Eh, I think that’s a bit facile. It’s easy to pick out 10 examples of Bad Things That Religious Extremism Has Done In America. It’s much less satisfying to pick out 100 examples of Americans being motivated to do good things due to religion, but not necessarily any less important, on the grand scale of things.
I’m afraid you are terribly, woefully mistaken. The Founders created this country not under Christian or even theistic ideals or beliefs (even if you wish to insist that most founders were Christians), but rather as a 100% direct adoption of the philosophy and ideals of the (non-theistic) Enlightenment. The Deist “God” of the Enlightenment was not a religious symbol or even really a deity, per se. It was instead a purely abstract “first cause” or “creator” that no longer had any interaction with the universe nor even posessed any existential attributes.
It is impossible to understand or even speak credibly about the Founders without understanding the full effect of the Enlightenment on them, the non-theistic nature of the Enlightenment, and that we were founded quite intentionally not as a Christian or theistic state but rather as the first Enlightenment state.
And also a subtly but undeniably anti-religious statement, at least certainly an anti-Christian statement. For Christians, saved and unsaved people are by no means equal. Hell, in Calvinism and those sects with similar views, people aren’t even born equal!
The sources are in the atheist press and an amicus curiae petition to an important court, by a reporter named Shermer. They appear completely legitimate and credible to me. Unless you want to claim that athiests are prone to be liars, even in important court cases, then there are no compelling grounds to doubt the press report.
Why must it always be the minority that has to show “tolerance”? Why can’t the majority show tolerance for the minority, as our Constitution seems to prefer?
Enlightenment is spiritual, at least the kind of enlightenment most talked about. The kind where one suddenly understands the value of equality, and worthiness of all mankind. The kind that changes the heart and soul of every individual it touches.
It is a knowing we are all equal under the Creator. How could one be enlightened without touching a Higher Intelligence? Impossible, I think.
New Guy asked why it was 3 rather than 2 religions that speak of “God”. He honestly didn’t know that Muslims also refer to their deity as “God”. It was an honest mistake that was made all the more palatable by the fact that New Guy asked to be informed if he was wrong. That’s civil behavior.
Next, the frequently uncivil Monty came in and attacked New Guy about his so-called “malarkey”. That was uncivil, and you know it.
Then, instead of simply providing a brief correction as New Guy as he had politely requested, John Mace posted nothing but a link. He could have simply informed New Guy of the correct facts, but instead posted nothing but a link which seemed somewhat arch to me.
New Guy has behaved more civilly than the others. You should have addressed your criticisms to those attacking New Guy rather than the reverse. Please review the evidence and reconsider.
It really is the height of rudeness to wander into a thread and try to change the meaning of another poster’s words by displaying ignorance of a particular philosophical movement simply for the sake of launching one more bit of witnessing at the readers.
If you do not understand the meaning of Enlightenment (capitalized), then you need to hold your posts until you do.
If you do know what the Enlightenment (capitalized) was, then you should either attempt to make a coherent argument that its members actually believed in your variety of spirituality or you should refrain from injecting your witnessing into the thread at this point.
You don’t? You called some examples extreme and not really relative to the arguement. I called your analogy extreme and not really relative to the arguement. See the comparison?
I was kind of confused why you mentioned extreme examples in responding to me. Have I presented an extreme example to defend leaving “under God” in?
This is better than the last one but I still don’t think it has any real meaning concerning this discussion. How about this one?
There is a single group that makes their decisions by the “majority rules” principle.
etc, etc. Isn’t my analogy as close as yours?
You would have to establish that your two sub groups have an ethical or moral obligation to defend each others rights. Moving on.
That, being the thing you will shortly describe as “the trickiest question”?
See, it is tricky. It isn’t easy to draw the lines and you are correct, people won’t agree.
:smack:
Right on the off duty. In school, I think it should be made clear that “Under God” is a voluntary act and everyone has the right to follow their convictions. Then I consider the little tykes and realize that explanation would be lost on them. Then again the words “Under God” would be lost on them too for the most part.
It’s really tricky. A kid is having a real life crisis and a sincere concerned teacher feels the need to offer prayer or suggests turning to God for help. The parents who are atheists object. What’s best, right, or fair? The teacher is paid in part by federal money. Does that mean the teacher represents the goverment and is not allowed to pursue their sincere beliefs in this situation?
That web page is not the source; it was just a re-posting of the original source which was a legitimate, athiest magazine. If I recall correctly, the interview was confirmed by Free Inquiry, the Paul Kurtz-edited sister publication of The Skeptical Inquirer. Both magazines have Nobel laureates and other highly-respected people on their boards, so there’s good reasons to believe the source is reliable and the interview quotations given are accurate.
That’s highly debatable, if not outright false. The Ninth Amendment, even though it has not been used by the courts, clearly represents a very strong desire on the part of the drafters to make plain that there ARE other rights enjoyed by the People that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
You will note, I hope, that my post was in direct response to the poster going back, many hours and one full exchange of venom after I had posted, to include me in a charge of piling-on, when my post had been an attempt to clarify John Mace’s post for the purpose of avoiding a pile-on.
As for who has or has not been rude, I certainly made no accusation that New Guy was rude and I would not: my explicit comment was that everyone quit worrying about it in this thread.
While that exchange was more than a bit of a hijack, no one broke any official rules and I am more interested in all posters getting on with this thread and their lives than I am in handing out penalty slips.
Please note that I recommended tolerance and understanding for minority and majority alike. Wouldn’t you say that “Under God” was catering to the majority while trying to find compromise. There have been several proposed amendments that specifically wanted to name Jesus as Lord and were shot down. Wouldn’t you say compromise is a form of tolerance? Are you asking for tolerance from the majority or aquiescing?
Ordinary dictionaries are not to be trusted when it comes to technical philosophic or religious terms. You should know that. Some ordinary dictionaries define the term “atheism” correctly, others don’t.
Kindly allow me to aid a bit in your education, lekatt. The Enlightenment was a politico-philosophical movement that, among other things, decried religion and a religious God/Creator. Please read the following:The Enlightenment
From that source:
lekatt, my friend, you must admit that you are a strong believer in superstition. Your history of unquestioning defense of the existence of ghosts and visiting aliens and psi and other such anti-rational, anti-scientific claptrap do not do you proud in this respect. You would have been, and it appears you are still, a clear enemy of the Enlightenment.
You should work on your imagination, lekatt. The idea of the equality of humans is generally incompatible with the notion of a God or Higher Intelligence. This is certainly true for Christianity, in which the unsaved are by no means equal to the saved, and unbelievers are by no means equal to believers.
No, I would most assuredly would not. There was absolutely no attempt at any sort of compromise in the history of the “Under God” insertion; it was all about the majority exercising their power to pressure a Congress frightened of being called a communist into doing whatever they wanted. There were no plans to cite Jesus instead of God, so please don’t erect strawmen.
First, that’s not relevant to our Pledge debate. Second, even though they’re irrelevant, could you provide cites for that claim?
Yes, compromise is a form of tolerance, as long as it is a true compromise. The only valid, fair compromise between people of faith and those without is to remain silent and not push either faith or atheism on the other party. It is no compromise to side entirely with one side. Further, it has to be constitutional, and the UG phrase is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause.
appreciated although a bit redundant. Dio already pointed this very thing out to me. And I have already noted that most atheist fall into the “lack of belief” catagory. My point was that not all do, which I think is still correct. Any reason you found it nessecary to repeat this info?
I didn’t claim they were planning on inserting Jesus at that moment in history, although there was in fact a movement for a Jesus amendment during that time and it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that “Under God” in the pledge was a fall back position. Please don’t put words in my mouth and then call your words my strawmen.