What is your point? Who do you think he was referring to by this crafty use of “their”? Who, if anyone, was excluded by “their” as opposed to “ours”. Of course, context matters, so you might want to read it again. I’ll save you the trouble of having to look it up. Here:
:smack: Could a Mod possibly strip my previous post of it’s hyperlink-ness? It was intended to be a simple quote.
Sorry. Thanks.
I said “I agree that the Constitution is somewhat anti-royalist. But not just from the language. In 1783 Washington’s men (and I think others) had proposed to make Washington King. Imitating one of his heroes, Cinncinatus, Washington declined.”
“Not just from the language” means that the it is indeed in the language. I was bolstering the case, in that it was the language, and more.
Even so, you offered even more compelliing evidence, from the body of the document. Rightly so. In the discussion I was having I had been focusing on the preamble rather than the entire document. When the discussion shifted from religion to royalty, I kept my focus on the preamble instead of taking the document in total, as I should have. If I had, I would have concluded that the Constitution is much more explicit in it’s anti-royalty message than I claimed. My error. Thanks for pointing it out.
That said, you may want to change your tone a bit. Just a suggestion.
My apologies if I offended (and even if I didn’t). I’m new around here (new to this whole part of the web), My other experience was “I’m RIGHT, your wrong” me Uh could you try to make a reasoned argument to support your position “sure I’m RIGHT, your an idiot”) I shall try to refrain from incivility in the future, and don’t mind a rap on the knuckles if I’m not.
Aspects of this thread have me banging my head against the wall! :smack:
Needing to explain to the difference between “The Enlightenment” and “being enlightened”, the word “a-Thor” and the way the thread has IMHO largely stopped debating the OP directly.
Despite that I’m going to jump head first into the atheist sub-thread. Largely in response to your posts on the subject.
That said,
Using “our” would have been exclusive,
“my” favorite team, me alone,
“our” favorite team, me and all who agree with me.
This has just confused things more. You pointed out earlier that the word “their” was used and not “our”. I asked you 1) why you that that was significant and 2) who do you think was meant by “their”. Your response above not only fails to address those issue, but you than say that “our” is “exclusive”. Could you please give another shot to answering my two questions.
It seems to me that Jefferson’s their was completely inclusive, as it refers back to “all men”.
As far as the thread meandering away from the OP, it is bound to do the to a degree, as oftentimes premises are challenged. If it gets to deep into a hijack, it’s best to start a new thread about the sub-issue.
Thanks for taking my words in the spirit they were intended.
Ya got me confused someone else!
This time we completely agree.
Jefferson’s “their” was not only completely inclusive, it presumes
that “creator” may mean different things to different people.
So I did. My apologies. :smack:
Here’s just one of many: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, by Susan Jacoby.
There is much more evidence, but if I keep going, I will probably run up against the boundaries of fair use.
Very interesting. Thanks
Madam or Sir, those two sentences contradict each other. We have NOT been using the word “religion” in the mere sense of a formal belief system adhered to by a like-minded congegation, but rather more in the lines any belief in God, Gods, or other supernatural powers. Any belief that excludes polytheism or atheism is religious, by logic if not by definition. Furthermore, the courts have consistently ruled (at least in modern times) that any public preference of one religious viewpoint over another is a violation of the establishment clause, and hence unconstitutional. And, by definition, any public exclusion of polytheism or atheism is a public preference for one religious viewpoint over another.
That, Madam or Sir, is not philosophy, but theology, and thus fundamentally religious. Theology may be considered the “philosophy” of religion, but to consider it irreligious philosophy, as you clearly imply, is quite unjustified.
That is specious and, it sems to me, also evasionary. See above. And as I pointed out earlier, the Constitution is what’s at issue in this debate, and the flagrant and highly deliberate omission of any reference to any deity or deities, as well as the establishment clause and article 6, should guide us in understanding it.
Please justify that claim. I can’t imagine that such a belief could possibly be free of all behavioral impact.
I certainly would! It’s not only religious, it’s explicitly religious!
Even if that is not one of the most specious arguments ever uttered (and I believe it is), it is plainly sophist. It relies on a personal and arbitrary definition of “religion” that is obviously not shared by the other debaters. I submit that every statement affirming God – as that one undeniably is – is indisputably religious in nature by the common understanding of the word “religious”. Here is the primary definition of the word “religious” from Webster’s:
I have already established otherwise, and you’re asserting facts contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence! You’ve just flatly made that ridiculous assertion up out of nothing but your own, utterly unjustified and arbitrary personal belief system. It is completely untrue.
It is an out-and-out lie that the framer’s had a “foundational” belief in God. Please stop making things up. And didn’t you previously admit that the “Under God” affirmation is not a good idea?
You are most welcome. I’m gratified by your interest.
In the end the founders beliefs are irrelevant.
What I think is relevant is history,and the founders knowledge of it, specifically the "English Civil War " of the mid-17th Century which included this .
Given the disastrous results that simply changing denominations had in English history,and the hostility that continued to exist between Christians in their lifetimes (as is shown in ambushed’s last post). I think the intent of the establishment clause should be clear.
Thanks for all your typing, but sorry, I do not consider someone making the same arguement as you as a valid cite for this claim by you:
Surely, if your claim was true—which it might very well be—you would be able to find some actual instances of this “tooth and nail” fighting. Certainly at the time of the crafting of the document Madison would have captured at least some of it in his notes.
I think the fact that you offered Jacoby’s book (which I can see took some time and I appreciate) as your “proof” makes my case. If history is as you implied, you need to show examples of all the fighting you claimed took place. And the best proof of you position would lie in the crafting of the document, not just the ratification of it.
Also, you never responded to this:
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambushed
I forgot to empasize that the “Godless” Virginia State Consitution was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the D of I, who casually used the word “Creator” only in the following way: he referred only to their Creator, not our Creator (as so many people so wrongly think).
**Me:**What is your point? Who do you think he was referring to by this crafty use of “their”? Who, if anyone, was excluded by “their” as opposed to “ours”. Of course, context matters, so you might want to read it again. I’ll save you the trouble of having to look it up. Here:
"WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…"
Out of context, as you’ve quoted them, yes.
That is how you would like to define the term. If you’ve read my posts, you’d see that I’ve endeavored to NOT use the word in the sense you’d like to ascribe to it. Now if you insist on ignoring that fact and choose to define the word in a way that I am clearly NOT using it and makes the debate moot (which, based on your approach, is fine with me), you are free to do so.
For the record, although I’m sure you might be able to provide some definition that explains the word in the sense you would like it to mean, a quick visit to dictionary.com provides:
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Definition 1.b. is closest to yours, but even that is off. I direct you to the phrase “and reverence”.
In fact, here is the definition you singled out from Webster: “1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.” (Bolding mine.)
Again, the point is that you do not get to define the words in my assertion, change it’s meaning, and then argue against this newly created assertion.
[QUOTE=ambushed]
Furthermore, the courts have consistently ruled (at least in modern times) that any public preference of one religious viewpoint over another is a violation of the establishment clause, and hence unconstitutional. And, by definition, any public exclusion of polytheism or atheism is a public preference for one religious viewpoint over another.
See above.
You seem to think that the question “Is there a God?” is not a philosophical question. We simply disagree. I think it is one of the most fundemental philosphical questions, possibly THE most fundamental philosophical question. Off the top of my head I’d say that it would be near impossible to propose a philosophy in which that question is not necessarily addressed.
If this is true, it should be easy for you to prove my assertion false. Somehow the word evasive comes to mind… If you think this statement is wrong: “(Is there any God? One God? Or many Gods?) One can answer yes or no to any of these questions and not ascribe to “religion” an any sense.” show my why.
Maybe you stopped reading mid-paragraph. I’ve put the claim you’ve questioned in bold:
If you think that this does not justify the claim, please tell me why.
Again, it all comes back to you wanting to define how I get to use the term “religion”, doesn’t it?
First of all, the sentence you cited is: “Therefore, I do not see “under God” as an example of the state using its power to promote religion.” Please show where that is fallacious. The definition of religion thing again. Please see above, again. If I was inventing a defintion, or the meaning I was ascribiing to it was “arbitrary” you might have a point. So far, your defintion seems to be the arbitrary one. But as I said, see above.
Man, you must be mighty terrified of religion. Where have you 'established" anything other than inside your own mind? Stating something does not = establishing it. I suggest you reread the post in question, And before you start glomming on to things you disagree with, try to read it understand what my overall position is. If you then want to refute my thinking, go at it. And again, you’re stating somethiing as fact does not make it fact.
I’ll take the last part first. I don’t kow what you are referring to. I don’t think I did. If you fiind something please provide the context.
Now, Sir or Madam, the other part. Not surprising for some of those who argue from the left’s position, you throw around the accusation of “lying” rather, well, liberally. Do you not understand that someone can be 100% wrong and NOT be lying. I suspect not. And rather to continually ascribe qualities to my posts (specious, sophist, lies, ridiculous), why don’t you lose the attitude and dismantle my argument. Or have me look at things in a different way. It seems as if you’re intent on “winning” something. If so, here’s good news for you. Unless you apologize for the accusation of lying, you will be able to chalk up another “win” for yourself. Just be sure to include the asterisk indicatinig “through forfeit”.
I find it interesting that, as discussed in this thread, former top Bush adviser Karen Hughest seems to believe that the phrase “One Nation Under God” is in our constitution.
Perhaps her error was due to overindoctrination at a young age?
That is a flagrantly unfair and even moronic statement! I made that argument precisely BECAUSE I read it in authoritative sources, that one of which I provided in detail! That is one of the most stubbornly irrational statements I’ve ever seen. You are arguing that if I expressed an opinion of the meaning of a word and then backed it up by providing a dictionary citation, you would refuse to believe I had provided a valid cite because the two agree with each other! What madness!
See Jacoby yourself. I’m not going to keep typing passages from her book, especially since you essentially (and stupidly) asserted that you would not believe any sources that agree with my position!! Your “debating” technique is to (1) blindly assert pseudo-facts utterly contrary to overwhelming evidence and then ignore all rebuttals, and (2) focus mindlessly on offhand wording and ignore the actual content. How about trying to be more intellectually honest with us?
Your thinking is wrong and irrelevant to the issues; more to the point, you’re just evading the real debate by pounding on a tiny, tiny subset of what I have argued and established. Get over it already and either admit to the clear evidence already established or prove it is bogus. You have never even provided us with a single, unambiguous bit of evidence for your position!
Please open a dictionary and look the two words up yourself. Are they identical in meaning?
I agree with the other posters who have already answered that. Specifically, the phrase "all men… their Creator rather than “our” didn’t indicate different groups of people, as you so unfairly and irrationally suggest, but rather different “Creators”! It meant that everyone could believe in their own version of a “Creator”, even utterly mindless and godless Nature, as atheists do. “All men” were not limited to believing in “our” (the drafters of the DoI) “Creator”. Don’t tell me you don’t understand that!
Now, YOU never legitimately responded to this:
Originally Posted by magellan01: “The Constitution does not mention God because it was a practical document. Even it’s preamble is practical and to the point: ‘We the People of the United States, in Order to…’ gets right to it.”
You also never validly responded to this:
Originally Posted by magellan01: “… so I ask those who do not believe in a Supreme Being: Why? How do you then explain the beginnings of ‘everything’.”
You also never validly responded to this:
Originally Posted by magellan01: “… And whatever that answer might be constitutes what I was calling a ‘belief system’.”
You also never adequately responded to this:
Originally Posted by magellan01: “For me, one of the reasons I believe in a Supreme Being is that it would be the only thing that could operate outside the laws [of] causality.”
And you ignored this, too:
Originally Posted by magellan01: “It is the only thing that could be eternal, i.e., not have been caused by something else.”
And you failed to adequately respond to this:
Please respond to all these points with explicit agreement or intellectually honest and legitimate rebuttals.
Bullshit. Please stop denying reality. You said – fully in context – that: “[you] would be in agreement if [you] felt “under God” promoted a specific religion, or even religion in general. … Now if we stop there, there is as of yet no hint of religion. Yes, polytheism is excluded, as is Atheism.”
It is still the case that you contradicted yourself. As I’ve already pointed out, we have NOT been using the word “religion” in the mere sense of a formal belief system adhered to by a like-minded congegation, but rather more in the lines any belief in God, Gods, or other supernatural powers. Any belief that excludes polytheism or atheism is religious, by logic AND by standard definition.
My argument remains valid. Respond justifiably to it or agree.
No, that is how the dictionary defines the term, and that is the default definition that everyone but you have been using throughout!
Your statements are assholish in the extreme. WE are using the primary dictionary definition, while you are pervesely and debate-destroyingly using your own private definition even while arguing with the everyone else here, all of whom are using the dictionary definition. It is YOUR devious, sophist debate scam tactic to use words in a different way than has been consistently been used by everyone else, in order to unfairly evade or obfuscate the arguments everyone else is making.
I already provided the dictionary definition from Webster’s in my post # 569! I believe the current Webster’s is a better source than dictionary.com because (unless I am mistaken on this point), dictionary.com uses a very old – and often obsolete – dictionary as its source.
No, that’s: “1: relating to – OR manifesting faithful devotion to – an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.” (bolding mine)
You’ve got some huevos blatantly repeating my own argument to you! It is YOU who does not have the right to arbitrary and privately re-define the terms when everyone else is using them according to the common and primary dictionary sense!!! It is pure sophistry.
Originally Posted by ambushed: “Furthermore, the courts have consistently ruled (at least in modern times) that any public preference of one religious viewpoint over another is a violation of the establishment clause, and hence unconstitutional. And, by definition, any public exclusion of polytheism or atheism is a public preference for one religious viewpoint over another.”
See what above? You have never validly responded to that point.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that questions of God are theological, which may be considered the “philosophy” of religion, but that does not make it standard, non-religious philosophy, which is just what you implied.
I have already DONE so! Please read my posts more carefully.
As I said, I’ve already done so by posting the Webster’s definition. As I said, the participants in this debate are NOT using the term to apply only to a formal belief system adhered to by a like-minded group, but rather – as shown by the Webster’s definition – as a general belief in God. Thus you CANNOT answer “yes” to any of those questions without ascribing to a religious belief.
No, it comes back to YOU privately re-defining the term to mean something other than the definition that all the other debaters are using. You keep ranting about philosophy, but clearly you know nothing about it. In a philosophical debate (or a theological one, for that matter), ALL PARTIES MUST RIGIDLY USE EXACTLY THE SAME DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS THAT THE OTHERS ARE USING! You are the ONLY one using your private definition, and since EVERYONE ELSE are using a different one, reason dictates that YOU should be the one to adapt to everyone else’s usage.
Sigh. I’ve already answered that. Please start reading my posts more carefully; your reading comprehension seems to be rather poor. I pointed out that since the phrase “under God” shows a distinct public preference for one religious viewpoint (i.e., monotheism and crypto-Christianity) over others (i.e., polytheists and atheists), and since according to the jurisprudential recent history of the 1’st Amendment finds such an instant to be a violation of the establishment clause and thus promoting religion (at least in the sense of one viewpoint over another), your statement is fallacious.
I’m not, but you’re mighty terrified of intellectual honesty (let alone the plain old kind).
I repeat (it would be so nice if you actually read my posts), that the courts have ruled that displaying a public preference for one religious viewpoint over another is a violation of the establishment clause, EVEN IF NO ACTUAL STATE RELIGION IS ESTABLISHED! How many times do we have to tell you this? Why are you being so extremely and irrationally stubborn?
I suggest you re-read my posts. And provide intellectually honest replies to all the issues I’ve raised that you’ve ignored. Continuing to assert arbitrary statements does not only not make it fact, it doesn’t even contribute to any kind of honest debate.
Interesting. I had thought that the mention of their creator was more a compromise between Deism and the Jehovah.
I see that the wording allows for much more than that.
Or option B; which I think is the best one, wave the white flag and surrender with dignity. 
I participated in this thread earlier and have been watching for a few days. When I started I saw “under God” as a harmless non specific nod to our general belief in a deity. I think you are obviously mistaken and stubbornly so, to insist that it is not a religious statement. It is not about a specific religion but it is still religious. It is philosophical, and still religious. Words can have various shades of meaning but in honest debate it isn’t reasonable to choose the most obscure meaning, or to just make up a new one and claim it to be valid. We’re not discussing just what you decided it means but what the words mean to the general public since both the constitution and pledge effects them.
In a previous post you stated that someone could believe and never act on that belief. I think that’s true. You stated in that such a person would not be considered religious. Again I agree. However as it relates specificly to this thread, when said person is asked “Do you believe in God?” and answers “Yes I do” That question and the answer are religious in nature. In a similar way the term “under God” does not impose any specific action or belief on anyone, but it is a religious term by any fair and reasonable defeinition intended to be understood by others.
You can use the word religion to mean fuzzy little purple aliens if you wish but when you enter a public forum and debate and expect to communicate with others it’s best to understand and come to some agreement on definitions.
As with the word atheism, we discussed the difference beween soft and hard. Hard Atheism can be accuratly described as a belief but in general and most common is the “lack of belief” definition. Concerning the word religion, nobody is trying to force any definition on you, but merely point out that in a public forum you might want to consider the definition understood by let’s say 95% of the english speaking world.
I previously stated that it does not promote a specific religion and I stand by that. If the question is does it promote a religious idea or concept then the answer has to be yes. The question earlier was does the 1st amendment prohibit the government from expressing a non specific but religious concept? I don’t think the 1st amendment by itself does that, but if the courts have interpreted it since then to mean that {I asked for specific cases, did I ever get that?} then that is a pretty dam valid interpretation and sets legal prescedent for future cases.
I can’t seem to understand how you are defining it. Are you saying the term religion only relates to specifc religion? Are you saying religion requires an overt act in support of religious belief and “under god” does not? PLaceing UG officially in the pledge is an overt act by the government. I reread your last few posts and I don’t understand. You posted definitions from dictionary.com. I fail to see how any of them support your position. You stated UG does not promote specific religion {agreed} or religion in general. {??} It doesn’t promote organized religion or any structured belief set. Does it promote a religious concept or idea? Certainly. Is belief in God philosophical? Yes. Can it be strictly philosophical and not religious in content? I doubt it.
Tsk, tsk. Not that you need them, cosmodan, but there are better coattails.