For the record, cosmodan, the above post was typed and sent before your most recent, which I will get to.
Herr ambushed: This will be my last response to you. Aside for your mistaking this for the pit, you’re limited understanding of debate and logic make this both unpleasant and unrewarding. I wouldn’t have even responded this time, but I thought I’d just correct a few of your statements for your benefit. It seems that I have hit a nerve with you and anger has been known to stifle rational thought.
You refer to Jacoby as an authorative source? That alone shows you are incapable of seeing that there is another side, never mind grasping it. For your education in this vain I offer: http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long10.html
Additionally, can you not see how weak and intellectually dishonest it is to make a claim like you did about the framers fighting tooth and nail over the issue and when asked for proof you simply, and lamely, offer the same argument sputtered by someone else making the same argument. What was required of you here was to either supply quotes from the constitutional convention (ideal), or the ratification debates. The first doesn’t exist. (Assuming you wouldn’t make such a claim without basis in fact, I went back and reread Madison’s notes, which I shared with you.) The latter fell to you to hunt down to support your assertion.
Most of this I just addressed, but I will note here the last word: us. You’ve done this a few times—tried to get a crowd to rally around you. This, too, is a sign of weakness. It reminds me of the scrawny “tough” kid who is quick to pick a fight and when confronted says (pointing to his larger-sized friends behind him) “Hey, you can’t talk to US that way.” It’s also a fallacious argument. See Argumentum ad Populum at http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/matfall2.htm
A position doesn’t require evidence. It simply requires rationale, which if you reread my post in this thread you will find, with support for that rationale swhere appropriate. The fact that you do not know this says much. Scrawny tough kid: “Oh yeah, why am I right? Well I’m just saying what HE said.” (Points to bigger friend.)
It’s getting kinda funny, isn’t it?
You might want to look up the phrase “circular argument”. And I didn’t expand on the philosophical origins of the universe and first cause because, as I’ve stated earlier in the thread, 1) I don’t want to hijack it and 2) based on other threads on that topic, I realize there will be no resolution. I understand your position, I respect it (not to be confused with “you” any longer), and am happy to move on. Those last two sentences of yours speak for themselves.
Do you not know what the word “context” means. It means you should have gone back and looked at what surrounded it, what came before and AFTER it. Sheeze!
Oohhh, what do we have here? A valid point. I was reading the sentence differently, as in “(relating to or manifesting) faithful devotion to…” I grant you that your interpretation is as valid as mine. Overall, this is a moot point. Because, as I have shown you, the way I was using the word is 100% valid. In fact, all the other definitons I provided do support my use. And, immaterially, not yours.
Me: “under God” is not a religious statement.
Normal Person: That doesn’t sound right. What do you mean by religious?
Me: I use it in the way it is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as found on dictionary.com. Here it is:
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.
Normal Person: Oh, I see, I think it can also mean refering to belief that there is a God(s), without any homage being paid.
Me: No, I meant it in the full sense of the word.
Normal Person: Okay, proceed with your point.
I hate to admit this, but for some reason you make me laugh. First, do you mean to say that you think this debate is about what a particular court has ruled on the issue and not what the ruling should be? Two, while you’re on that website looking up Argumentum ad Populum, check out Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
That’s it, ambushed. Schools out. But you do still owe me an apology, or a retraction, for accusing me of lying. You can include it with your apologies for the numerous instances of rude and uncalled-for language. I’ll be waiting with bated breath.
But we are done.
Not Normal Person: Yay!!!, I win, I win, I win. Who cares about some stupid-head asterisk."
[ Moderator Mode ]
Everyone calm down!
Since this has degenerated into a feud over whether other posters are arguing correctly, it is probably time for several of you to walk away for a while until you can focus on the topic and not on the posters.
Since both sides appear to have engaged in just a bit of disingenuity and manipulation of meanings on a few occasions, I think everyone needs to reconsider their approach.
Ambushed, while it may be just inside the boundary of “attacking the argument, not the poster” to refer to one’s opponents’ arguments as “moronic,” you’re really stepping on the line to refer to them as “assholish.”
magellan01, putting words in one’s opponents mouth (keyboard), even when thinly disguised as “not normal poster” looks more like a parting personal shot than an argument.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
For the record…it’s cosmos…with a second S, not cosmo. Common error and no biggie. I’m just saying.
Cosmosdan, sorry about the omitted “s”. I’ll include an extra one in the future to make up for it. 
I think you’ll see that I addressed this in a reply that got posted around the same time yours did. I maintain—stubbornly, if you so desire—that saying one believes in (a) God, is not necesarily a religious statement. And I am NOT trying to allude to some obscure meaning of “religion” as can be seen in the definitions I supplied from American Heritage. Here are some others. You’ll see that I attempted to find the most reputable sources. And I don’t want to cull and present what I think fits my point. I’ll let you be the judge.
Cambridge
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=religion*1+0&dict=A
Merriam-Webster
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion
Oxford
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/religion?view=uk
Another American Heritage definition
http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html
Definition from Columbia Encylopedia
http://www.bartleby.com/65/re/religion.html
I’m trying to use the word precisely as they define it. Others would insist that I not, and prefer that I use it to mean merely a “belief in God”, requiring nothing else. Tell me, why must I do that? I feel like I’m in Superman’s Bizzaro World.
Additionally, I’ve heard many times, I think even on these boards, an exchange similar to this:
Bob: Are you religious?
Joe: No. But I’m spiritual.
Bob: What does that mean? Do you believe in God?
Joe: Well not in the Christian God as the father of Jesus. But I believe that there is…something…much greater than us that has a hand in things.
That is just one more example to the others I’ve offered and to which you alluded to here:
I disagree. I believe in God and I am not religious. When you say the question and the answer are religious in nature you’re laying the foundation for a circular argument. Or preventing the debate. The debate is, is a “yes” answer to the queston “Is there a God” inherently or necessarily religious? If the answer is “yes”, there is no debate. But the answer is “no”, as you’ve admitted. If you would like to say that many people equate a belief in God with the practice of some religion, I will agree. But my point is that that is fallacious. Why is that important? Because that fallacious reasoning is then being used to decide other issues.
I think you agree that “Creator” can mean many different things to many different people. So why not interpret it in the least secular way instead of the most? As has been pointed out by many in this thread, Jefferson chose to omit any mention specific to the Christian God (father of Jesus, head of the Trinity, etc.). But, conversely, he did choose, just as intentionally, to use other terms: “CREATOR…Nature’s GOD…Supreme Judge of the World…Protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE”. I agree that this was done in order to not have their appeal be religious in nature and to be embracing of other religions.
I’ve addressed this above.
As I’ve mentioned, I am not arguing what the courts have or have not decided. Their decisions are law. Period. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought the purpose of the debate is to present what one thought the courts should do. I’d also point out that the courts are not infallible. The fact that they are overturned, and have overturned themselves, is proof of that. I mean the people on them are not Gods.
That last point is incisive. If someone tells you he believes in God and nothing else, any religious beliefs you assign to him is pure conjecture. As with myself, I believe in God, but a practice no religion.
If you look at the definitions I’ve linked to you’ll see that religion, as I’ve been using it, requires more than just a belief in God. Whether it be action, worship, reverence, etc. You’ll see that they all say somehting like “…belief in God AND…” (emphasis mine).
Cosmosdan, thanks for your serious analysis and thoughtful questions. We might never see eye-to-eye on this particular issue, but I hope that I make as much of an attempt as you have to understand someone’s seemingly hairbrained position in the future. And treat them as fairly.
The problem here is the same one that developed with the definition of atheism. Atheists argued that the dictionary definition of atheism was not adequate. I think the definition of religion is too narrow.
Does the definition require more than just a belief, or simply assume that something more is required?
Maybe the definition is simply out of date?
I would describe that person as follows
Theist / {Type=} undetermined (since I don’t know)
I would describe magellan01 as
Theist / {Type=} iconoclast (as in nonconformist/individualist)
I am
Theist / {Type=} iconoclast / {Subtype=} prehistoric
(my “religion” is a personal attempt to recreate the religion of early man (ie Clan of the Cave Bear)
Magellan01, you and I get to check the other box on all the
forms.
Are these not references to the “god” of the enlightenment?
magellan01
For what ever reason your links didn’t work but I do appreciate the effort. I looked up quite a few definitions on my own and I believe I understand the crux of your arguement.
I can agree that the term religion or religious in general means something more than simple belief. I agree that when someone expresses belief in a deity that tells you very little about their belief system, meaning, what moves their day to day ethical and moral decisions.
I have pretty serious spiritual beliefs and if someone asked me if I was religious my reaction is “no, not in any traditional sense of the word” Yet if asked if my beliefs were religious in nature I would answer yes since my beliefs involve the existance of a higher power and reincarnation.
Regarding Under God in the pledge. Is that promoting religion in general?
Even though I understand your point I still disagree in this case. There is the overt act of putting UG in the pledge by the government. Under the direct pressure and influence by a more specific belief wouldn’t you say? I would have to call that the promotion of a religious concept. Also by expecting children and adult citizens to recite this addition to the original pledge it is eliciting a religious concept from our citizens.
Thats just concerning the definition. I do agree that the intent of the founders is not so clear. My original position was that the 1st amendment was intended to prevent any specific religion from becoming the official religion of the nation, and a general non specific reference to God wasn’t much different than the references in the DOI. That remains somewhat true but amended by some pretty strong arguements presented here.
You are right, the decisions of judges doesn’t make it right, just the law. Your opinion is still valid but consistant judgements by a series of judges is a pretty valid arguent as well. IMHO, it seems best to honor the beliefs of all citizens, for the government to not be the sponsor of statements that are even generally religious. As defender of religious freedom the government does have the responsibility to examine and define the rights of states, cities and towns.
If any child is ridiculed or harassed in school for choosing not to include UG then the school should take swift action to show that behavior is unacceptable. If a child is ridiculed for praying openly the same thing should happen. Our culture and society is changing and we must expect to change with it.
We all have a belief system. Some may be heavily influenced by their spiritual beliefs and others by personal philosophies. Either way what matters is the moral and ethical choices made by those individuals. I tend to think thats should be the approach of the government. Defend the right of individuals to choose how they establish their belief system but address only the moral and ethical choices resulting from those choices.
Thanks for taking the time to explain to me.
It certainly leaves a lot of other tthings up for discussion. Does a town have the right to put up a nativity scene around Christmas time? Do areas that tend to be heavily Muslim or something other than Christian then have the right to openly and publically display their beliefs and traditions? I hope it leads to more knowledge about other beliefs and traditions rather than more animosity.
I can support that from personal experience. George Washington was an Anglican before the war and an Episcopalian from 1784 on, when the church established itself as a national church separate from the Church of England. He was a vestryman, did not receive communion often if at all. His personal faith appears to have been that of the late 18th century Anglican layman – sincere but not “God-intoxicated” and leaving room for Reason as a proper way to the understanding of God. But I’ve seen careful quotations from writings by or about him used to suggest that he was at best an agnostic or that he was a Schaefferian fundamentalist – neither of which proves to be true when you read what little the man actually said about his beliefs.
Cuius regio, eius religio was a living memory to many of the FF; the Toleration, Testm and Occasional Conformity Acts were in place in the country whose rule they had just thrown off. They most emphatically wanted, as men of the Enlightenment, for liberty of conscience in the selection of what if any belief an American might espouse.
Like many another hard-won liberty, it seems that today’s “conservatives” are raring to throw that freedom away. And they have the audacity to speak of “values”?
Wow. You resurrected a 3 month old thread in order to post that?
Can you name some of “today’s ‘conservatives’” who want to throw away the liberty of conscience in the selction of what if any belief an American might expouse? Reasonable people can disagree about how much religion should be allowed in the public sphere. That doesn’t mean that those who think more should be allowed want to stifle other views. Perhaps you meant a few extremists on the right, but surely not “today’s ‘conservatives’” as a group.