From the few atheists I’ver personally known, I detected no bitterness at all. Instead their attitude was “live and let live”. They might be mildly amused that someone might still believe in God or gods, but that was it. I didn’t pressure them to submit to the Pope, they didn’t pressure me to proclaim the nonexistence of God.
And, one more time for anyone else… I am not anti-religion. I am not against “under God” or “in God we trust”. I am not against nondenominational “ceremonial deism” being part of government functions. It harms no one. It could be defended and justified as simply being a tradition. However, I am against state support or endorsement of any specific religion. I am also against any state opposition to any religion. Government’s attitude should be one of benign neglect and laissez faire. Faith, or the absence of it, is a private matter. The Founders understood that better than many people do nowadays.
It’s not Bowman, it’s Representative Louis Rabout’s opinion and the rest of the congress’s opinion that count.When the SCOTUS review the constitutionality of an act of congress it’s not just the words but the intent that they consider.I.E. poll taxes, they might be ok,but if the intent is to keep the poor from voting,clearly unconstitutional
This highlights one of the many things that bug me about this debate.
Right now, the status quo is that “under God” is in the pledge. Removing “under God” from the pledge is NOT “atheists forcing their will on everyone”. Rather, it is REMEDYING a PREVIOUS example of CHRISTIANS forcing their will on everyone.
A pledge which does not mention God is NOT a pro-atheist or anti-Christian pledge. Rather, it is a neutral (and correct) pledge.
Minorities groups trying to remedy pre-existing injustices is not “trying to force their will on everyone else” or “trying to have everything their way” or “requesting special treatment”. It’s just levelling the playing field. And if the playing field starts out 120% unlevel, and I say “I want the playing field levelled by 120%” and you say “what about if it were levelled by 90%” and I say “no, I want it levelled by 120%”, I am NOT being stubborn and unfair and wanting everything my way and refusing to compromise. Rather, I am merely demanding equality and fairness.
There is only one argument I’ve ever heard in favor of the pledge that is not prima facie unsound, which is that it’s purely ceremonial, has no meaning at all, and should be left in simply for the sake of history. However, there is strong evidence against this, namely:
(1) How passionate all the Christians get about it, and the fact that their arguments continual return to Christian origins of the nation, etc. If it was in fact purely ceremonial, their only argument would be “eh, it’s not a big deal, but it’s always been this way, and it’s a good tradition”. They would have no need to mention God or Christianity or The Bible or The Founders at all
(2) The fact that it was added so recently.
Jon Stewart had a GREAT comment about this, which is that since “Under God” was addded in the midst of the cold war, to distinguish us from our enemies, the godless commies, and since we’re now at war with religious fanatics, we should add something to the pledge which illustrates precisely how different from religious fanatics we are.
So, that school prayer case in Texas, who was it that was trying to take prayer out of the government-run schools? Atheists?
Take at least one moment to avail yourself of at least one fact, lekatt. Just because one of the plaintiffs is an atheist does not mean that all of them are.
That is pretty much my position, as I said in post 181 (?) and elsewhere. There is plenty of information available for anyone to see, that this is not the Christian States of America and was not founded on Christian or biblical precepts. As I (Christian sort of) and John Mace (atheist) both said, it’s become a tradition, and causes no harm to anyone. As several people (including me) said, the pledge did not always say “one nation under God”. Should it be a big deal either way? No it shouldn’t.
Here is a quote that is amusing and accurate: I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
A less humorous view comes from one of my favorite people: There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? – Barry Goldwater
If this was a Muslim country there probably would be Allah on the coins and such, but this is a Christian country, and that is why Christian slogans are everywhere. Understand I am not Christian. What I am doing is pointing out what is happening and why, as I understand it. I think it is unrealistic for atheists to believe they can use lawsuits or legislation to remove all the Christian symbolism from public places. They are outnumbered 9 to 1. The more they push, the more the Christians will push back. There was a group formed from the Terri Schrivo horror called “Stop Activist Judges”. There is another Christian group call “Take back our Country” or “Take Back America” formed by fundamental Christians. They intend to teach goverment and politics to their young people urging them to become Governors, Senators, and other political leaders. This was done because of the law suits against their symbols. There will be more of this kind of activity in the future in response to attacks on what they consider Christianity.
I will not say this is right or wrong, it just is. I don’t know what the outcome will be either. I can remember when I was young science and religion were friends, living in a live, and let live relationship. This changed in the 1960’s when Science declared evolution was fact, and later when Science said the brain produced consciousness and spiritual or “supernatural” things didn’t exist, that only the ignorant believed in such. True, there was no formal announcement, no declaration by any scientists, but it happened. Started with bumper stickers saying “God is Dead.” Progressed from there to teaching evolution in schools. I remember when most Doctors believed in God and you could talk to them about it. The last time I mentioned anything about God to a Doctor he just waved me off, not wanting to hear anymore.
From the sixty’s on more and more scientists, teachers, and students became atheists. So sooner or later they were bound to push against the Christians.
I think it is time for the moderates to come forward and try to keep things on track.
The people in Tennessee and Texas who have been persecuted for asking that particular Christian religious rituals not be imposed on their children are Christians living today. Their kids are still in school. They are not atheists. They are not dead. And you continue to say that the majority should dictate what their children experience in school and you have done nothing to condemn the actions of their tormentors, simply lying that they are atheists. Newdow is one atheist in one (now two) case(s). Other Christians continue to suffer persecution because people like you believe that the majority should simply impose their beliefs and rituals on minorities while you lie that they are atheists. (Interestingly, those familes have been accused of both atheism and satanic worship; the bigots whose beliefs you champion are as willing as you are to spread falsehoods.)
First, evolution was accepted as scientific fact long before the 1960’s; ever hear of the Monkey Trial in 1925 ? Also, since there is no evidence for the soul/lifeforce/whatever, nonmaterial explanations for the mind have never been scientifically relevant. Third, the supernatural has always been the opposite of science.
Finally, scientists have been dismissing God and religion for a long time; they need to because religion and science are inherently incompatible. Sure, some can compartmentalize well enough to keep religion from corrupting their science, but some can’t. When people let religion interfere with science, it stops being science and becomes error.
That is exactly right. Moderates. Reason and Respect on both sides. As far as the sixties go, all I can say is, they were fun but weird. Clapton is God. God is dead. Does that mean Clapton is dead? Frodo lives. Too much drugs maybe
As an aside, there should not be any schism between religion and science, there is no reason for it. They are in two separate realms. Science can not prove or disprove God, and doesn’t want to. I believe in God, and I also believe in evolution. One is an article of faith and the other appears to be supported by the fossil record. My church sees it as a non-issue.
Back to the main issue. Whether anyone succeeds in removing “under God” from the Pledge will have nothing to do with majority/minority. In the Supreme Court it will depend on constitutionality. That is and should be the only deciding factor.
So you claim that the words “What I find interesting in this sort of claim is the background that” change the meaning of your quote?
Ridiculous.
I have not accused you of claiming that all believers are prone to violence.
As long as we are complaining about false quotations, my parallel referred to atheists, not communists.
My parallels were an accurate extension of your form of argument applied to your own positions.
And since I have never stated that all atheists engage in violence, the parallel remains an accurate application of your argument.
Nor have I claimed that all opponents of the war in Iraq do so with violence. It is an observation that you and those who oppose the war have aligned themselves with those who are using violence, both now and in the past. If you believe your argument is valid applied to those with whom you disagree, it is valid applied to you.
You are doing exactly what you so strenously object to when supporters of the war on terror do it to you - “if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists”. The only difference is that you phrase it as "you are with us, or you are with ‘the “religion” advocates who are more likely to resort to violence’.
Your words do not change meaning when they are quoted back to you.
You’ve jumped into this facing backward. I don’t think you’ve noticed, but people are now pushing back against these groups (which aren’t so much ‘Christian’ as ‘fundamentalist’). If we’re going to resort to quoting poll numbers, a majority of people were repulsed by the government’s interference in the Terri Schiavo case. They saw a small minority of people trying to force the government into a private matter and felt it was wrong. Most Christians felt that way, and most other people felt that way.
It was done because these people want power and want the country to be governed their way.
“What they consider Christianity” is a good choice of words. This is not a Christian thing, because the issue is not Christianity. It’s a particular brand of Christianity and a group of people who want it to be the law of the land.
Really? I quoted a specific text from another poster and opened my response with a clause that directly links my statement to that quoted text. By clipping that clause, you deliberately changed the meaning of the rest of the statement.
You are now proving your dishonesty was deliberate by continuing with your disingenuous remarks.
Actually, it does not. Specifically, by deliberately removing the context from my actual statement, you pretend that my statement was broader than it actually was. Therefore, an overbroad generalization about atheists is incorrect, to begin with. Had you used Castro or Mao Ze Dong–atheists who wished to impose their beliefs on others–you might have gotten away with your distorted analogy–although that would have thwarted your attack on me by acknowledging the difference between everyone with a philosophical belief and the more limited number of zealots who wish to impose that belief on others. However, since my statement clearly (despite your dishonest attempt to change it) does not include people such as Archbishop Bernardin or Bishop Griswold (or Polycarp or Triskedecamus, etc.), then your overbroad analogy fails to match my actual statement.
No, they are not, as I have already noted and you have dishonestly denied.
At any event, it now seems to have become your normal method of argumentation to share lekatt’s method in which a lie is simply asserted over and over in the face of evidence.
No. My point was to ask if any of the people in this tread who speak so authoritatively about what students do or not do are actually are in classrooms. For all I know, your response could have been, “I’ve been teaching for 20 years and . . .”
By the way, one of my students ridiculed another one for actually saying the Pledge just today. She turned around and said, “I’ll say anything I damn well please.”
What’s wrong with just using the original pledge that existed before they added “under God” to it as a political stunt?
I find the distinction between leading students in a group recitation of the pledge, and compelling them to do so, to be miniscule at best.
“All right, class. Jimmy doesn’t have to say the pledge because he’s a…[gasp]…atheist.” That doesn’t really work for me. If the alternative is worse, then you are effectively compelled.
That is the issue here, isn’t it? Group recitation of the pledge in public schools?
A couple of the posts I read indicated a need to establish the history of the pledge.(Post 129 (I could have missed the sarcasm (if it was sarcasm)
[/QUOTE]
Uhmmm… have you read any of this thread?
[/QUOTE]
Yes I’ve read this thread !!! I meant my specific argument !
About my “homework”, Scalia’s view on constitutional interpretation or originalist/textualist/strict constructionist interpretation in general or Scalia in general ?
After trying to engage in a civil,intellectual debate on a couple of other sites, I thank you for not dismissing me as a moonbat/wingnut troll and actually debating the subject.(And many thanks for your defense of Neanderthals my favorite humans )
This is exactly why I have a problem with the words ‘under god’ being in the Pledge of Allegiance and ‘In god we trust’ being on the money. The First Amendment specifically states that this is not a country whose government sponsors any religion at all, yet I’m continually having it shoved in my face with apparent government backing that this is a ‘Christian country.’
They cannot take back what wasn’t theirs to begin with. The United States of America is supposed to be inclusive of all religious beliefs - including disbelief.
“All right, class. Jimmy doesn’t have to say the pledge because he’s a…[gasp]…atheist.” That doesn’t really work for me. If the alternative is worse, then you are effectively compelled.
That is the issue here, isn’t it? Group recitation of the pledge in public schools?
[/QUOTE]
Of course it depends on how the teacher handles it. In your strawman example, the teacher is wrong and should be disciplined. But, as it is a strawman, no one is arguing in favor of a teacher saying such a thing-- just as no one is arguing in favor of making students stand outside in the rain if they don’t want to recite the pledge.
Not Scalia so much as the general idea of whether justices should consider the intent of the authors rather than just the plain text of the statute. I just didn’t want to recreate the debate from that thread over here.
If I remember, the Take Back crowd is not interested in tolerance, acceptance, or anything even close. I believe the blanket term for them is Dominionist. If it is the same group, they would throw out the Constitution altogether and create a theocratic state. They would then institute their own perverted version of “biblical” law and begin stepping on all “nonbelievers”.
Below are some juicy quotes from people - leaders - of these Take Backers.
Goldwater once said every good Christian should kick Falwell’s ass. The same goes for the others too.
That is hardly a strawman; that’s what will predictably happen in many cases. You sound like someone argueing that letting the KKK preach on campus won’t promote racial problems. Sure, it’s possible in theory; the kids could just ignore them. But tha’ts not will happen, and your rosy scenario isn’t what letting God in the pledge results in. Kids are intolerant at best; promoting religious divisiveness will hardly improve them. Non-Christians are mostly intimidated into violating their principles, or insulted/assaulted for not conforming. That’s how the real world works when religion is involved.
I never agreed with the pledge, but I said it anyway out of fear. It didn’t promote loyalty; it promoted hatred. Hatred for the teachers and students, hatred for the country, and hatred for religion.
