It’s also something that no one in this country ever actually thought was a deity. Again, as opposed to Christianity.
That was an example of anti-Christianism, not an attempt to pretend the "goddess’ was an actual goddess. It wasn’t a religion any more than burning down a church is a religion.
Besides, this is all facetious. We all know that “ceremonial deism” is just a lie in order to excuse putting the name of the Christian god on the money. It has nothing to do with any generic concept of “God” and never did. No amount of hand waving and rationalizing will make it anything else. It’s no different than the attempts to pretend that banning single sex marriage is about “preserving traditional marriage”, and not punishing homosexuals; it is a lie, and a transparent one.
I never argued that anyone in the US actually worshipped the Goddess of Liberty. Merely that its use was incompatible with Christianity - which it is - and which is the term of the challenge.
Exactly!
Once again, I’m not arguing that anyone in the US worshipped the Goddess of Liberty.
You are simply arguing by assertion here.
If it is a “transparent lie” really designed as an excuse to press exclusive “Christianity” … you have a hard time explaining why the main court case (decided last year) relying on “institutional deism” reasoning was decided by the deciding vote of a Bahá’í judge.
Huh, for some reason I thought that was two people. Oh well. And no, I don’t agree with everything **Trihs **is saying.
The fact that the Statue of Liberty isn’t understood to be a goddess of any sort by almost anyone in America, the “goddess of liberty” isn’t believed to be a real goddess by anyone who knows the origin of the statue (including the people who chose that symbolism), and nobody in America (well, to hedge my bets, a statistically insignificant number of people in America) worship the goddess of liberty, means that it’s not a true example of non-Christian ceremonial deism.
I’m looking for something that explicitly and incontrovertibly says something that isn’t compatible with Christianity. I gave you very good potential examples up above, such as “In Gods We Trust.”
You are changing the terms of the challenge. The original challenge was to find an example of ceremonial deism incompatible with Christianity. There was no-where stated any requirement that others worship the god used in that manner.
The whole theory of “ceremonial deism” posits that the “deism” need not actually be heartfelt worship - it is supposed to be, just as much, simply symbolic, standing for civic virtues.
From Wiki:
In short, the “in god we trust” motto would be an obvious example of “ceremonial deism”, beyond any dispute by anyone, were the entirety of the US population atheist. It is clearly not a requirement of “ceremonial deism” that some people actually worship the deity in question! The theory is that the invocation of god is no more necessarily religiously meaningful than someone exclaiming “bless you!” after a sneeze.
[Yes I know you don’t agree - but the issue is what the term means, not whether you agree with it.]
The example of the “goddess of liberty” is an undeniable example of purely “ceremonial” deism, exactly because no-one today worships her.
Moreover, as pointed out (and emphasized by Der Triths), the use of the Goddess of Liberty in modern times originated as a particularly anti-Christian symbol. Its use is clearly inimical to Christianity.
Well, that is a difficult one to answer - because of the simple reason that some Christians treat those nominally religious statements terribly seriously. Let’s remember that the reason affirmations are permitted in law is because of the objection to the oath by Quakers. Let’s also remember that long before Newdow was ever born, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were bringing court challenges against the Pledge of Allegiance.
So is ceremonial deism incompatible with Christianity? There are schools of Christian thought that believe precisely that.
It’s worth noting that Jehovah’s Witnesses have no issue with ceremonial deism. They have no opinion at all. They are less concerned with the state being being set upon by religion than their religion being being set upon by the state.
Their objection to the PoA was simply that is was obligatory. The question (and subsequent objections) by those who object to religion in state affairs, and those (like the JWs) who object to state influence in religious affairs, really are two separate issues.
I’m not sure you are right here. I know this is going to seem nitpicky, but let’s look back at your Wiki quote.
This is neither a statement nor a practice. It is an artistic representation. Much like using Hercules to personify strength, or Athena to personify wisdom. Religious themed art is treated differently to ceremonial deism.
The argument about place names, on the other hand, is still troubling me…
That’s a rather foolish dichotomy though, because by that same token the picture of Moses holding the tablets of the law on a court-house wall is not a “statement or practice”, but an “artistic representation”. :dubious: Yet the “Moses on a court-house wall” is the paradigm example of acceptable purely ceremonial deism often used in the cases.
Similarly, a depiction of the goddess of liberty would fall in the same category - a reasonable observer would never mistake it for a true religious statement. It is purely ceremonial and symbolic.
Well, to be honest then, the Wiki quote is incorrect - ceremonial deism goes beyond “statements and practices.” I was always under the impression that artistic displays were treated differently (though with the same result) as ceremonial deism. Apparently I was wrong there. It happens.
But, as an aside, if you are interested in a legitimate discussion on this, and I think I was remaining pretty civil, the raised eyebrow really was a wanker move, and you can cram it up your arse.
Yeah, and I apologize too. Little bit stressed today and I flew off the handle. Look on the bright side - you aren’t here in person, because people have been having shit thrown at them all day…
