Sorry about the poorly written paragraph. I’m on my way out the door.
That is not what they are doing. They are trying to keep what has been a part of America for years and fighting for their right to do that. It is someone else’s idea to take away what these people feel is their right to keep. I don’t see anyone pushing anything down anyone’s throat.
There’s the rub, dreamer. You seem like a really nice person, but when you say things like “God has been rid from the public schools”, I have to wonder what you mean. You can pray there, you can have your religious group meet after school, if you have any spare time you can read the Bible, and so on. Are you suggesting that public school students should be required to pray? Should there be Bible study? It just seems to me that what you’re complaining about is that the government isn’t forcing me or people like me to participate in your rituals, which, given your argument about what atheists are up to, just doesn’t make any sense.
And there are plenty of people calling for God in government, in the schools, etc. Like I said earlier, makes you wonder who’s getting the shaft here, huh?
Stalemate
Way back in freshman psych, I remember a a phenomenon very relevant to this discussion (‘attribution’, I think it is – perhaps someone more schooled can correct/elaborate)?
It works like this: I am motivated to do something. Therefore, everyone else is motivated to do this same thing.
I find this theory very useful at explaining why a group of people whose religion requires them to convert non-believers could come to believe there is some serious effort afoot to outlaw religion.
Also, a slight hijack…
I laugh out loud at Christians who claim that in America, it takes more courage to publicly acknowledge being a Christian than it does to publicly acknowledge being an atheist.
I have for years proposed the following experiment (and I’ve never been taken up on it):
I walk around with a sign saying “Come to God”, “Jesus is Lord”, etc.
YOU walk around with a sign saying “There is no God”, “Jesus is Lard”, etc.
(Some ground-leveling would be in order: we have to act equally politely, and be dressed about the same).
First person punched in the mouth loses.
F. U. Shakespeare
If you look back and read what I did say you would see that what I said was “things certainly have been done to rid God from the public systems”. I did not say "God has been rid from anywhere.
No, I am not suggesting that at all.
Isn’t it more like people are trying to force changes because other people are tired of seeing and hearing about things they don’t agree with?
And there are plenty calling for the opposite.
I don’t care if people “feel it is their right to keep” doing anything, honestly. There were many Southerners who believed it was their right to have their children go to school with only whites. There have been many unconstitutional laws passed, and some have had more legs than others. Longetevity doesn’t equal legality. The analysis I’ve seen of the legal history of the ONUG clause persuade me that it is a completely religious statement, meant to stand as some kind of qualifier, that serves no secular purpose, and thereby fails the Establishment Clause. It doesn’t particularly offend me, but I do think it’s unconstitutional, and I don’t think convenience or tradition should be a defense to unconstitionality. If it’s that important to anyone to keep it, they’re welcome to try and amend the thing.
I’m a little confused with your pronouns here – could you clarify that a bit?
Because that’s what the Constitution says.
God and religion have no place in government. Period. And public schools are a branch of government. Any time you start putting God into public policy or whatever, you have to choose which God, or, in fact, gods.
You’re right, there are a small number of people who would like to ban religion outright. Fine; there are always extremists. But I absolutely refuse to take responsibility for their extreme viewpoint, any more than you should be expected to take responsibility for the Jeebus-drooling nutzoids who shoot abortion doctors. They’re on the fringes. We’ll always have people on the fringes. We shouldn’t pretend that they represent anything resembling a serious point of view that will ever approach any level of public acceptance.
I do not want anything or anyone referring to God in an official capacity. But at the same time, you’re perfectly free to refer to God as a private individual. My wanting “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance does not in any way mean that I also want there to be a law prohibiting you from wearing an “I Love Jesus” t-shirt. They are two completely different things.
So, please, when you say “the opposite,” be very careful what you mean.
If you mean, “remove any and all references to God and religion from life in general,” then you’re living in a fantasyland.
If you mean, “remove any and all references to God and religion from official state procedures and documents,” then absolutely, I fully agree with that viewpoint, because that’s the law of the land. And further, it’s just plain good sense. As an example, consider the Taliban. They had about as much God in their government as you can get, and look at how successful they were.
It’s simple: God and government don’t mix. Period. In the United States, you’re free to worship a Barbie Corvette full of millipedes if that’s what floats your boat. And the government has absolutely no business making any judgement about it one way or the other.
Mighty Maximino
dreamer
There are plenty of people who wanted the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses (government), and now the Pledge of Allegiance issue (schools), and the IGWT issue on currency. Am I seeing something different than you guys? Is that not the opposite of Christians trying to keep that stuff in place?
As you said Cervaise I’m beginning to see how God and Government don’t mix anymore, though it did and it worked just fine before. Our world is changing as it will continually, but there will always be people fighting to keep what they think of as the good things around.
dreamer: *As you said Cervaise I’m beginning to see how God and Government don’t mix anymore, though it did and it worked just fine before. *
Who says it “worked just fine before”? There are lots of people who think that racial segregation, or women not having the right to vote, “worked just fine” too. Just because people used to get away with officially practicing discrimination on the basis of race or sex or religion, and the majority of Americans didn’t object to it, doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.
As I said, you have to define “opposite.”
Does “opposite” mean eliminating official (i.e. goverment) reference to Christian symbols? That, in my opinion, is a good thing. If a Muslim or an American Indian or an atheist goes into a courtroom, and there’s a big old slab of marble behind the judge that says, in part, “Thou shalt have no gods before me,” how is the non-Christian to trust in that institution’s ability to render justice effectively?
Or does “opposite” mean trying to eliminate religion entirely? As I said before, I don’t think there’s really any serious effort to do this. I believe that much of religion requires people to adhere to counter-rational thinking, and encourages belief in the Loch Ness Monster and palm-reading and poltergeists and other fictions, but I also see that the belief that a senseless death might actually have some meaning can provide enormous comfort. I’d be happy if people started coming to their senses about how the world really works, but I absolutely will not participate in any effort to force this on anyone.
So again: If you define the opposite of putting God into government as taking God out of government, then I don’t see that you have a leg to stand on. But if you define the opposite of putting God into government as taking God out of life in general, then I will oppose any such effort by your side.
The “good things” are your opinion. Can you not see that making your opinion the official position of the government is a bad thing?
And on preview, I see that Kimstu has provided excellent examples of what some people used to (and some still do) believe are “good things.” I heard a story recently that some black entertainer back in the 50’s or 60’s – maybe Sammy Davis Jr., maybe somebody else – was at a segregated hotel in Las Vegas, where blacks were prohibited from staying. In a fit of pique, he jumped into the swimming pool. Several guests demanded that the hotel drain the pool and refill it so they could swim in “untainted” water. This segregated system was in place for decades before it began to change in the 1960’s. It was certainly the status quo for a lot longer than “under God” has been in the Pledge of Allegiance. Just because it lasted so long, does that make it right?
So you’re telling us that we can believe it’s appropriate to correct other people, but that we can’t act on that belief? Let’s rephrase the question.
You say that it’s wrong to tell other people that their beliefs are wrong.
I believe that the act of telling other people that their beliefs are wrong is justified.
Are you saying that my belief is wrong?
Define ‘act’.
If you know last night that I had sexual intercourse, in private, with a consenting adult, without the benefit of marriage, I do NOT think you should be allowed to stone me to death.
OTOH, if you know that some religious nut stoned me to death while screaming “FORNICATOR!” (subsequent to my aforementioned deeds), I believe you should be allowed to:
- Call a cop;
- Tackle said nut if necessary;
Also, I strongly believe that you (and I – as per above) should be allowed to tell other people their beliefs are wrong.
FU Shakespeare
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JThunder *
**
So you’re telling us that we can believe it’s appropriate to correct other people, but that we can’t act on that belief? Let’s rephrase the question.
dreamer, no disrepect intended, but why on Earth do you think that the 10 Commandments belong in the courthouses? Last time I checked, there were no religious police, and it wasn’t iillegal to: Take the Lord’s name in vain, commit adultery, make an idol, disrespect one’s parents, profane the Sabbath, covet thy neighbors ass, and so forth . . .
And could you see why someone who swore allegiance to the Constitution, which says
[quote]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
[quote]
would object to having this message posted in a building where that document is supposed to be upheld:
.
Maybe a little inconsistency? I like you, dreamer, but you seem to be basing your arguments on tradition and expedience and popular opinion, rather than the rule of law and individual freedom.
Damn, screwed up coding. I hope you can tell what I meant. Incidentally, dreamer, even though you didn’t intend this result, while surfing the web for citations to my argument, I ran across this site, which has to be the funniest damn thing I’ve read all month. (I was looking for some hard - core, but sane and scary Christian Reconstructionists, and instead I ran into the Tinfoil Hat Brigade, to Whom Grammar Dare Not Approach.) So thanks both for the good discussion and the inadvertant amusement!
Oh my goodness, Max, that is some seriously funny stuff! Be sure to check out that site’s atheism page, which includes this immortal nugget:
Oh, and it turns out God hates democracy too. 
Well it sure was fun! I’m looking forward to the day I get to meet you guys at a Dopefest or something. (Hopefully not on some dark street corner) I’ll be the one in armor :D.
I’m sure you can produce a person who will willingly say that religious practices should be outlawed, if not religious belief itself. And I can produce someone who thinks that people who vote Democratic aren’t real Americans (unfortunately, that’s the HR director at work); or someone who thinks abortion providers should be shot (another coworker); or someone who says on the radio that federal agents are best killed by shooting them in the head (G. Gordon Liddy). I’ve met lots of people who, individually, embody my worst fears about what the world could be tomorrow.
In a nation this big, there’s no shortage of freaky individuals who would wreak all kinds of Hell for various segments of the population if they had a button they could push that would bring their dreams to reality. That means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Until you can point to a real movement in the population to ban religion, you’re relying upon anecdotal evidence that says nothing about how likely it is to actually happen. Your opinion carries little weight as a support for the proposition that religious expression is really in danger (I didn’t mean to imply that your opinion itself is irrelevant or unimportant).
The question you need to answer is: why do you see the removal of religion from an official capacity in the U.S. as a restriction on your religious practices? Do you think you have a right to a religiously supportive environment?
I would like a world that is religion free. Then we can see people start wars over something better, like say, a tuna sandwich -with or without pickles.
As an Atheist, watching people fight over “holy land” makes as much sense to me as people killing each other over tuna sandwiches.
BUT. Having said that. I have no problem with a government that allows people to follow their faith as long as said faith is not enforced in any way by the government.
Pray in your house, pray in your chruch. I don’t care. It’s your life.
But please PLEASE, stop knocking on my door!
“How did you loose your leg grandpa?”
“Well, It was back in 2032. The great Tuna Sandwich War. I was part of the underground Relish Railroad”
“Wow grandpa, tell me more!”
Dreamer said, “That is not what they are doing. They are trying to keep what has been a part of America for years and fighting for their right to do that. It is someone else’s idea to take away what these people feel is their right to keep. I don’t see anyone pushing anything down anyone’s throat.”
It was NOT part of America for a much longer time than it HAS been a part of America. Religion and politics…what makes you think these two things go together? Which religion is allowed to be on the money? Which religion are they talking about in the PoA? What does it have to do with being patriotic?
Dreamer, with all due respect, you haven’t offered a reason as to why we should ignore the “separation of church and state” so a select portion of the population can recite/pledge their devotion to a god, under the guise of patriotism, and effectively exclude the people that are athiest, polythiest, agnostic, or undecided from pledging their allegiance honestly. The presence of the word “god” in the pledge singles out the non-believers. The absence of it DOESN’T single out the believers. You are free to worship at church, in your home, on tax-payer funded school property, and pretty much anywhere else you want to do it. Why do you desire the word “god” in public places where everyone doesn’t share your sentiment? I’m sorry, but you’re all coming off as power-hungry zealots that simply can’t accept an opinion different from your own.