| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2007 04:29:14 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
This is one reason that christian leaning folks might feel an unease towards non-believers. |
Why? Why is it a problem for you that some people in your country wish to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"? |
1. Are you trying to bait me into an argument?...[etc] |
No, I'm not trying to bait you. You yourself offered this article as an example of why god-believers feel "unease" toward those who are not. Then, I asked why, since you didn't offer any explanation beyond providing a link to the article. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's wildly unreasonable to ask why you're putting forward a particular point of view when you provide no meaningful context for an opinion you offer. |
My purpose for posting - I thought - was pretty clear. Let me explain why.
First I posted a link. Clear enough.
Then I stated a reason for the link - possible unease.
Then I plainly stated about my curiosity (as I hadn't an specific opinion on this yet) and asked for some insight - which was provided in a follow up post.
Then, lastly I made a small attempt at humor with a fact that I had not known of any other versions in my lifetime and that others may offer insight - which has alos been done.
This to me was clear and obvious to anyone who has known a history of my postings. Certainly Spazmo "got it" and we exchanged a brief and pleasant jab, even though we rarely are eye to eye on any specific issue (however as I have stated in the past and mentioned to Spazmo personally - in person, he still has my all time favorite Fall photo).
I really believe (literally) that extreme positions taken by individuals such as that seeking to overturn the Pledge and currency hurt the station of Atheists, as it riles many christians and places them on a defense when I doubt that is the intent. I can name many other examples but one would be the '94 election when the anti gunners riled and woke up the pro gunners. This was the purpose for the post and link. An opportunity to ponder a strategy and assess whether it was working. Personally, I am a bit tired of the courts legislating from the bench and sense many others agree with me.
Message edited by author 2007-12-04 16:40:00.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 04:29:31 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
And don't tell me nobody is being coerced into saying it. I am coerced into saying it almost every month, just so I can participate in my local historical society. |
I'm not saying any of those things. I was just offering a rational explanation for how the phrases "under God" and "In God We Trust" crept into the pledge and the currency. |
RonB said that. Sorry for the unannounced shift in addressee.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 04:32:58 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
There you go. Testicles fully exposed. Don your steel toed boots and have at them. If you could write "George Bush ruined the country" before you start kicking, it will really enhance the experience. |
Your offer is tempting on its face, but I admire you telling it like it is. It's those hidden agendas and thought-free talking points that piss me off the most. Your exposed testicles speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 04:50:46 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Sorry Ron, but what some see as presumption is nothing more than using past ranting style (a phrase used in the best possible way) to predict what's coming next. It's not completely outrageous, unfair, or whatever else you may wish to imagine, to make assumptions, even presumptions if you like that better, about the motives of an individual when taking into consideration all they've said on certain subject. Your words damn you, if you like. Taking Bear_Music as an example, while he may come to the aid of a poster taking an indefensible position, his past conversations rarely indicate what his motives may be. Yours do. I feel perfectly comfortable if you wish to call that presumption, assholery, or whatever else. |
FWIW, You presume wrong.
First of all, I have no problem whatsoever with Newdow's lawsuit. In fact, I support his right to obtain a judicial interpretation of the constitution as it applies to something that he feels is unconstitutional - first, because he DOES have that right, and secondly, because to deny him that right, would be to accept that MY rights to request judicial interpretations of law could be or should be denied, as well - and I value and want to maintain that right.
Second, I have no problem with the phrase 'under God' being removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. ( Note: just because the phrase is removed from the Pledge doesn't mean that the country is no longer "under God" )
and Third, I have no problem with the phrase 'In God we Trust' being removed from U.S. Currency. ( Note: just because the phrase is removed from the Currency doesn't mean that the majority of the people who use the currency no longer trust in God )
That being said, I think that the number of lawsuits being brought by atheists in the U.S. will ultimately result in what could be seen as "winning lots of battles but losing the war". If Newdow prevails, who wins? Atheists? They will have tied up the courts for years, will end up costing U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars to retool all of the dies and plates used to mint money and replace all of the currency currently in circulation, and they'll end up turning people who don't even CARE about their beliefs against them. How is that a "win" for atheists?
So, in that sense, the lawsuit does trouble me, because it creates even more division in our society - to the detriment of both atheists and society as a whole. In other words, my problem with the lawsuit is not based on my religious beliefs, but on my beliefs about what's good for society. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 04:55:51 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
And don't tell me nobody is being coerced into saying it. I am coerced into saying it almost every month, just so I can participate in my local historical society. |
I'm not saying any of those things. I was just offering a rational explanation for how the phrases "under God" and "In God We Trust" crept into the pledge and the currency. |
RonB said that. Sorry for the unannounced shift in addressee. |
I'm confused. What is it that you're claiming I said? |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 05:21:31 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am coerced into saying it almost every month, just so I can participate in my local historical society. |
Forgive my ignorance (and my derailing of the thread now that it has returned slightly closer to its original intent) but on what sort of occassions is the'Pledge' recited, and what sort of a reception would someone get if they didn't take part? |
Sara, it's been a while since you posted this question, but posthumous has not yet responded, and I didn't want to make you feel like you were being ignored, so I'll try to answer your question.
The Pledge is recited in elementary schools ( usually ages 5 or 6 to 11 or 12 ) to varying degrees - it depends on the school district, county, or state. It is often recited at meetings of civic organizations ( historical societies, preservation societies, veterans affairs, etc. ). And it is often recited at meetings of the local governments ( board of selectmen, board of commissioners, etc.). There may be others, but those come to mind.
The reception toward those who decline to participate varies, and is probably most dependent on how many people choose to NOT recite the Pledge. If there are only one or two in a roomful, then those who do participate may view those who do not as being somewhat "odd". This may be especially true with school-aged children. If several decline to participate, then perhaps they would not be viewed in quite the same way. Among adults, there should not be any negative reception at all, though who can say. Posthumous says that he is coerced to participate - but he didn't say how he thinks he would be received if he declined. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 05:45:36 PM · #257 |
FWIW, it's also odd being in a room full of people and not signing the national anthem/ putting your hand on your heart. I get quite a few pointed looks for not singing/ standing appropriately, typically once a month.
I shut up, I'm not rude, but I'm not participating - some folk take exception to that it seems. I suspect it is the same not reciting the pledge.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 05:46:08 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by SaraR:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am coerced into saying it almost every month, just so I can participate in my local historical society. |
Forgive my ignorance (and my derailing of the thread now that it has returned slightly closer to its original intent) but on what sort of occassions is the'Pledge' recited, and what sort of a reception would someone get if they didn't take part? |
Sara, it's been a while since you posted this question, but posthumous has not yet responded, and I didn't want to make you feel like you were being ignored, so I'll try to answer your question.
The Pledge is recited in elementary schools ( usually ages 5 or 6 to 11 or 12 ) to varying degrees - it depends on the school district, county, or state. It is often recited at meetings of civic organizations ( historical societies, preservation societies, veterans affairs, etc. ). And it is often recited at meetings of the local governments ( board of selectmen, board of commissioners, etc.). There may be others, but those come to mind.
The reception toward those who decline to participate varies, and is probably most dependent on how many people choose to NOT recite the Pledge. If there are only one or two in a roomful, then those who do participate may view those who do not as being somewhat "odd". This may be especially true with school-aged children. If several decline to participate, then perhaps they would not be viewed in quite the same way. Among adults, there should not be any negative reception at all, though who can say. Posthumous says that he is coerced to participate - but he didn't say how he thinks he would be received if he declined. |
Let me expand on that a little bit:
Originally the Pledge was to "the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In other words, it was basically an affirmation of loyalty to our country, sort of the opposite of treason. The thinking was, "let us instill patriotism in our people, let them be loyal to their country above all things.
Then they added "under God" to the pledge.
Now, in the first instance, if you refused to make the pledge you could be presumed to not be a loyal American, right?
In the second instance, if you refused to make the pledge the waters got muddied; is it patriotism you are renouncing, or is it the acceptance of God?
Now, Posthumous and I both think that EITHER pledge is borderline fascist; that is to say, there's an implied subtext that if you don't pledge your loyalty to the state you are a deficient citizen of the state. I can see the arguments pro and con on this, but it's WAY outside the context of this particular thread.
BUT when you add GOD into the mix, it gets really complicated; we supposedly have a state that does not require its citizens to follow a state-mandated religion, but here's a culturally-required pledge of loyalty that includes God in its text. So what of those who are loyal Americans, willing to die for their country and so forth, who do NOT believe in God?
That's the crux of the argument.
In reality nobody gets bounced out of the country for "refusing to pledge", but those who refuse to pledge on the grounds of, say, atheism get lumped in with those who are not "patriotic", so patriotism and belief in God get muddied up together,l and that is not a Good Thing.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:28:14 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm confused. What is it that you're claiming I said? |
sorry, Flash said it. It all went by in a flash.
The consequences of me not saying the pledge. I don't know exactly, but at the very least I would forfeit any chance to influence decisions or the direction of the group. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:30:47 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
FWIW, it's also odd being in a room full of people and not signing the national anthem/ putting your hand on your heart. I get quite a few pointed looks for not singing/ standing appropriately, typically once a month.
I shut up, I'm not rude, but I'm not participating - some folk take exception to that it seems. I suspect it is the same not reciting the pledge. |
From personal experience I can assure you it is.
What do you call it when you make kids stand and recite and learn by rote something they don't understand? I think when "the Communists" did it we called it brainwashing .... |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 11:31:48 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What do you call it when you make kids stand and recite and learn by rote something they don't understand? I think when "the Communists" did it we called it brainwashing .... |
Do you have the same problem with multiplication tables, ABC's and all the other things kids are brainwashed with?
Nursing homes full of people who hate their country. I get misty eyed just thinking of it. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 11:34:46 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What do you call it when you make kids stand and recite and learn by rote something they don't understand? I think when "the Communists" did it we called it brainwashing .... |
Do you have the same problem with multiplication tables, ABC's and all the other things kids are brainwashed with? |
Are you seriously equating education that's useful throughout one's life with state-forced nationalist chanting that is completely devoid of meaning for kids? |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 11:42:00 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Are you seriously equating education that's useful throughout one's life with state-forced nationalist chanting that is completely devoid of meaning for kids? |
I'm not convinced he's ever serious. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:26:03 AM · #264 |
Way too late to this conversation, but I wonder again, as I have many times before, why do atheists seem never to mention the good organized religion has done in the world?
Personally I'd blame the evil done on human nature rather than the tool used. There will be people willing to bend any creed or idea in an effort to consolidate power for themselves. Religion is rife with such examples, but there are just as many examples of the same thing where religion had nothing to do with it. Heck, if an ideology were judged purely on how much bad it did in the world, why are any of us supporting Capitalism?
I now return you to your regularly scheduled rant. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:41:52 AM · #265 |
One could wonder if much thought has been given to the fact that all these arguments are by very nature horizontal...
If God is real, and he is actually God, then by even the commonest understanding...that makes Him stronger, wiser, more in every way than a human being. Would such a Person become even slightly distressed over a human being believing or not believing in Him?
Do our thoughts affect the Almighty in any way...as to how He creates and maintains His Creation?
On the other hand, if He doesn't exist, is any of this really going to matter to any of us 100 years from now?
What? Are those ants I hear? What are they discussing? Does Man really exist? Hmmmmmm? Gotta think about that! :} |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:12:57 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Way too late to this conversation, but I wonder again, as I have many times before, why do atheists seem never to mention the good organized religion has done in the world? |
Why do so many "believers" equate atheism with amorality?
Just because atheists/agnostics don't require the threat of eternal damnation doesn't mean they aren't capable of making moral judgements or "doing good" as you put it.
There's a reason the phrase "holier than thou" commonly has a negative connotation. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:20:46 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Way too late to this conversation, but I wonder again, as I have many times before, why do atheists seem never to mention the good organized religion has done in the world? |
Why do so many "believers" equate atheism with amorality?
Just because atheists/agnostics don't require the threat of eternal damnation doesn't mean they aren't capable of making moral judgements or "doing good" as you put it. |
To answer Jason, what is your point? Plenty of secular organizations also do good things. Religion might be what some people need in order to do good but it's by no means a prerequisite.
To answer the General, why do believers equate atheism with amorality? Bigotry? Ignorance? I think it was Huckabee, who seems like a nice guy btw, but in his campaign video he mentions that he doesn't have to wonder where his morals come from each morning. That just blows me away. Thank God for the bible otherwise Huckabee would be out in the street raping women!
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 04:46:51.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 04:40:03 AM · #268 |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 06:58:38 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm confused. What is it that you're claiming I said? |
sorry, Flash said it. It all went by in a flash. |
Actually I believe it was Louis who first used the term coercive (pg. 10 post #3), if I am following you at all.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:05:41 AM · #270 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why do so many "believers" equate atheism with amorality? |
Not offering an answer for the Dr., just trying to address the question. The reason that "many" believers equate atheism with amorality is due (in my opinion) to the coincidence that some atheists also live a more "Coligulus" lifestyle. I have suspected that some sexually liberal citizens choose an atheist believe to avoid confrontation with the "moral" code associated with "christ like" behaviour. Certainly you could counter with many examples of "christians" behaving immorally and I would agree it is a bit of hipocracy. That though, does not change the answer as to why "many" may equate atheism with amorality or even immorality.
edited to add...even immorality
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 09:12:50.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:19:00 AM · #271 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What do you call it when you make kids stand and recite and learn by rote something they don't understand? I think when "the Communists" did it we called it brainwashing .... |
Do you have the same problem with multiplication tables, ABC's and all the other things kids are brainwashed with? |
Are you seriously equating education that's useful throughout one's life with state-forced nationalist chanting that is completely devoid of meaning for kids? |
Math and grammar are as devoid of meaning for kids as the pledge until they begin to think for themselves and reason - hence being taught by recitation in the first place. I will assume you find no value whatsoever in the pledge, perhaps in part because you aren't even from the country whose pledge it is, and that your issue is not the manner in which it is presented but the fact that it is presented at all.
Maybe you and GeneralE can share a room.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:23:54 AM · #272 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Actually I believe it was Louis who first used the term coercive (pg. 10 post #3), if I am following you at all. |
You do realize that the page number will be different for each user depending on their preferences for # of messages/page, right? For me, this thread is only 2 pages.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 09:24:25. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:27:02 AM · #273 |
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:30:29 AM · #274 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
Let me think for .037 seconds and formulate a response:
The old testament contains the 10 commandments, a morals-for-dummy list of do's and don'ts featuring such hits as 'thou shalt not kill', 'don't be jealous', etc. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:33:01 AM · #275 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Actually I believe it was Louis who first used the term coercive (pg. 10 post #3), if I am following you at all. |
You do realize that the page number will be different for each user depending on their preferences for # of messages/page, right? For me, this thread is only 2 pages. |
Actually I did not know this. Thanks for the education.
|
|
