we will see that it does not intrude on kids learning what they must learn in order to compete in this world.

The superstition can be taught at home...or in their churches.

0 Replies

Now then, I am going to agree to simply disagree with Frank since I think his arguments are too laced with anti-religious sentiment for him to be objective on the matter of public expressions of religion.

To me, an inalienable right is that which requires nothing but non-interference from others. Only that which requires me to do or give up something or materially affects my person or my property can infringe on my rights.

If the government should place a phrase offensive to me on our coinage or in an official pledge, I wouldn't like it. But so long as I was not required to say it, believe it, read it, contribute to it, or adhere to it, I would not see that as a violation of my rights. I do not believe I have any inalienable right to not be offended or to not be uncomfortable in any place other than on my private property. I would try to change something personally offensive to me if I could, but if the majority wanted such it to be there, I would accept that the majority had spoken.

There is a huge difference between majority rule prevailing in matters of preference and majority rule prevailing in matters of rights. Some seem to not be able to make that distinction and want to relate it to non-related things (straw men). The phrases in the Pledge and on coinage, for instance, are not mandates nor do they take away any rights nor do they incite insurrection or riot. They are simply phrases that the majority wants to be there. When the majority can be persuaded that they shouldn't be there, they will be gone.

0 Replies

Quote:

"The phrases in the Pledge and on coinage, for instance, are not mandates nor do they take away any rights nor do they incite insurrection or riot."

Are you aware, have you ever heard of, seen or read, anything, ANYTHING, even from the most anti-religious nut job (such as myself) that in anyway suggested that anyone should be prevented from saying anyting they want re the pledge? I thought not, makes your argument kinda spurious.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Now then, I am going to agree to simply disagree with Frank since I think his arguments are too laced with anti-religious sentiment for him to be objective on the matter of public expressions of religion.

To me, an inalienable right is that which requires nothing but non-interference from others. Only that which requires me to do or give up something or materially affects my person or my property can infringe on my rights.

If the government should place a phrase offensive to me on our coinage or in an official pledge, I wouldn't like it. But so long as I was not required to say it, believe it, read it, contribute to it, or adhere to it, I would not see that as a violation of my rights. I do not believe I have any inalienable right to not be offended or to not be uncomfortable in any place other than on my private property. I would try to change something personally offensive to me if I could, but if the majority wanted such it to be there, I would accept that the majority had spoken.

Pure, unadulterated rationalization.

My guess is that Fox has no goddam idea of how she would react to anything of the sort...but it does sound so very nice when she actually doesn't have to deal with it.

The pledge of allegience is a pledge one makes to flag and country...not to any ideas about any gods...especially the god that was meant when this idiotic phrase was instituted.

One of the reasons our Constitution WILL NOT ALLOW the words "...one nation, under Jesus Christ..." is because that would not only be an insult to non-Christians, but WOULD infringe on their rights...no matter how hard it is for Fox to see that.

That same line of reasoning SHOULD apply to the words "...one nation, under god..."...because it is an insult to non-theists and does infringe on their rights....no matter how hard it is for Fox to see that.

Quote:

There is a huge difference between majority rule prevailing in matters of preference and majority rule prevailing in matters of rights. Some seem to not be able to make that distinction and want to relate it to non-related things (straw men).

I quite agree...and you are one of them.

So why don't you wake up?

Quote:

The phrases in the Pledge and on coinage, for instance, are not mandates...

What the hell does that mean?

Are you saying that I don't have to use money????

Quote:

... nor do they take away any rights ...

THEY DO TAKE AWAY RIGHTS. The same rights that would be taken away from non-Christians if "one nation, under Jesus Christ..." were inserted.

Why do you continue to proclaim otherwise?

Quote:

They are simply phrases that the majority wants to be there. When the majority can be persuaded that they shouldn't be there, they will be gone.

We shouldn't have to persuade the majority that they shouldn't be there...they shouldn't be there NO MATTER WHAT. Simply because the majority wants them there is not sufficient. There should be a compelling reason for them being there.

Would the money be any less valid...or perform any the worse if the phrase "In Zeus We Trust" were not there?

Would the pledge be any less a pledge of loyalty if the words "one nation, under Zeus" were not there?

This is absolute blindness on your part, Fox...and one of the main reasons I will fight this bullshyt with every means open to me.

I have no illusions about winning this one...people like you will win.

But I consider the people insisting on this nonsense to be the lowest of the low...and I hope, should your god actually exist...that the god has a special place in Hell reserved for hypocrites of this sort.

But aside from that, Fox...I hope that 2005 has started off nicely for you...and that it gets better and better as it moves along.

0 Replies

One thing is to teach religion in school. Another is to teach religion as truth. It has been claimed that since religion cannot be disproved it has it's place in the schools. But until it can be proved it has no place in educating humans.

I do not object to religion being a subject in school as long as it is treated for what it is. Why should religion be treated any differently than, say, the writings of edgar allan poe? Why shouldn't the christian genesis be treated exactly as Tolkiens "silmarillion" where he tells the tale of the creation of middle earth.
You can argue about sources, and say that we know from Tolkiens mouth that this is fiction. But what about the countless fairytales that are used in schools all over the world? The majority of them have anonymous authors, and have been passed on through generations. Why should religion be treated differently in schools than these tales?

Quote:

Now then, I am going to agree to simply disagree with Frank since I think his arguments are too laced with anti-religious sentiment for him to be objective on the matter of public expressions of religion.

Can it be that your thinking is too laced with religious zeal to see the sense in his words? What I am saying is that we are not all of us capable of seing what is behind our own eyes. I was recently in the position where I had to dodge and defend for all I was worth. In the end it occured to me I was arguing for the sake of argument, and because I wanted so badly to be right. The fact that I was wrong didn't even give me pause.

0 Replies

Sorry, your definition of "rights" and my definition of "rights" simply don't mesh. And honestly, you have no idea in the world what actually does offend me or how I react to much of it. And the fact that "it does not have to be there" simply doesn't wash as a reason something should not be there. Parks, trees, flowers, beautiful sculpture and paintings do not HAVE to be on public lands or in public buildings. For that matter we do not HAVE to have public lands or buildings. That does not necessarily translate into that they should not be there.

But I love you anyway Frank and best wishes right back at you.

0 Replies

Well, I'm always right and I'm never wrong. I'm a liberal!

0 Replies

Cyracuz writes:

Quote:

Can it be that your thinking is too laced with religious zeal to see the sense in his words? What I am saying is that we are not all of us capable of seing what is behind our own eyes. I was recently in the position where I had to dodge and defend for all I was worth. In the end it occured to me I was arguing for the sake of argument, and because I wanted so badly to be right. The fact that I was wrong didn't even give me pause.

Well first you would have to know whether I possess religious zeal to make such a consideration plausible. Second, you have no way of knowing whether I would equally defend any other phrase in a Pledge or on a Coin when the majority wanted it to be there. In truth, if it offended me, I wouldn't defend it. If I liked it or had no feelings one way or the other on it (as is in the case of the current phrases in the Pledge or on conage) I would defend it. I honestly don't care whether the words "under God" are in the Pledge or "In God we trust" is on our coinage. I don't actually have a dog in the fight. It's the principle I defend.

As Frank is doing, if I didn't like a phrase, I would exercise my constitutionally protected right to speak my mind about it. So long as my rights were not infringed or the issue was absolutely as innocuous as this one is, I would not attempt to paint those who disagreed with me as Nazis or nutcases or irrational zealots or some other unattractive group.

0 Replies

Fox, you keep saying that because people are not "forced" to recite the pledge, that nothing in the pledge can be construed as an "establishment" of religion. But even adults have a hard time ignoring peer pressure, and little kids thrive on acceptance. Don't you think it's a bit underhanded to claim that the pledge is not forced on anyone, when the implication is that little kids will have to single themselves out in the class by objecting to a pledge to their country which everyone else is saying? I think that's asking a lot from a 2nd grader to step away from the group and then explain that they still support their country, but don't want to imply a belief in god with their pledge.

0 Replies

It was not a consideration Foxyfire. It was a question. The consideration is left up to you to do.

I am not trying to paint you as nazi or anything whatsoever. I am simply stating that a few good deeds do not justify a whole belief system. If it did nazism would be legitimate and accepted.

Wich groups are unattractive is a subjective matter. For my part, going from christian to nazi is a step up.

0 Replies

Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
hyper426 wrote:
Resolved: Democracy is best served by stricty separation of church and state. Here is the new NFL/TFA topic. Have at it!

Was it not the "Church" that instituted democracy in the first place?!

No.

Lemme rephrase that...

NO!

Open-minded as ever, Frank. Perhaps you'd like to try again - I wasn't quite sure what you were trying to say.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Fox, you keep saying that because people are not "forced" to recite the pledge, that nothing in the pledge can be construed as an "establishment" of religion. But even adults have a hard time ignoring peer pressure, and little kids thrive on acceptance. Don't you think it's a bit underhanded to claim that the pledge is not forced on anyone, when the implication is that little kids will have to single themselves out in the class by objecting to a pledge to their country which everyone else is saying? I think that's asking a lot from a 2nd grader to step away from the group and then explain that they still support their country, but don't want to imply a belief in god with their pledge.

If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know