Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

There is no law against government acknowledging a god. There is only a prohibition against government requiring YOU to acknowledge a god.

0 Replies

like I said above, I think it's important to keep those words in the pledge to remind of what we (as a nation) are not. Personal intergrity be damned, just go with the flow (everyone wear brown shoes on tuesdays)

0 Replies

The US government is DECLARING that there is a god. You have admitted as much (or given the impression that you believe such by giving a carefully worded reply that cooperates with this statement).

So, imagine I'm an atheist. And imagine you're a christian. And imagine we're in an argument in which I'm spouting about there not being a god and you're spouting about there being a god. In our argument, you can quote the pledge of the United States of America, which clearly states that THERE IS A GOD. This means either
a) that you are clearly right, and I am clearly wrong, or
b) that the US government is wrong in its statement of FACT that there is a god.

In case b), it is clear that "under god" should be stricken from the Constitution. Clearly. Because there is not a god. (assuming we have case b)

In case a), we have the following: The US government is telling me that I can believe what I want, but that if I believe that there is no god, I will be wrong. But I can believe it if I want. So the US government is stating, in writing, that my choice, in choosing atheism, is logically incorrect. In our religious debate, therefore, it has taken your side. It has endorsed all religions over my LACK of religion and has left me in the embarrassing position of being the only one that is wrong on the religious question, "Is there a god?" (Assuming that the "God" referenced is not the christian god, which it is.) So, the US government is pronouncing, in writing, that all atheist persons are dunces that are incapable of following the clear logic that has led the US government to uncover the FACT that THERE IS NO GOD.
You can say there's no law against it all you want (even though there is). But can you not see that it's a pretty silly thing for the US government to up and pronounce I am wrong just because of my belief that there is no god? Why do you have to make this about atheists? Theists are the ones that changed the pledge and wrongfully imposed a religious statement upon the rest of us. I have been answering your calls that "it does not hurt you" with "yes it does". But this now does not matter to you, since you see that, oops maybe it does. So now look at the pretext. Eisenhower added these words as "spiritual weapons". Tell me, if you can, HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THIS USE OF SPIRITUAL WARFARE IN OUR CLASSROOMS?

0 Replies

Binnyboy

I agree. When a government states that there is a God it also states that atheists are wrong. And that is a public and general statement.
When this kind of thing starts, it's always difficult to say how it will end.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Binnyboy

I agree. When a government states that there is a God it also states that atheists are wrong. And that is a public and general statement.
When this kind of thing starts, it's always difficult to say how it will end.

This doesn't matter to people like Fox. They like to revel in their hypocrisy....which, of course, is almost the only consistent feature of the "religious."

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Yeah agreed, but I am the product of a liberal education. I got **** for brains. But yeah "allow" a very poor choice of words.

You also gotta smart a** ... which I like. Care to meet @ the malt shop next Tuesday? Be sure to wear brown shoes!

:wink:

0 Replies

Forever, did you choose your name after the alphaville song? Its a great song.

0 Replies

australia wrote:

Forever, did you choose your name after the alphaville song? Its a great song.

No, I didn't. I am not familiar with alphaville.

My name is also the title of an old Bob Dylan song. (I posted the lyrics to Edgar Blythe's Bob Dylan thread and, last time I checked, they can be found at the 'end' of it.)

Have you ever heard "Forever Young" by Bob Dylan? It is also a great song. He wrote it for his youngest son, Jakob, who formed the group "The Wallflowers."

oooooooooookay, I'm probably posting much more than you wanted to know ... :wink:

0 Replies

Forever young
I want to be forever young
Do you ever want to be forever
forever, forever young

That was the chorus. Good deutch group.

0 Replies

australia wrote:

That was the chorus. Good deutch group.

Oh, thank you. I do like that lyric. Seems like it might be time for another virtual trip to Amazon.com.

:wink:

0 Replies

I'm a starter at a golf course.

One of the golfers...a very attractive Asian woman...whose name is Yung....calls herself Forever Yung!

I thought of her when I saw your moniker for the first time.

I sure liked your other avatar, FY.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm a starter at a golf course.

One of the golfers...a very attractive Asian woman...whose name is Yung....calls herself Forever Yung!

I thought of her when I saw your moniker for the first time.

I sure liked your other avatar, FY.

Forever Yung: LOL! :wink:

Which other avatar did you like? I've used the blonde WASPy one and the African-American one ... both females.

0 Replies

The one that had just an eye peeking out. I don't remember if it was blond and WASPy or African-American.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The one that had just an eye peeking out. I don't remember if it was blond and WASPy or African-American.

HA: blonde and WASPy.

Well, "You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."

:wink:

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no law against government acknowledging a god. There is only a prohibition against government requiring YOU to acknowledge a god.

Laws are 'created' as a response to an abuse of freedom; the use, deference to, or advocating of a 'posture' relative to a religion, by an elected representative, (for example, requiring/allowing the use of prayer on a regular basis in the school system) is an 'abuse of the freedom of expression' with respect to the rules of representation which bind an elected official to deal only with areas of social policy, clearly within their mandate.

To avoid this blatant affront to the rights of electors, there will eventually be a law against the mention of a specific religion by anyone in government.
And the sooner the better, in my opinion!

[there is NO place for religious belief, or practice, in the government of a nation!]

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There is no law against government acknowledging a god. There is only a prohibition against government requiring YOU to acknowledge a god.

Laws are 'created' as a response to an abuse of freedom; the use, deference to, or advocating of a 'posture' relative to a religion, by an elected representative, (for example, requiring/allowing the use of prayer on a regular basis in the school system) is an 'abuse of the freedom of expression' with respect to the rules of representation which bind an elected official to deal only with areas of social policy, clearly within their mandate.

To avoid this blatant affront to the rights of electors, there will eventually be a law against the mention of a specific religion by anyone in government.
And the sooner the better, in my opinion!

[there is NO place for religious belief, or practice, in the government of a nation!]

You should excuse the expression, but...

AMEN!

0 Replies

interesting word "amen";

why not "Apeople" (to illiminate the sexist allusion), or "ehgod?" to 'Canadianize' it, and render the implied question and 'in group' nature of the term more obvious?

0 Replies

Bogowo, first in response to your politically correct prayer ending Laughing

But you posted

Quote:

To avoid this blatant affront to the rights of electors, there will eventually be a law against the mention of a specific religion by anyone in government.
And the sooner the better, in my opinion!

[there is NO place for religious belief, or practice, in the government of a nation!]

As previously posted in this thread, the architects of the Constitution disagreed with you on this one as do I. The intent was never to outlaw religion in any setting and certainly not remove its influence from government. And they saw the possibility of abuse cutting two ways:
a) coercion via government mandating any manner of religious belief or religious observation and
b) coercion via government denying the free exercise of whateve religious customs or practices one might hold.

They knew it was just as wrong to deny expressions of religious faith as it is to require them. The Founding Fathers would have said a sculpture engraved with the Ten Commandments or a painting of the Last Supper are nothing more than art, meaningful to some, not to others, but simply art. There is no way such as that is an establishment of religion or a requirement or expectation for anyone to believe anything. A sculpture of Buddha sitting in a courtoom is simply a work of art to anyone other than a Buddist. No reasonable person would conclude that its presence was pushing Zen Buddhism on the public.

I really thing everybody ought to get a grip. It would be offensive for carolers to go singing to the local Loyal Order of Athiests, and it is offensive for the anti-religious or anti-public-religion types to deny the symbolism and beauty of a traditional religious holiday to those who enjoy celebrating it in their neighborhoods, downtown, or town square.

More tolerance by everybody is in order I think.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Bogowo, first in response to your politically correct prayer ending

But you posted

Quote:
To avoid this blatant affront to the rights of electors, there will eventually be a law against the mention of a specific religion by anyone in government.
And the sooner the better, in my opinion!

[there is NO place for religious belief, or practice, in the government of a nation!]

As previously posted in this thread, the architects of the Constitution disagreed with you on this one as do I. The intent was never to outlaw religion in any setting and certainly not remove its influence from government. And they saw the possibility of abuse cutting two ways:
a) coercion via government mandating any manner of religious belief or religious observation and
b) coercion via government denying the free exercise of whateve religious customs or practices one might hold.

They knew it was just as wrong to deny expressions of religious faith as it is to require them. The Founding Fathers would have said a sculpture engraved with the Ten Commandments or a painting of the Last Supper are nothing more than art, meaningful to some, not to others, but simply art. There is no way such as that is an establishment of religion or a requirement or expectation for anyone to believe anything. A sculpture of Buddha sitting in a courtoom is simply a work of art to anyone other than a Buddist. No reasonable person would conclude that its presence was pushing Zen Buddhism on the public.

I really thing everybody ought to get a grip. It would be offensive for carolers to go singing to the local Loyal Order of Athiests, and it is offensive for the anti-religious or anti-public-religion types to deny the symbolism and beauty of a traditional religious holiday to those who enjoy celebrating it in their neighborhoods, downtown, or town square.

More tolerance by everybody is in order I think.

I agree.

Start showing it.

The "government" is the government of ALL the people...not just the majority....and definitely not just the theists.

When there is no compelling reason for it to get into theistic nonsense...it should but out.

The government should not be putting our trust in any gods...nor should it be putting our country under any gods.

0 Replies

I am generally against anything in government that gives the appearance of endorsing religion. However, I am undecided on specific issues like the Pledge controversy.

In a decision last June, the supreme court opted to avoid the "weighty question of federal constitutional law" presented by the "under God" phrase in the pledge. (The court decided on the basis that the parent in that case lacked standing to represent his daughter since a state court granted sole custody to the ex-spouse.)

Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas wrote separate opinions indicating that they felt the court should have addressed the constitutional issue. These three justices believe the "under God" phrase is not an establishment of religion.

Some day the full court will probably have to directly address the issue.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know