You have shown neither a “character to the legal philosophy that underpins this country” nor where anyone is trying to “erase [it] because they think it is offensive.”
The fact that you can find references to God or a god or some god or some divine force in various (and conflicting) Enlightenment authors does not make a case that the divine provided any common underpinnings to the country among all the conflicting philosphies and views that contributed to the various arguments in which the founders engaged when creating this country.
You introduced the concept of the “civil religion.” I have pointed out that that appears to be simply a vague pronouncement to gather the diverse views of numerous individuals into an artifical construction with no basis in reality.
On the other hand, you have also failed to demonstrate that those of us who oppose the impostion of an unnecessary reference to God in governmental activities are actually offended by your imaginary “civil religion.” Whereas, I have pointed out where advocates of what I must presume is your “civil religion” have used it to harrass people who did not share their beliefs. That harrassment continues, today, with the harrassment by various advocates of public and government-endorsed religion persecuting people who prefer that government stay out of religion. Further, it is excactly the inappropriate placement of such phrases as “under God” and “in God we trust” that these religious persecutors have used to rationalize their harrassment, claiming that this is a “Christian” country.*
So, on the one hand, we have clear evidence that the result of mixing government and religion will lead to abuses–abuses present at the founding and continuing today (see Dover PA)–and on the other hand we have your odd claim that if we say nothing on a topic, that is the same as making an assertion about that topic.
You have still failed to persuade me.
*Examples include
calls by Congresscritters to either “investigate” the military or to withhold funds from the military for providing Wiccans with chaplain services
requests by a mother of students in a public school that the school not have prayers read in school lead to harrassment, vandalism, the shunning of her children, and accusations of Satanism, even though she is a Fundamentalist Christian
students who asked that prayers not be recited at the beginning of football games were similarly shunned and victimized.
I think the insertion of a particular God is what people are resisting and rightfully so. As I’ve said several times, the 1st amendment makes our government and us as citizens {even the atheists} obligated to protect the rights pf people to worship as they choose. I love that part.
I think I’m getting the drift of what you are saying. The fact is that there is a movement, as yet unsuccessful, to claim that Christianity has some sort of spiritual dibbs on the US. I think thats what people are railing against.
DId you say** singers**? That evokes a funny image of white wigged founding fathers and Ben Franklin with a conductors baton.
“All rights boys it’s in the key of C. Let’s take it from the top”
{male voices singing badly} “When in the course of human events”
Note that I said the judeo Christian God. Not mere deism or theism. The insertion of Under God and the money thing are attempts by that particular belief to establish itself as the “right” God and the official God of the US. That violates the spirit of the establishment clause.
In your opinion and I tend to agree, I’m just saying I understand the point. I see it as an observance of tradition for the most part and it means exactly what it means to me. Nobody can impose an interpretation on me.
What do you see as the attempt to remove God from the national charecter? Specifically? I do get the feeling sometime that there is an undercurrent to make religious belief and language politically incorrect but I believe the process is a necessary one to sort things out. I don’t think we’ll get to religion free zones in resturants or expressions of thank God and praise the Lord being prohibited.
I have no idea where you got that impression. I count myself a believer. Although I am independent of any organized religious practice my beliefs are pretty serious to me.
And out of again and then into. My own beliefs have gone from non existant, to somewhat traditional Chritianity, to hedonism, to something that incorperates beliefs from lots of varied reading and studying from different religions.
I don’t see anyone that made that assumption. I think what some are asking for is a minimum of respect and the acknowledgement that they have all the same rights without believing they come from God.
Yeah, Its a volitile subject. From believers who assume their vision of God is the only right one to to atheists who sneer disdainfully at anyone who has spiritual belief. I’ve come to a point where discussions abour religious belief are no different than discussions about philosophy, the weather, or history. It’s only words.
Me too. I get that Christian assumption here on the SDMBs myself. I think the mix of culture and beliefs here in America is quite a challenge to our tolerance and understanding. I hope we can use the experience to grow in our understanding rather than feel threatened.
I agree. The objection I understand is that its better if its not official government policy. Unofficial tradition, or even majority preference, is another matter.
I think the issue is bigger than the money or the pledge. Right now people are useing their religious beliefs and beliefs influenced by religious tradition to create laws that effect others. Specifically prejudice against gays, the teaching of creationism in schools, and the abortion issue. Those are things that need to be seriously challenged. The fall out is questioning the validity of certain beliefs, and the reaction of those who hold those beliefs. I support people’s rights to believe whatever they will but when those beliefs spill into my life and my rights then they’ll have to defend them.
I don’t disagree. Where the lines are drawn will bring about some battles nut I think this is a like the yeast in the bread. Without it the bread is just flat.
Once again I agree. I think the real issues will be inevitably dealt with and the pledge and the money are minor side effects.
While I think I understand your point and see the kernal of truth in it I think you are making to much of what is a side effect of the process. It is okay to rewrite our traditions as generations pass. It’s okay to establish an open mindedness that embraces truth, compassion, integrity, and honorable actions with or without religious belief. Those who want to dismiss spiritual belief from public discourse because of selfish personal preference are destined to be disappointed. Those who seek to reword their religious beliefs into our legal system will be disappointed aswell.
I’m not sure how this relates to our discussion but I’ll run with it. Is it force of will or is it that he sees no evidence or effects from the reported light on those who speak of it? If those who speak of light are obviously transformed and affected by that light then the sewer rat might be more inclined to be open to the suggestion.
The problem is that many who talk about the light have never experienced it, misrepresent its purpose, insist that their ideas about the light are the only correct ones, etc etc. To the point where the sewer rat says, “MAn, if thats what light is like then fuck that”
From my reading on the SDMB I haven’t found too many that are interested in not thinking. Quite the contrary. I have friends who are atheists. There’s no point in us wasting our time and stressing our friendship by endless discussions about the existance of God. We find the common ground. Love, honor, integrity, honesty. Principles where a discussion is interesting.
The current language of nutritional labels in this country is blatantly non-anti-God. By not mandating the inclusion of the words “There is no God and no afterlife, so you’d better eat right, 'cause after you die, that’s it, sayonara, sucker” in all nutritional labels, Congress has clearly formed an Establishment of Non-Atheism, in violation of the First Amendment. I demand that this injustice be rectified immediately.
No, it would not be an establishment of anything! Adding “under no god” or “in no god we trust” might be, but NO ONE is suggesting that be done.
Yes, and they have a grade school understanding of the founding of this nation if they do.
The words you are relying on “laws of nature”,“nature’s God”,“Creator” are not religious references, unless you think that the Enlightenment was a religious movement, instead of an attempt to create a philosophy of just government and law.
If the thinkers of the Enlightenment had the last 200+ years of scientific knowledge to consider, I doubt they would have thought it necessary to use quasi religious words at all.
(And it’s not decades, it’s 300+ years of European thought)
It’s NOT just atheists who want our nation to return to it’s secular traditions!
If you insist on comparing a belief in god to gravity and calculus, then I demand that that belief have the same scientific proofs that gravity and calculus do.
Gravity, it ain’t just a theory, it’s the law!
It was not their study of God, it was their study of the Enlightenment thinkers!
God is not a central value of this country, freedom of religion is, and that freedom of thought includes the right to not believe in ANYTHING.
Do you really believe that the writers of the law that added “under God” to the pledge thought that all beliefs in god were equal? Theirs was a move to add non-denominational theistic words to the pledge? They thought that Jesus’s dad and Buddha were the same guy? They thought that all religions were equal? Animism and Voodoo was equal to Christianity? Congressmen in the 1950’s?
Really? Where do you see god in this,
and no you don’t need a holy book at all!
If tomorrow, it is proven that god does not exist, where do your rights come from then?
Assumptions can only be used if you can, by deriving a solution, go back and prove your assumptions. But these assumptions become circular when they rely on a supposition that cannot be proven.
There is the classic debate over the appropriate sources of law between positivist and natural law schools of thought. Positivists argue that there is no connection between law and morality and the the only sources of law are rules that have been expressly enacted by a governmental entity or court of law. Naturalists, or proponents of natural law, insist that the rules enacted by government are not the only sources of law. They argue that moral philosophy, religion, human reason and individual conscience are also integrate parts of the law.
You’re the one who bemoaned minorities being “trampled” so I was only going back to your own words with that second bit. If I have misunderstood, please clarify.
My idea of civil religion, which might be an unwieldy phrase, not one which I am married to, alludes to the natural law influence in this country.
For personal reasons, I oppose the introduction of tacky God talk, but I think the baby getting thrown out with that bathwater is a natural law approach to our country. I think I made a mistake alluding to things like the pledge and money because it bogged us down and caused me to require some extra time to articulate my real gripe. But I think you are bogged down in mixing God with “religion.” To me, and cosmosdan they are not interchangeable.
Additionally, while you may be right to recoil at the societal pressures of religion and the adverse effect it has on people of a different mind – I’d say the same thing was done to kids who only started listening to Nirvana when Nevermind came out. They were called poseurs and ridiculed because they didn’t pick up Bleach when it was new. Others were derided for failing, even then, to pick up this album of obvious importance Many folks fell in line with grunge because it was a very popular trend that exerted tremendous peer pressure. Folks got made fun of, there were lots of hurt feelings, and they questioned their values. As a tween, I listened to Pink Floyd and avoided grunge entirely so while I got made fun of pretty much all around. Trampled, you may say.
My point is this isn’t distinctive to religion, but is fairly routine in society. Rooting the United States in Natural Law is not evil, nor does relying on the works of “conflicting” authors. I don’t have to reconcile every Locke, Montesqieu &c. whose works were picked up by the framers. John Locke’s natural rights were life, liberty and property. In America, Property=Happiness [or the pursuit thereof], but that doesn’t mean we ignore Locke’s contribution. He believed in natural law.
To me, atheism is a kind of legal positivism that I shouldn’t like to swallow. I’d rather get my rights from God than from my government because I have an easier time believing in God than in my government to protect my rights. As Bill Cosby said in his show: He that giveth may also taketh away.
I mistakenly brought up the aesthetic aspects where the presence of God is argued in our country but it’s not really the meat of my argument. I think the dollar bills are pretty, I enjoy the symbolism and the stories behind it. I am talking about the attempt to reinterpret the nation’s character.
I never said they were religious references. I have never been talking about religion, though others have sort of tried to force me to.
Does science tell you why you’re free? Does it tell you why you possess your very own life? Will it explain why you have a right to pursue your happiness or keep property? As it happens, the government has mostly ruined property rights. But we still have this phrase called “God-given rights.” That’s what I am alluding to.
(And it’s not decades, it’s 300+ years of European thought)
Secularism has nothing to do with God. Secularism has to do with establishments, and religions. I live a secular lifestyle.
Scientific proofs are generative. Numbers are made up, abstract concepts that are internally consistent. What if I told you my belief in God were internally consistent and that I could find billions of people who share this same consistency with me? Can you explain why gravity occurs, or do you just know the inverse square law and whatnot…? I use the word “theory” in a scientific sense. The same way I’d call evolution a theory. Mind you, I do not fashion theistic beliefs that cause me to take an end-run around science I don’t like, and I loathe creationism/ID as a whole, but I don’t think we have a Law of Evolution.
I never questioned any of that. Believe or dont believe whatever you want. But enlightenment thinkers were interested in natural law. It was kind of a newish and cool concept then following on the more legally positivist of the greek thinkers.
Doesn’t matter if those writers believed that or not. However, they felt belief in God itself was an important way for America to set itself apart, idealogically from the U.S.S.R. For all I care, Jesus’ dad and Buddha are the same guy. I don’t see why you’d interpolate so much opinion and belief on the part of others that isn’t even there. Animism and voodoo are equal to Christianity. I don’t care what congressmen in the 1950s thought.
The typical fallacy is that folks believe either that God can be proven, must be proven, or must be “necessary” in order to exist. My natural rights come from wherever I come from. I don’t see any conclusive proof of where I come from, except, by way of a long series of transformations, I suppose we’re all made out of the same material as all the other elements in the universe. Where did those come from? I don’t see any Law of Origin, so I don’t see any proof either way on the whole God thing. I don’t see it as something to be proven, and I don’t see a telescope that can yet look back that far in time.
If I were God, I’d definitely put a neon sign at the center of the universe apologizing for the inconvenience, but that’s because I’ve read HHGTTG and think that sort of thing is funny.
Forgot to get the last bit regarding the Presidential Oath…
Ahh, there you go again assuming the legal character because God is not legislated. See, we all understand that it’s not something that need be legislated at that level. Again, the Constituion does not MANDATE belief in God and neither do I. And yet I would not see it separated from the conception of our natural rights that led to our separation from the Anglican U.K.
I see God in a personal oath George Washington is known to have taken. Most recently, I know George H.W. Bush swore on the Washington bible. Dubyah wanted to use the same bible as his daddy, but it rained that day so the Masons wouldn’t bring it out for him. Though it is obviously not legally necessary to do so… can you name any of 43 Presidents who opted not to swear on a bible?
The Establishment Clause has been expanded to read far beyond the verbiage. Note that states are exempt (even by the theory that the XIV Amendment extends to the people Constitutional protection from the States) since it specifies “Congress” viz. Texas bans atheists from public office and many states had official religions for years. This has morphed into the “separation of Church and State doctrine” that has gotten so ridiculous that we are arguing whether “under God” should be allowed in an optional pledge said everyday in schools. Is atheism protected? I don’t know - what is the makeup of SCOTUS?
Noctolator, you have a particular set of political and philosophical or religious beliefs about the source of human rights. No one is arguing with your right to hold those beliefs (if you want to debate about them, I’m sure you’ll get replies from various perspectives); but you also want those beliefs enshrined as some sort of official doctrine by the federal government. How far do you think that should be taken? Do you think Section 2 of Article VI of the South Carolina State Constitution is reasonable and proper, or constitutional under the United States Constitution?
He said no proof and no necessity - not no proof and hence no necessity.
Even religious people don’t claim to be able to prove god exists. Strike one. There are some philosophical arguments about necessary existence, but that is not what is being discussed here. Exactly what feature of our world requires the existence of any god? If you can’t find one, then God is not necessary within the context of this discussion.
Third, we presume that no entities exist without some evidence for them, just as you no doubt presume Invisible Pink Unicorns don’t exist. Supernatural entities would need more evidence. Considering that much evidence for god in the Bible has been shown to be false, we’re waiting for strong evidence. (I don’t expect proof.)
Given none, lack of belief in any deity is the rational approach. No leap of faith required.
No, those trying to establish religion in the US are trying to erase the legal philosophy that established the country. Religious tests are specifically forbidden in the Constitution. There is no mention of god in the Constitution. If the founders had wanted to establish a civil religion, they damn well could have done so.
In the DoI rights were from nature’s god, the god of deism, as a reaction to rights stemming from the King, who got them from God (and the Christian God in this case.) By the time of the Constitution this source of rights was no longer seen to be necessary - rights were from the people. (Or the truths were self evident.) If the founders wanted to name any sort of god as the source of the right they could have.
??? By removing a religious test? By not allowing the establishment of any religion in the First Amendment? Where do you see it considering religion important?
Saying that god is not part of a government does not remove god from our national character. No one is planning to tear down churches, or forbidding believers from being elected. (Quite the opposite.) Each person is permitted to worship or not worship as he or she wishes - so long as they do not do it as a representative of government. How much simpler can it get?
You don’t get the argument at all. It is not mention of god which is at issue, but official mention as an agent of the government, which should be of all the people, not just believers. The pledge is voluntary, but not saying it is not an option for those atheists who want to pledge allegiance to this country. The minister who wrote the Pledge did not include god, after all.
Evangelicals do not have to believe in evolution. (Actually, no one should - it is a matter of evidence, not belief.) But they should not attempt to get unscientific, religiously motivated crap taught in a science class.
You should read The Age of Reason some time. Though Paine was not a signer of anything, he did get rescued from France by Madison, and Jefferson sent a government ship to bring him back to the US, despite squawking by the early 19th century version of the religious right. Paine was not an atheist, then, since he thought a deity was required to explain the solar system, but I suspect he would be one today.
And you clearly do not understand atheism worth diddly as you show over and over again.
Just out of curiosity, would you support a recognition of “natural law” that explicitly excludes mention of god? For instance, change that last sentence to “They argue that moral philosphy, human reason, and individual conscience are also integral parts of the law.”
Somehow, I suspect that most people who make the argument you are attempting would end up Kansas-izing it, akin to redefining “science” to include the supernatural in their attempt to inject god into the curriculum. In other words, I suspect that for most, this argument is merely a thinly veiled attempt at codifying god into the State’s makeup.
I’m sorry, but if you are not arguing for the inclusion of the word “god” in the Pledge of Allegiance or the minting and printing of money, then what is your actual complaint? Where are all those nasty atheists offending you?
There really are not many atheists wandering about demanding that churches be stripped of identifying marks and omitted from phone books. (Actually, despite the fact that one or two such people even post to the SDMB, I would still put the number of atheists so inclined at a much smaller number than the number of Christian Reconstructionists and Christian Dominionists, so we’re not merely talking about fringe groups, we’re talking about fringe groups that are dwarfed by opposing fringe groups.)
As to the angst you suffered for liking the “wrong” kind of music, I hope you have recovered. Still, I suspect that you have not had to look for alternative ways to get home from school each night to avoid being beaten up and I really doubt that your parents had to face the prospect of paying for repairs to repeatedly bashed mailboxes, keyed cars, turfed lawns, shot out windows, spray-painted walls and similar vandalism just because you had a poor choice in musical tastes. On the other hand, people (even Christians) who have shown the temerity to not support the “civil religion” continue to suffer all those things.
I think that letting the government promote the sort of iconography that legitimizes the beliefs of such people is wrong.
If you are not arguiing for the maintenance of that iconography, then you have completely failed to indicate what you are arguing.
Unfortunately, the Pledge is only nominally optional in several states where laws mandate that teachers lead it (even if the often ignored decision by the Supreme Court notes that the students cannot be compelled to follow the lead mandated to their teacher).
And no one has argued whether the phrase should be allowed: the argument is against whether it should be required. (And, again, even this misses the irony of compelling allegedly free persons to daily recite a loyalty oath.)
I suppose if more states have this written into their constitution then that effectively changes the face of federal politics as well, since the state offices are often the pool that federal are drawn from.
