It’s irrelevant that the country is majority Christian. the First Amendment is intended precisely to protect the minority from the majority.
I find it laughable to suggest that non-Christians need to be “grateful” that they are accorded basic civil rights.
The government doesn’t have a right to teach my kid that God exists. That’s all it boils down to. And I don’t owe Christians any token concessions of “ceremonial deism” either. The Constitution is not a Christian document.
Case in point.
I’m extremely grateful to my country, these United States, for the freedoms and opportunities I have found here. I have seen firsthand many places where people aren’t so fortunate.
I think it’s a misfortune, frankly, that you’re not similarly grateful to your country, Diogenes.
Two points. “Better than bad” is not the same as “good”.
Secondly, I am a citizen of this country and it is because of actions of people such as myself that we all have these freedoms. Many individuals may not need them, they are not oppressed, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t continue to strive for universal freedom and equality. I don’t find it appealing to stop along the road towards universal freedom and equality. A journey of a thousand miles has just begun and instead of stopping to congratulate ourselves on taking that first step, a step many never even take, I’d rather continue on towards the actual goal.
Enjoy,
Steven
Agreed. But I’d put the United States in the “good” column here. Remember, this isn’t a perfect world, where we can compare utopias.
Can you name me any countries that can match America’s record of religious freedom, while still having as many of its citizens regular churchgoers? And doesn’t have an established church?
If you can do that, I’ll but you a drink. Provided, of course, you’re not a Baptist. 
Your implication was that non-Christians should be grateful to Christians for letting them have equal rights.
Gratitutude to one’s country is in no way contigent on a ritual invocation of a supernatural entity. I am grateful that the founders of my country have specifically forbidden the government from either extracting such avowels from its citizens or from indoctrinating children with any official religious beliefs.
Sometimes elected officials get things wrong and inserting UG into the Pledge is a case in point. If the SC is intellectually honest they will recognize this. If they are led by politics and personal bias they will run for the cowardly artifice of “ceremonial deism.” It wouldn’t be the first time that SCOTUS got something wrong either.
This is a really slimy twist on what he said.
I have great respect for the beliefs and traditions of people in this country. That doesn’t mean that the government should . If the pledge said something about how great religious freedom is that it’s allowed religion to flourish, I could say it with pride. As it is, the pledge expresses not only a religious view, but implies a particular theology. What’s the point in making the pledge divisive like that?
And for the record, I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that Newdow is wrong in his argumement. The only really meaningful tack is that, well, it’s a pretty trivial issue.
Frankly, I don’t want to see this changed by the courts. I want to leave things like this for religious people to change legislatively. It’s a chance to demonstrate their quality. If they want to use their religion like that, use it to be divisive instead of inclusive, then the people it really hurts it themselves.
Most of the western world has freedom of religion now…and I don’t see why having “as many regular church goers” is necessarily desirable or relevant to freedom.
This is not a fair characterization of my position.
As you can see, the subject of the sentence is “nation”. “Christian” is used as an adjective.
So, clearly, my “implication” was that people should be grateful to America for their rights. Which is a pretty non-controversial statement, in and of itself.
Do you eat turkey on Thanksgiving, Diogenes? Light off some firecrackers of the Fourth?
Your “implication” was that the nation is Christian, and this Christian nation granted rights to non-Christians.
If the “nation” is not Christian, by your logic, it has no need for the words, “under God,” and hence, this is a nonissue.
Civil rights are not something you trade like baseball cards. You either have them, or don’t. You do not say, “You have this liberty, so you give up that other one.” That is absurd.
I think we all take civil rights seriously here, Zagadka.
The issue is whether those rights are actually violated by the phrase in question, or whether people just think they are because they’re overly offended.
I’m not trying to bait people by the previous sentence, btw. This is the exact reasoning the Court is going to be using in their deliberations.
While some AA based groups have done a fairly good job of accomodating atheists (Narcotics Anonymous), I wouldn’t say that AA has done a bang up job in this regard. If you ignore the Big Book which is quite hostile to non-believers, the steps themselves imply that the higher power is certianly something more than terestrial, like the group. Courts in New York have ruled that AA is “unequivocally religious” and that “Adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization” for the purposes of ruling that people cannot be forced to attend them as punishment for drinking, because the higher power language is just an euphamistic evasion of what context makes clear as being a religious belief and practice.
There are plenty of other recovery groups that don’t have the spiritual demands as part of their program, and they work just fine. In fact, there is a lot of debate over whether AA is really as succesful as it could be compared to other forms of treatment that don’t emphasize submission and personal inability to change oneself. AA, unfortunately, has also come to associate itself with a lot of dogma that isn’t well supported by medical evidence. It’s also helped a tremendous amount of people and their families. I think it’s probably better that it not get dragged into establishment clause debates, because now that the government forced attendance thing seems to have passed, it is an entirely a private, voluntary group.
Now outside of that context, “higher power” is an ambiguous term, though clearly a loaded one. In the non-religious sense, everyone believes in powers higher than themselves, so the expression is almost meaningless. It would probably matter how it is phrased. In AA, it is used in contexts that cannot help but be religious to many people. But I suppose someone could work it in somehow that it would not have such a context. I’m not sure what point putting it into the pledge would have, given that the entire POINT of the pledge is to dedicate yourself to the higher ideals of the nation, and adding “higher power” seems totally redundant if it wasn’t a religious expression.
You’re kidding, right? :eek:
I think we need a reality check here. What have atheists done here? Well, Mr. Newdow brought a lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit ruled in his favor. Now it’s before the Supreme Court, and he is rationally arguing the merits of the case before the court. In addition, a few of us are discussing it on an internet message board.
What have Christians done? Well, a number of them have really gotten up in arms about the issue. When the Ninth Circuit ruling came down, many staged protests. I’ve seen pictures of Christians going to the courthouse and ranting and raving, or praying with an almost trance-like look of religious fervor on their faces. The President of the United States even commented that he was against the ruling. IIRC, he called it “stupid” or some other such inflammatory word.
I can’t understand for the life of me how you can say that atheists are “militant” about the issue, and Christians are not, when it’s quite obvious that the real situation is the exact reverse.
I’d love for that to happen as well, but we both know there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell.
Blowero, as Scripture says, you’re criticizing the speck in my eye, whilst ignoring the plank in your own.
Sure, there are some Christian nutters out there. Are you willing to concede there are some atheist ones as well?
If you think Christians are always treated fairly in these calm message board discussions, I suggest you do a search for the term “magical sky pixie”.
I think you can guess how relevant I find the quoting of scripture to be.
I’m sure there are. But probably not as many as you think. What you’re forgetting is that it is YOU who made the contention that atheists need to “lighten up” and are being militant. I merely pointed out the irony of your statement. The contention was YOURS; don’t turn it around.
I’m reasonably certain that I never said “Christians are always treated fairly in these calm message board discussions.” There you are, misconstruing what I said, as usual.:rolleyes:
If you’re attempting to get into a contest as to who is more militant, there’s no way you’re going to win. Taking stuff out of context from a message board is pretty weak, and there are easily enough examples of Christians blasting atheists on the MBs anyway. I’ll just ask you this: How many examples can you point to of atheists going door-to-door, sending missionaries to other countries, or passing out literature on the street? Or for that matter, how many “athiest-based” initiatives has the government spearheaded?
I think you’ve completely missed the lesson of that particular piece of scripture.
Sure, and as soon as they hijack a previously secular pledge, make it actively hostile to your beliefs, then force your children to recite it every morning then we’ll talk.
Enjoy,
Steven
There’s difference between expressing personal opinions and trying to get the government to endorse those opinions.
Can you cite any atheist movement to force public school teachers to tell kids that God does not exist? (And JFTR, I would oppose any such ridiculous proposition and I’m reasonably confident that the same would be true of every other non-theist on this board-- certainly in this thread)
“Atheist” is not even much of a category anyway. It just means people who have no belief in a deity. It’s not an organized group or anything.
I’m sure you’re right - I certainly concur. I wouldn’t want teachers telling kids that God doesn’t exist any more than I’d want them saying He does exist. It’s simply not the business of government to do so. Sadly, many people don’t seem to get this simple concept.
Absent of a government, there is complete freedom. The government never grants freedoms, it simply fails to take them away.
A question for you Mr.Moto, how would you like to pledge allegiance to Vishnu or Allah?
Are there protests about any other part of the pledge?
If the pledge was modified to incude a deistic message it should never have been modified to start with.
Ah so ,** Mr, Moto**, you think that these people here give a Chinaman’s chance in hell if the “under God” clause in the pledging of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America is discarted?
Not so, Mr. Moto. These people have a larger agenda. These people don’t like the pledge itself or the attendant allegiances that are inherent within. These people are anti-culturists. People who reject and deny anything that is incorporated within their own culture. These people are mostly folk who have a sad, dark-seeded need to reject the society that they feel has rejected them.
God bless them all, and I hope that they can re-intergrate themselves into the mainstream of the most benevolent society thus far known to man in our magnificent journey - the selfless culture of the American experience .