The grand-parent post commented that the judicial system hasn't been very fair and removed from Government politics recently, in regards to George Bush winning the 2000 election as a direct result of a judicial ruling.
And then you seemed to imply that the fact that the judicial system decided the election was because of Al Gore - not through any intention of George Bush's.
And then I recommended that you read a book which I have found to be an excellent source of information about the 2000 election, the roles several people in government played in deciding it, and the fact that several members of the Supreme Court had a vested interest in making sure that George Bush won the election (and so therefore should have removed themselves from the vote).
Freedom fighters? Suicide bombers? Iraq? Passport? Syria? What article are you reading?
There was a lot of relevance to my post - what the hell are you talking about?
Man I love getting trolled and wasting all this time responding...
I have no more trolled you than you have trolled the original poster. And there were assumptions and innacuracies in your post - I wanted to clear them up.
Also, you keep refereng to "1" as a "constant," and that "there's no implicit conversion of constant to bool." "1" is indeed a "constant," but it's a "constant integer" - and the integer part of that is the interesting part. Because, "there's no implicit conversion of integer to bool." The "constant" part of "1" has nothing to do with this conversion or the failing of the conversion.
Good call. Any time I buy a book which is for reference purposes, I get more and more angry all the time, that there isn't a CD-ROM that I can get with the book. Just a PDF file, and maybe also an RTF file, too.
Why is such a bad thing to have faith in something?
There's nothing wrong with having faith in something. The government, however, cannot be allowed to make laws telling me which things to have faith in. Like the Bible, for instance.
I know, it isn't your faith. Well, would it help if the gov't made references to every religion everytime they did something along those lines?
That's a funny idea, but no, I don't think it's practical. I think a far better, and easier way to do it is for the government to not make laws that reference any religions, specifically.
Not that they will though. I know you don't want the gov't to favor one religion and they are not. They are reflecting what the public as a majority favors as their religion and as the main religion throughout this country's history.
Please, re-read your paragraph, there. You state that they're not "favoring" one religion, and then you say that they're "reflecting" the majority religion, Christianity.
That is favoring Christianity. The logic of your statement is pretty confused. It doesn't matter what most people believe - we don't vote on whether Elvis is alive.
Favoring a religion would mean they are telling you to have this certain religion and if you didn't you would lose something because of it. That isn't happening. Your rights have not been violated and mine haven't either actually.
Again, as in my previous post on the topic, you state that my rights have not been violated. In fact they have. I have listed numerous arguments about how you might understand the violation of my rights, and you have not directly responded to ANY of them.
Please reference all of my other posts in this discussion for the arguments about why my rights have been violated.
Real quickly, if the laws of this nation forced you to say something like "God does not exist," you'd be pretty pissed.
I'm pretty pissed by a law that forces me to say something like "God does exist."
Specifically if it's the Christian God, but in fact, any God will do - I don't believe in any of them.
Seriously, contemplate, "God does not exist." Would you still think that nobody's rights were being violated?
ANSWER MY QUESTION.
The bigger picture if this elimination of religion continues that you fail to see is that more immoral and sinful things will happen.
See, it's exactly this kind of rationalization that pisses me off. You're stating that government doesn't "favor one religion", except that it "reflects [Christianity]", and then you tell me that if I "eliminate [Christianity]... that more immoral and sinful things will happen."
To shorten that all, it is your belief that if the government doesn't "reflect [Christianity], more immoral and sinful things will happen."
You use this as a (theoretically) "logical" argument about why the government should (make laws that) "reflect [Christianity.]"
Replace the word "Christianity" with "Islam," and replace the country "America" with "Afghanistan," and I think that you'll find that the exact opposite has happened. In fact, because or possibly inspite of the fact that the government of Afghanistan made more laws that "reflect Islam, more immoral and sinful things did happen."
And I'm not just talking about September 11th. I'm talking about killing human beings who broke the laws of man (leave the judging up to God, okay?). I'm talking about a country whose largest export is opium.
Now, you're going to hop in and call the entire nation of Afghanistan, or at least the people who lead it "a fanatic."
Well, I'm saying that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You're saying that if the government doesn't "reflect [Christianity], more immoral and sinful things will happen." That's fanatical belief in Christianity. And it's ignoring the history of Christianity, as the grand-parent post pointed out. A few religious wars, most of which
You ignore me when I describe how you would feel if a different religion were endorsed. You don't tell me that I'm wrong, you just ignore me.
You completely ignored my analogy to sexual harrasment. You didn't tell me how her rights were not violated, and you didn't tell me how the analogy was flawed.
So, you're not listening, and you're not responding. I guess it's my mistake to assume that we were having a conversation.
I'll try to again, to specifically address your question, which, again, you have not done for me...
It's one thing when you disagree with someone about religions. It's entirely different when the government makes laws that prefer one religion over another.
If it were law that I had to place my hand on the Bible and swear to the Christian God, before testifiying in court - that would be denying everything that I believe in. (It's not a law, but that's an example of how the government might endorse a religion.) It would be violating my freedom to believe what I believe, and to try to follow the rules that my system of beliefs places on me. Even the phrase "under God" denies what I believe in. I think I've made that abundantly clear.
Endorsing a particular religion does not force you to practice that same religion, contrary to what you may believe.
Endorsing that my secretary wear skimpy clothes does not force her to wear skimpy clothes, contrary to what you may believe - but it DOES VIOLATE HER RIGHTS.
When the government makes laws that endorse a religion other than mine, MY RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED.
Saying that they aren't a thousand times won't make it any less true.
My analogy is perfect. If you can tell me how telling my secretary to wear skimpy clothes does not violate her rights, then you've resolved the situation. Explaining to me precisely how the two things are different, and thus my analogy is flawed, would resolve the situation, too.
Telling us, again and again, that our rights are not violated by the mention of your God doesn't prove your point - it just points out how unimaginative you are. Try actually responding to some of the points that people bring up. Logic makes for better arguments than religious fervor.
Nowhere in any of your references is there any mention that "the government can have its own religion."
You are completely deluded.
I don't deny the people in government from being religious. But you're absolutely 100% incorrect that there is any Constitutional backing for your stated view that "The government is allowed to [make laws that] have references to a particular religion." Show me any document that is a part of the American legal system that backs up that opinion.
The separation of church and state actually means that the state is not allowed to have any references to a particular religion. Doing so would be unfair to people in other religions. Being forced to live under a system of laws that provides preference for another religion is religious oppression, whether you think it is or not, buddy.
That is the separation of church and state if there ever was any.
Actually, like I keep saying, wouldn't there be more separation of church and state, if the state couldn't mention any church? Sounds like a better system of separation if there ever was any.
the same religion as the gov't
There is no such animal. If there were, then the church and the state would be joined, not separate.
The US gov't is not doing that so don't say you are being oppressed or having my faith forced upon you.
You gleefully talk about the government mentioning your faith - whether you think so or not, having laws that prefer your religion to mine is oppressive.
James Madison praised the separation of church and state but he didn't mean the gov't could not say ANYTHING on religion.
He most certainly did mean that the laws of the government can not say ANYTHING on a specific religion.
Even generals in the army feel the same way as you do - and they're just as wrong as you are.
Pentagon Defends Gen. Who Chided Muslims
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Pentagon (news - web sites) leaders on Thursday spoke up in support of a top general who has told church audiences that the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan and that Muslims worship idols.
Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin has made several speeches some in uniform at evangelical Christian churches in which he cast the war on terrorism in religious terms. Boykin said of a 1993 battle with a Muslim militia leader in Somalia: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."
Boykin did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he had not seen Boykin's comments, but he praised the three-star general, who is the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.
"He is an officer that has an outstanding record in the United States armed forces," Rumsfeld said at a news conference.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he had spoken in uniform at prayer breakfasts, adding he did not think Boykin broke any military rules by giving talks at churches.
"There is a very wide gray area on what the rules permit," Myers said. "At first blush, it doesn't look like any rules were broken."
A Republican senator visiting the Pentagon Thursday was more critical.
Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island said he had not been aware of Boykin's statements as reported in the news media, then added, "If that's accurate, to me it's deplorable."
A Muslim civil rights group on Thursday called for Boykin to be reassigned.
"Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Awad's statement noted that a verse in the Quran says Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians.
Boykin's church speeches, first reported by NBC News and the Los Angeles Times, cast the war on terrorism as a religious battle between Christians and the forces of evil.
Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian.... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Rumsfeld on Thursday repeated the Bush administration position that the war on terrorism is not a war against Islam but against people "who have tried to hijack a religion."
The defense secretary said he could not prevent military officials from making controversial statements.
"We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country," Rumsfeld said. "I think that for anyone to run around and think that that can be managed and controlled is probably wrong. Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) could do it pretty well, because he'd go around killing people if they said things he didn't like."
(Emphasis added.)
This guy is nuts. Casting this as a religious war is idiotic - most Christians AND Muslims agree on that.
I just get tired of people taking away my religion from public places.
And I'm tired of people demanding that their religion is put into or stays in public places. They're public - for everyone. Not for you, since your religion was the religion of the founders; not for you, since your religion is the most popular one in this country; not for you.
Yes I can still practice it but it's the founding faith of this country and people want to get rid of it because they think the founding fathers wanted it that way.
I don't particularly care what the founding fathers of our nation thought on this topic. I certainly don't use my belief of their intentions to decide what I think public policy should be, today - especially not on matters of religion.
The gov't is making reference to christianity simply because its the faith of this country
I'm so enraged by this statement that I find it hard to form a coherent response to you. This one statement explains exactly the position that I detest - that you think our country has a single faith. Have you seen the face of America? Do you really think to yourself, "Muslim, you can stay in this country, but you're defying the faith of our country"? Do you really think that? This country is about religious freedom. Not religious "non-persecution." Not about religious "tolerance of people who practice religions that aren't Christianity, the religion of our country." You have no respect for the faith of others, by stating that our country has a single faith.
This is precisely the fulcrum of my point. This country is for people of every faith. Not merely the majority. Not merely the people who have the same religious views as the founding fathers. I can't believe how much you hate America, that you think it's yours, and yours alone, through an accident of fate, that you were born to the same religion as a group of men hundreds of years ago.
Why do you think people of other relgions around the world hate us? It's because they don't understand that we are a nation of many - that we don't prefer one race, one religion over others. It's because of people like you that people hate our country.
and if you disagree with that faith then so be it but don't take it away from me or this country simply b/c you don't like it.
You can do whatever you want in private, but you shall not make laws that prefer your religious beliefs over mine.
It's not hurting you.
How can you declare that the presence of your faith in public places does not harm me, but the absence of your faith in those same public places does harm you?
You are an unashamed hypocrite.
The main point being, we can both practice our own but mine happens to be the original faith so that is what should stay.
What if Christianity waned, and there were only 7 people in the country who still practiced it? Does it make logical sense to you that it should still stay? What if 299,999,993 people in this country practiced Islam, and 7 practiced Christianity? Should the laws of this country still prefer Christianity to Islam? Because by your logic, of Christianity being the "original faith," it should.
That's insanity. The government must not prefer any religion, or lack of religion, over any other. That's the only way that everyone is free in their religious views.
THey did not want religious oppression to rule and it's not but you think it is for some reason.
Take out "God", and put in "Satan," and see how happy you are pledging allegiance "under Satan."
Forcing your child to say the pledge with the name God in it is not forcing a religion on that child.
Forcing a child to say the pledge with the phrase "heil Hitler" in it is not forcing national socialism on that child.
Your statment is so brilliantly inane that I can hardly believe it. You honestly don't see some kind of a connection between "GOD" and REL
For the Supreme Court or and any Federal entity to prohibit teachers from leading the pledge is just as serious an affront to free speech as for the schools to require it.
What if the teacher lead a prayer?
What if the prayer was thanking God for the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001?
What if the prayer was that the students of the classroom not go to Hell for their sins, which include looking at people of the opposite sex?
What if the prayer was a warning that students who miss an answer on the test would be beaten with a lead pipe?
What if the prayer was an assertion that the teacher would one day kill the President of the United States?
What if the prayer was a sexual advance, inviting the students to attend an orgy?
What if the prayer was instructions on how to make pipe bombs, and imploring the students to "kill the weak ones among you."
So, maybe now you agree that the subject of what a teacher says does matter? Not all things are appropriate under free speech, and not all venues are appropriate for it.
An employer can prohibit their employees from certain actions, under penalty of termination. You, for instance, cannot run naked through your hallways yelling "I'M ON FIRE - PISS ON ME!" without getting fired - unless you are your own boss. Free speech is not universally protected.
Similarly, the Federal Government institutes a system of rules about how public schools are run. And teachers in the employ of those schools are not guaranteed free speech.
And it's higher than a State issue, when civil liberties are threatened. Just like in ending segregation - the Federal government stepped in and said, "these people are wronged by what is going on, and it has to change." Nothing prohibits you from never associating with African Americans in your personal life - but the government does have something to say about the same situation, in public schools.
It's not the government's job to make sure no one is ever offended.
No, but it does defend civil liberties. Freedom of religion is one of them.
However, for the Supreme court to prohibit reciting the Pledge of Allegiance would be a violation of the principles of the first ammendment.
The problem with this is that students are doing it aloud, together - which is a chant - and it contains explicit and implicit assumptions about God. That's not good for our society.
If I were to try to encapsulate the feelings that I have in a simple way...
Why can't white students in a school stand up and recite some pledge to the KKK?
Honestly - why not? It's their personal beliefs... Saying something certainly doesn't harm anyone. Surely the Constitution protects their right to free speech? It's just a pledge, and if someone doesn't like it, they can ignore it and do something else. Or they can move to another school?
The problem with all of that is that it's a public school, which has to be for everyone. And any specifically organized activity (even it is is an impromptu recital of the Pledge of Allegiance) has to (in the words of our President) leave no student behind.
I know a few teachers who are furious that they can't decorate for Christmas in their classrooms. They don't understand, at all, how it feels to someone with different beliefs. Are your beliefs so important and so fragile that they require repeated recitation in public, in a school? And how would you feel if a Middle-Eastern kid celebrated September 11th, every year? That's different, because it's about violence, and destruction you say. Well, doesn't Christianity sound a lot like violence and destruction to a Middle-Eastern kid?
I don't see how voluntary participation is violating anyone's rights.
Even voluntary participation in celebrating September 11th?
If parents don't like what their children are taught, they should send them to a different school, which leads to my final point.
If parents want their children to have an education in the name of God, then they should send them to a different school. Public schools should and must be for everyone in the public, and not be about personal beliefs and religions.
Public schools are under school boards and ultimately under the states. Why is this being debated at a Federal level?
Did you hear of a thing called Segregation? Your logic applies to that, as well. If you honestly can't fathom why ending Segregation was necessary at a federal level, then we can discuss it. You aren't honestly confused about that, are you?
Why can't these type of questions be resolved at a local or state level?
What if you lived in a community that happened to be nearly 100% Nazi? Wouldn't it kind of suck to be Jewish in that community, where they decided to use your money to pay for public schools that teach ideals that you disagree with on such a fundamental level? The federal government must curtail the ability of states to intrude on your civil liberties in such a manner. In short, the federal government must defend a public school system that is for everyone, of all faiths and beliefs.
If schools were locally controlled as they were originally, the Supreme Court wouldn't have to be involved.
Again, segregation exactly fits your argument. Can you not see why the Supreme Court needed to get involved?
I could ramble more about why public schools are so important - but you didn't really argue that they should cease to exist... You just said that people who don't want God taught to their kids in school should go to "a different school." I disagree, it is the parent who does want God taught to their kids in school who should go to "a different school." But I hope that they realize that spending a day at church, and talking about religion with your family is enough - because public schools are a vital part of a healthy community, in my opinion. They teach children citizenship, and hopefully, the importance of diversity, and a respect for differing points of view.
While "wishy washy" may seem pejorative, I find it an apt description of someone who believes that each person makes his own truth.
Okay, so, when two people both believe in objective truth, but they think that different things are true, how would you describe them? Self-deluded? Irrational? Or merely misinformed?
If I find myself in that situation, I try to think outside of the box of my beliefs, and recognize that what I believe is objective truth might actually be subjective truth.
I would point out that based on your own reply, you clearly do not fall into the "wishy washy" category.
But, I don't believe in the constancy of objective truth - and I certainly don't believe that humans are very effective at discerning objective truth. So, if we're flawed as human beings in our understanding of the world, and it's difficult for us to perceive objective truth - isn't that a lot like subjective truth?
By engaging in this argument, you're quite obviously interested in finding truth and are zealous in attacking the propagation of falsehoods. A "wishy washy" person would have no motivation for doing so.
But, but, but... Whether or not objective truth exists, I think our perception of it is flawed. So, I think that under most circumstances, we must act as though there is merely subjective truth... Doesn't that make me, by your definition, "wishy washy"?
Let me distill my argument. Rational people understand that truth is an absolute and fixed thing--it doesn't change with the whims of mortal men.
Scientists recognize that our understanding of absolute and fixed things is neither absolute or fixed. Our understanding of the universe changes so often that you might as well describe it as being at the whim of mortal men. No one could argue that the Earth was not flat. It was a simple, self-evident truth. More threatening, belief in round-Earth interfered with peoples' relationship with God. And since God is absolute, it must be wickedness to discuss this round-Earth nonsense. Except, it is our very understanding of God which has changed. God doesn't require the Earth to be flat - that was merely our understanding at the time. It was not God that changed, but us. Thus, our perceptions of what is absolute and fixed changes over time.
Rational people also understand that for a society to be just, members of the society must measure their own judgments against this objective truth.
Reflection is wonderful - and self-doubt is the only way to achieve correctness. Big fan of doubt and reflection.
The phrase "under God" acknowledges this fact by referencing the source of truth identified by the majority of people in the world.
And here's where your argument falls flat on its face. You assume that there is a source of the universe, and thus, a source of truth. You happen to be in the majority, in this opinion. However, it is mere belief. While I agree with you that the universe does exist, and there might actually be objective truth - that in no way compels me to label a "source" of those things. Because the label "God" as "source" of the universe (and objective truth) is meaningless to me. Why not label the source of God as Blixplorg? Surely, if the universe must have been created by God, then God must have been created by Blixplorg? As rediculous as my argument sounds, your argument that I am compeled to believe in God, because the universe exists sounds to me. You would argue that God needs no source, that God is the precedant to all causes - is the first cause. I don't need to back up one step from the existance of the universe - to me, the existance of the universe is the many wondered thing without explanation. I don't need to anthropomorphize a creator out of the fact that the universe exists. And I specifically don't believe in a deity that is external to the universe, who is not bound by the laws of it, who created himself, who is the meaning of the state
I really, honestly respect the way that you've stated your opinions - I think you've spoken well, and I respect that.
You're awefully close to saying that man can create something that God cannot destroy.
I would say "Man can create something that God will not destroy."
God lets us fight our own battles on Earth. He may give people strength, but we have to fight for what we believe in.
Most of the people who slaughtered the nations of native Americans thought that they followed God's will.
Our nation was so strong that it was independent of what most Christian people today would say was God's will.
Our collective understanding of God's will is not static - it is a flowing river. To swim in a part of the river, and to decry the actions of everyone in another river, or even in a different part of the same river, is foolishness.
I don't believe in your God. Therefore, I don't believe that God had a part in the creation of this country. I don't believe that God had a part in slaughtering the native Americans. I don't mean to disrespect your beliefs, but if you honestly think that God had a part in genocide, then I think that's incredibly disrespectful of man's sometimes strong and sometimes weak will.
Rather, we recognize that God is the objective third party who is the source of truth.
Wrong. You recognize that God is the objective third party who is the source of truth.
I don't believe that at all.
I agree with you absolutely that you've correctly identified the purpose of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I couldn't have said it better myself.
And I don't share those beliefs.
The laws of this land should not give your religious beliefs preferential treatment over mine.
It is an assertion that we believe in and are ultimately held accountable to absolute truth and not the wishy washy idea that everyone makes his own truth.
Thanks for calling my ideas "wishy washy." Gee. Here's where you've offended me. Simply because you don't understand my beliefs, doesn't give you the authority to ridicule them. In fact, I'd say it's just about the opposite. Ignorance of my beliefs specifically denies you the authority to ridicule them. Please don't call them "wishy washy," okay?
And you seem to think that I'm "evil," since your beliefs obviously represent "good." Thanks again.
I'm not asking you to acknowledge that "evil" is an equal force to your "good." I'm asking you to acknowledge that we have different beliefs about good and evil. The laws of our society are set up to be objective and fair about the fact that our beliefs differ.
You've spoken very fairly and true - and I respect the way that you've done it. Were I to believe in the same things as you, I would be cheering you on. I don't. And you're not "right," any more than I'm "wrong" about the nature of God, or the existence of God. I acknowledge that it's your belief that you're "right". But it's belief. It's faith. And that's powerful - incredibly powerful. But if I have different beliefs, and different faith, shouldn't the "correctness" of our two systems be adjudicated by the powers that we believe in? If I'm right, you'll be fine, since all good people are rewarded. If you're right, I'll probably burn, because I reject the God you worship. But that's between me and your God, if your God exists.
While we're both alive, let's let our beliefs lead our personal lives, and a government that doesn't side with either one of us lead our public (political, law-abiding) lives.
Congressmen pray all the time before meetings and no one has a problem with it.
Do you honestly not see the difference between someone taking a personal moment for reflection, and that same person forcing everyone to do the same?
For some reason some school systems have problems with kids leading their OWN prayer within the school.
And for some reason some school systems have problems with kids leading their OWN Nazi groups within the school.
These are just beliefs. One is not correct, and the other incorrect. It's just that I get to throw in the word Nazi, and all of a sudden you get upset, and think of a whole slew of things that the Nazi party has done that you find offensive, like, I dunno, killing millions of Jews. (For the record - I'm not a big fan of Nazis.)
Well, hey, wait a minute - haven't some nut jobs actually killed other people in the name of religion? Sure, like I said, they're nut jobs, but guess what? I find the mention of religion in schools to be probably about as offensive as you find demonstrating Nazis.
This is a free world.
The belief in entitlement is probably the worst virus that has existed in this society. No, it is most definately not a "free world." It is a world in which, most people are not free. Free to worship how they want, free from hunger, free from oppression. Thankfully, in our society, you are actually free to believe what you want, and to worship both in privacy and in communities of other worshipers. But you are not entitled to any of it - you have to earn it by being a good citizen, and by making sure that the rules you live by are fair to everyone.
It's little people like you that are somehow able to persuade courts to make landmark decisions instead of letting the public vote on it when the majority still wants it.
I'm going to quote myself from a previous SlashDot article. (This one.) I was specifically speaking about government funding and democracy, but the point holds up against your inane view that "majority rules" produces the best results.
I'm glad that we as a society don't directly vote for government funding. I think we would make HORRIBLE choices. For one, we would probably vote away our national debt ("why should we pay?!"). We would probably stop aid to Afghanistan ("feed Americans, not Afghans!"). We would probably chop public schools ("I have a right to raise my kid like I want to - in Catholic schools!"). We would probably stop AIDS research ("Why should we pay to find a cure to a disease they got by sinning against God?"). We never would have gotten involved in the European Theater in WWII ("what have the Nazis ever done to us?"). There would be no national archive ("who cares about old books?"). The results of the Human Genome Project would be patented and copyright by [insert major corporation here] ("Why should taxpayers pay for something that a private company is perfectly willing to do?"). Hell, there would be no public domain! ("You mean someone could make pornography with Mickey Mouse in it! Hell no! Let Disney hold the Copyright forever, so we can PROTECT THE CHILDREN!")
Never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd. I, for one, am glad we don't live in a true Democracy.
Back to your comments...
You have a wacked out view of bringing God into the situation. He is a headstone just like a father is to his family. It does not hurt that he is there.
The Little Green Monkey that Lives in My Closet tells me to shoot people who don't believe in him. You have a wacked out view of bringing the Little Green Monkey that Lives In My Closet into the situation. He is a headstone just like a father is to his family. It does not hurt that he is there.
Don't you understand that you've just described your belief in God,
But America == democracy so if the majority wants God in the government and in public areas then shutup about it.
No, wrong, stupid. That's not how society works, and I'm very thankfull that's not how OUR society works. For one, don't tell me to "shutup about it." What laws do you think we exist under? I must give voice to my beliefs, and you can give voice to yours. Don't try to silence me - but instead publically disagree with me, and if the location or timing of my offensive speech particularly perturbs you, then ask me to change the forum, or ask me to delay my speech until another time. But your blanket "shutup" speaks volumes about your disrespect for the individuality and good citizenship that the laws of our nation encourage.
For another thing, yes - it is possible that a majority of our society could make stupid laws come to pass. Like, everyone has to cut off their left thumb on their thirteenth birthday. That could become a law in this nation, since our nation is run by people, and people are falible. But that doesn't mean that people should be silent about improper laws. Specifically, were such a law to pass, it would be a failing of our government as an institution. Democracy, or "everyone votes, and we all do it" doesn't result in the best outcomes. Not even close. As I argued in a previous thread on SlashDot, people are not informed enough to rule an entire nation through the choices inspired merely by their BELIEFS. Our laws exist to try to select leaders who will make WISE choices, not POPULAR choices.
Gah - I have to go right now, but I hope to make it back, and debate the rest of your position - which I think is pretty crazy...
Anyway it's arguable that all monotheistic religions must by definition worship the same god...
You might be able to succesfully argue that within the tenets of a specific religion, one at a time, but making that blanket statement disrespects the individual beliefs of every monotheistic religion. Specifically, most religions don't have the concept that "these are some laws our God teaches." Most religions believe in the completeness of their beliefs - these are all of the laws of God, and all of the teachings that are required to understand God. When those details differ from religion to religion, I think most members of that religion would vehemently disagree with you that, all "religions must by definition worship the same god." Also, I don't think they'd appreciate your statement that they "all derive from one original such religion." While it's possibly historically true, it won't make anybody happy that you said it. Within the beliefs of each of those religions, the religion itself didn't "derive" from anything - other than the will of their God - all other religions being false. (I know there are exceptions, that teach that all prophets, of every religion, are teaching about facets of one God - but most religions don't teach that.)
I acknowledge that it's a minor point in this discussion, but it's important to respect the beliefs of people - and I don't want to appear to agree with your statements by my silence.
If you think that the government is telling you how to have a good relationship with your deity through the two words "under God," I would be interested in hearing the logic behind that belief.
Someone else in this thread put it very well when he suggested replacing the phrase "under God" with "under the Kindly All-Knowing Purple Octopus."
I don't believe in the Christian God, or, to my knowledge, a form of deity worshiped by any major religion. It's kind of a long story, but the short of it is that I believe that the universe itself is God. I can't explain the existance of the universe, and I acknowledge that fact - and am amazed by it. I don't believe in an external source of love in the world - a personified God that loves us, and teaches us to love eachother. I believe that all of the love in the world was created by intelligent beings who had to work hard to make it happen. Therefore, to me, suggesting that some external force, a God, holds any "moral authority," or "ultimate judgement," or embodies holiness that by its existance, must be worshiped, insults the hell out of my beliefs. Suggesting that some external force is to thank for all that we accomplish, and for setting the standard that we should all aspire to, insults me so deeply that I'm willing to stand up and yell about it. Having my government tell me that, yes, an external force of authority exists beyond our knowledge or understanding - well, that's telling me how to have a good relationship with my deity - the very existance of our universe, and the love we are able to create in it.
You've already made the assumption that the God referred to in the prepositional phrase "under God" is the same God that millions of Americans pay lip service to and yet refuse to associate with in any other way.
Uh, no. I've made the assumption that the phrase God refers to an external force of power, a deity. You've jumped to the conclusion that any reference to external deific power must of course refer to the Christian God that millions of Americans believe in.
If you really want to know God, go to the source. Pick up a Bible, and make your own decision.
*anger* Okay, no. If you really want to know God, seek him out in all of his forms, and in none of them. Learn the beliefs of others. Question your own. Try to learn why someone believes in something that sounds so rediculous to you - like worshipping the spirits in rocks and trees. Doesn't that sound nuts? Well, your belief in the God of the Bible sounds nuts to me. But I respect your faith - very deeply. Especially if it gives you power, and guides your life. And I won't pass judgement on the specific teachings, as long as they don't interfere with the laws of a fair society.
Well, if I were to label my high horse, I would call it the "every religion high horse." Every religion, including none at all, should be equal in the eyes of the laws of our nation.
forcing kids to "pledge their allegiance" is more hideous and evil than anything you can show me that the catholic church did through the centuries..
I don't agree with your asserion that it's evil. I think it's important that children understand citizenship. I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is an effective tool in that teaching, but I think it's a valid part of it. Part of citizenship is recognizing your voice in this society, and that you can change the laws of the land through a democratic process. Pledging Allegiance to that ideal isn't a bad way to unite people under a system of laws that we can all live by.
this is about forcing kids to do something that is pretty much anti-american. laws that require a citizen to perform an act to publically support their current rulers.
I don't think they're publically supporting their current rulers. They're publically supporting the system of rules by which our society is held together. BIG difference. Especially since the rules themselves are mutable, through a democratic process. If you can think of a better system of government, I'll support it.
That is something that flies in the face of EVERYTHING that this country is based on.
Our nation does have laws that provide preferential treatment for our leaders; specifically, you can't legally threaten the life of the President of the United States of America. That kind of thing is more about the office than the one who holds it. It is acknowledging the fact that our leaders are defending our freedoms. Even if we disagree with them personally, as citizens we must respect the office.
And me, personally, I think that questioning authority and those who wield it is a vital part of citizenship. But I think that citizenship is an equally vital part of a strong society. It's all about We the People. We, each and every one of us, must defend every citizen of our country - each and every one. Even the ones whose ideals we violently object to. Our laws hold us together - and nothing more. Not our religion, not our ethnicity, nothing else. We Pledge Allegiance to those laws.
And God has nothing to do with it. You must decide how best to act a Citizen, and God might have a huge part in how you make your decisions. The same is true of your neighbor, whose God might teach things completely opposite of yours. We all have to live together, though, and laws that respect all religions, and every form of God, can do so only by not specifically refering to any of them. And yes, even the phrase "Under God" specifically refers to something, monotheism. Which does not respect polytheists, or atheists.
Suggesting that people should live without acknowledging the proper authority of their government, and without supporting the proper leadership of their people, is to believe in anarachy. (When I say "proper", I mean that people have to try to make their governments do the best possible thing in all situations.)
Yeah, I know. I was using the common slang, "America," instead of the proper "The United States of America." I know it's not correct, but I think the slang is common in the U.S.A., and that was my intended audience, anyway.
Watch government officials; they say "America" all of the time. That doesn't excuse the use of my slang, but it kind of shows where it comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about?
The grand-parent post commented that the judicial system hasn't been very fair and removed from Government politics recently, in regards to George Bush winning the 2000 election as a direct result of a judicial ruling.
And then you seemed to imply that the fact that the judicial system decided the election was because of Al Gore - not through any intention of George Bush's.
And then I recommended that you read a book which I have found to be an excellent source of information about the 2000 election, the roles several people in government played in deciding it, and the fact that several members of the Supreme Court had a vested interest in making sure that George Bush won the election (and so therefore should have removed themselves from the vote).
Freedom fighters? Suicide bombers? Iraq? Passport? Syria? What article are you reading?
There was a lot of relevance to my post - what the hell are you talking about?
You should read the first couple chapters of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."
Man I love getting trolled and wasting all this time responding...
I have no more trolled you than you have trolled the original poster. And there were assumptions and innacuracies in your post - I wanted to clear them up.
Also, you keep refereng to "1" as a "constant," and that "there's no implicit conversion of constant to bool." "1" is indeed a "constant," but it's a "constant integer" - and the integer part of that is the interesting part. Because, "there's no implicit conversion of integer to bool." The "constant" part of "1" has nothing to do with this conversion or the failing of the conversion.
Your argument was specious.
Hey - how do you know x is an integer? How do you know it's not a class that overloads operator= and returns a boolean?
Or do you know something about C# that I don't?
Does C# force operator= to return the same type as the right-hand operand?
Or maybe, does C# force every variable named "x" to be an integer?
Or is there something else that I'm missing?
Good call. Any time I buy a book which is for reference purposes, I get more and more angry all the time, that there isn't a CD-ROM that I can get with the book. Just a PDF file, and maybe also an RTF file, too.
The three stages of playing MMORPGs (addiction):
1) Fun
2) Fun with Problems
3) Problems
Why is such a bad thing to have faith in something?
There's nothing wrong with having faith in something. The government, however, cannot be allowed to make laws telling me which things to have faith in. Like the Bible, for instance.
I know, it isn't your faith. Well, would it help if the gov't made references to every religion everytime they did something along those lines?
That's a funny idea, but no, I don't think it's practical. I think a far better, and easier way to do it is for the government to not make laws that reference any religions, specifically.
Not that they will though. I know you don't want the gov't to favor one religion and they are not. They are reflecting what the public as a majority favors as their religion and as the main religion throughout this country's history.
Please, re-read your paragraph, there. You state that they're not "favoring" one religion, and then you say that they're "reflecting" the majority religion, Christianity.
That is favoring Christianity. The logic of your statement is pretty confused. It doesn't matter what most people believe - we don't vote on whether Elvis is alive.
Favoring a religion would mean they are telling you to have this certain religion and if you didn't you would lose something because of it. That isn't happening. Your rights have not been violated and mine haven't either actually.
Again, as in my previous post on the topic, you state that my rights have not been violated. In fact they have. I have listed numerous arguments about how you might understand the violation of my rights, and you have not directly responded to ANY of them.
Please reference all of my other posts in this discussion for the arguments about why my rights have been violated.
Real quickly, if the laws of this nation forced you to say something like "God does not exist," you'd be pretty pissed.
I'm pretty pissed by a law that forces me to say something like "God does exist."
Specifically if it's the Christian God, but in fact, any God will do - I don't believe in any of them.
Seriously, contemplate, "God does not exist." Would you still think that nobody's rights were being violated?
ANSWER MY QUESTION.
The bigger picture if this elimination of religion continues that you fail to see is that more immoral and sinful things will happen.
See, it's exactly this kind of rationalization that pisses me off. You're stating that government doesn't "favor one religion", except that it "reflects [Christianity]", and then you tell me that if I "eliminate [Christianity]... that more immoral and sinful things will happen."
To shorten that all, it is your belief that if the government doesn't "reflect [Christianity], more immoral and sinful things will happen."
You use this as a (theoretically) "logical" argument about why the government should (make laws that) "reflect [Christianity.]"
Replace the word "Christianity" with "Islam," and replace the country "America" with "Afghanistan," and I think that you'll find that the exact opposite has happened. In fact, because or possibly inspite of the fact that the government of Afghanistan made more laws that "reflect Islam, more immoral and sinful things did happen."
And I'm not just talking about September 11th. I'm talking about killing human beings who broke the laws of man (leave the judging up to God, okay?). I'm talking about a country whose largest export is opium.
Now, you're going to hop in and call the entire nation of Afghanistan, or at least the people who lead it "a fanatic."
Well, I'm saying that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You're saying that if the government doesn't "reflect [Christianity], more immoral and sinful things will happen." That's fanatical belief in Christianity. And it's ignoring the history of Christianity, as the grand-parent post pointed out. A few religious wars, most of which
You ignore me when I describe how you would feel if a different religion were endorsed. You don't tell me that I'm wrong, you just ignore me.
You completely ignored my analogy to sexual harrasment. You didn't tell me how her rights were not violated, and you didn't tell me how the analogy was flawed.
So, you're not listening, and you're not responding. I guess it's my mistake to assume that we were having a conversation.
I'll try to again, to specifically address your question, which, again, you have not done for me...
It's one thing when you disagree with someone about religions. It's entirely different when the government makes laws that prefer one religion over another.
If it were law that I had to place my hand on the Bible and swear to the Christian God, before testifiying in court - that would be denying everything that I believe in. (It's not a law, but that's an example of how the government might endorse a religion.) It would be violating my freedom to believe what I believe, and to try to follow the rules that my system of beliefs places on me. Even the phrase "under God" denies what I believe in. I think I've made that abundantly clear.
You still have to swear on the Bible when testifying in court.
Since you're a big fan of stating incorrect facts, I thought I'd jump all over this one.
Contrary to your belief that you must swear on the Bible when testifiying in court, the fact is that you don't.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRE 603) make that pretty clear.
Check your facts before you state them.
Also, just for your information, the President is not required to swear on the Bible in his oath of office.
Endorsing a particular religion does not force you to practice that same religion, contrary to what you may believe.
Endorsing that my secretary wear skimpy clothes does not force her to wear skimpy clothes, contrary to what you may believe - but it DOES VIOLATE HER RIGHTS.
When the government makes laws that endorse a religion other than mine, MY RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED.
Saying that they aren't a thousand times won't make it any less true.
My analogy is perfect. If you can tell me how telling my secretary to wear skimpy clothes does not violate her rights, then you've resolved the situation. Explaining to me precisely how the two things are different, and thus my analogy is flawed, would resolve the situation, too.
Telling us, again and again, that our rights are not violated by the mention of your God doesn't prove your point - it just points out how unimaginative you are. Try actually responding to some of the points that people bring up. Logic makes for better arguments than religious fervor.
Nowhere in any of your references is there any mention that "the government can have its own religion."
You are completely deluded.
I don't deny the people in government from being religious. But you're absolutely 100% incorrect that there is any Constitutional backing for your stated view that "The government is allowed to [make laws that] have references to a particular religion." Show me any document that is a part of the American legal system that backs up that opinion.
The separation of church and state actually means that the state is not allowed to have any references to a particular religion. Doing so would be unfair to people in other religions. Being forced to live under a system of laws that provides preference for another religion is religious oppression, whether you think it is or not, buddy.
That is the separation of church and state if there ever was any.
Actually, like I keep saying, wouldn't there be more separation of church and state, if the state couldn't mention any church? Sounds like a better system of separation if there ever was any.
the same religion as the gov't
There is no such animal. If there were, then the church and the state would be joined, not separate.
The US gov't is not doing that so don't say you are being oppressed or having my faith forced upon you.
You gleefully talk about the government mentioning your faith - whether you think so or not, having laws that prefer your religion to mine is oppressive.
James Madison praised the separation of church and state but he didn't mean the gov't could not say ANYTHING on religion.
He most certainly did mean that the laws of the government can not say ANYTHING on a specific religion.
Even generals in the army feel the same way as you do - and they're just as wrong as you are.
... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Pentagon Defends Gen. Who Chided Muslims
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Pentagon (news - web sites) leaders on Thursday spoke up in support of a top general who has told church audiences that the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan and that Muslims worship idols.
Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin has made several speeches some in uniform at evangelical Christian churches in which he cast the war on terrorism in religious terms. Boykin said of a 1993 battle with a Muslim militia leader in Somalia: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."
Boykin did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he had not seen Boykin's comments, but he praised the three-star general, who is the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.
"He is an officer that has an outstanding record in the United States armed forces," Rumsfeld said at a news conference.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he had spoken in uniform at prayer breakfasts, adding he did not think Boykin broke any military rules by giving talks at churches.
"There is a very wide gray area on what the rules permit," Myers said. "At first blush, it doesn't look like any rules were broken."
A Republican senator visiting the Pentagon Thursday was more critical.
Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island said he had not been aware of Boykin's statements as reported in the news media, then added, "If that's accurate, to me it's deplorable."
A Muslim civil rights group on Thursday called for Boykin to be reassigned.
"Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Awad's statement noted that a verse in the Quran says Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians.
Boykin's church speeches, first reported by NBC News and the Los Angeles Times, cast the war on terrorism as a religious battle between Christians and the forces of evil.
Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian.
Rumsfeld on Thursday repeated the Bush administration position that the war on terrorism is not a war against Islam but against people "who have tried to hijack a religion."
The defense secretary said he could not prevent military officials from making controversial statements.
"We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country," Rumsfeld said. "I think that for anyone to run around and think that that can be managed and controlled is probably wrong. Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) could do it pretty well, because he'd go around killing people if they said things he didn't like."
(Emphasis added.)
This guy is nuts. Casting this as a religious war is idiotic - most Christians AND Muslims agree on that.
And we don't vote on every bill that is passed. We elect leaders who hopefully make wise decisions, not popular ones.
If we lived in a true democracy, then you would wake up in the morning and vote on every pending law. We don't.
America is not a true democracy. We don't live under "majority rules." We live under laws that are written by and passed by leaders that we elect.
I just get tired of people taking away my religion from public places.
And I'm tired of people demanding that their religion is put into or stays in public places. They're public - for everyone. Not for you, since your religion was the religion of the founders; not for you, since your religion is the most popular one in this country; not for you.
Yes I can still practice it but it's the founding faith of this country and people want to get rid of it because they think the founding fathers wanted it that way.
I don't particularly care what the founding fathers of our nation thought on this topic. I certainly don't use my belief of their intentions to decide what I think public policy should be, today - especially not on matters of religion.
The gov't is making reference to christianity simply because its the faith of this country
I'm so enraged by this statement that I find it hard to form a coherent response to you. This one statement explains exactly the position that I detest - that you think our country has a single faith. Have you seen the face of America? Do you really think to yourself, "Muslim, you can stay in this country, but you're defying the faith of our country"? Do you really think that? This country is about religious freedom. Not religious "non-persecution." Not about religious "tolerance of people who practice religions that aren't Christianity, the religion of our country." You have no respect for the faith of others, by stating that our country has a single faith.
This is precisely the fulcrum of my point. This country is for people of every faith. Not merely the majority. Not merely the people who have the same religious views as the founding fathers. I can't believe how much you hate America, that you think it's yours, and yours alone, through an accident of fate, that you were born to the same religion as a group of men hundreds of years ago.
Why do you think people of other relgions around the world hate us? It's because they don't understand that we are a nation of many - that we don't prefer one race, one religion over others. It's because of people like you that people hate our country.
and if you disagree with that faith then so be it but don't take it away from me or this country simply b/c you don't like it.
You can do whatever you want in private, but you shall not make laws that prefer your religious beliefs over mine.
It's not hurting you.
How can you declare that the presence of your faith in public places does not harm me, but the absence of your faith in those same public places does harm you?
You are an unashamed hypocrite.
The main point being, we can both practice our own but mine happens to be the original faith so that is what should stay.
What if Christianity waned, and there were only 7 people in the country who still practiced it? Does it make logical sense to you that it should still stay? What if 299,999,993 people in this country practiced Islam, and 7 practiced Christianity? Should the laws of this country still prefer Christianity to Islam? Because by your logic, of Christianity being the "original faith," it should.
That's insanity. The government must not prefer any religion, or lack of religion, over any other. That's the only way that everyone is free in their religious views.
THey did not want religious oppression to rule and it's not but you think it is for some reason.
Take out "God", and put in "Satan," and see how happy you are pledging allegiance "under Satan."
Forcing your child to say the pledge with the name God in it is not forcing a religion on that child.
Forcing a child to say the pledge with the phrase "heil Hitler" in it is not forcing national socialism on that child.
Your statment is so brilliantly inane that I can hardly believe it. You honestly don't see some kind of a connection between "GOD" and REL
For the Supreme Court or and any Federal entity to prohibit teachers from leading the pledge is just as serious an affront to free speech as for the schools to require it.
What if the teacher lead a prayer?
What if the prayer was thanking God for the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001?
What if the prayer was that the students of the classroom not go to Hell for their sins, which include looking at people of the opposite sex?
What if the prayer was a warning that students who miss an answer on the test would be beaten with a lead pipe?
What if the prayer was an assertion that the teacher would one day kill the President of the United States?
What if the prayer was a sexual advance, inviting the students to attend an orgy?
What if the prayer was instructions on how to make pipe bombs, and imploring the students to "kill the weak ones among you."
So, maybe now you agree that the subject of what a teacher says does matter? Not all things are appropriate under free speech, and not all venues are appropriate for it.
An employer can prohibit their employees from certain actions, under penalty of termination. You, for instance, cannot run naked through your hallways yelling "I'M ON FIRE - PISS ON ME!" without getting fired - unless you are your own boss. Free speech is not universally protected.
Similarly, the Federal Government institutes a system of rules about how public schools are run. And teachers in the employ of those schools are not guaranteed free speech.
And it's higher than a State issue, when civil liberties are threatened. Just like in ending segregation - the Federal government stepped in and said, "these people are wronged by what is going on, and it has to change." Nothing prohibits you from never associating with African Americans in your personal life - but the government does have something to say about the same situation, in public schools.
It's not the government's job to make sure no one is ever offended.
No, but it does defend civil liberties. Freedom of religion is one of them.
However, for the Supreme court to prohibit reciting the Pledge of Allegiance would be a violation of the principles of the first ammendment.
The problem with this is that students are doing it aloud, together - which is a chant - and it contains explicit and implicit assumptions about God. That's not good for our society.
If I were to try to encapsulate the feelings that I have in a simple way...
Why can't white students in a school stand up and recite some pledge to the KKK?
Honestly - why not? It's their personal beliefs... Saying something certainly doesn't harm anyone. Surely the Constitution protects their right to free speech? It's just a pledge, and if someone doesn't like it, they can ignore it and do something else. Or they can move to another school?
The problem with all of that is that it's a public school, which has to be for everyone. And any specifically organized activity (even it is is an impromptu recital of the Pledge of Allegiance) has to (in the words of our President) leave no student behind.
I know a few teachers who are furious that they can't decorate for Christmas in their classrooms. They don't understand, at all, how it feels to someone with different beliefs. Are your beliefs so important and so fragile that they require repeated recitation in public, in a school? And how would you feel if a Middle-Eastern kid celebrated September 11th, every year? That's different, because it's about violence, and destruction you say. Well, doesn't Christianity sound a lot like violence and destruction to a Middle-Eastern kid?
I don't see how voluntary participation is violating anyone's rights.
Even voluntary participation in celebrating September 11th?
If parents don't like what their children are taught, they should send them to a different school, which leads to my final point.
If parents want their children to have an education in the name of God, then they should send them to a different school. Public schools should and must be for everyone in the public, and not be about personal beliefs and religions.
Public schools are under school boards and ultimately under the states. Why is this being debated at a Federal level?
Did you hear of a thing called Segregation? Your logic applies to that, as well. If you honestly can't fathom why ending Segregation was necessary at a federal level, then we can discuss it. You aren't honestly confused about that, are you?
Why can't these type of questions be resolved at a local or state level?
What if you lived in a community that happened to be nearly 100% Nazi? Wouldn't it kind of suck to be Jewish in that community, where they decided to use your money to pay for public schools that teach ideals that you disagree with on such a fundamental level? The federal government must curtail the ability of states to intrude on your civil liberties in such a manner. In short, the federal government must defend a public school system that is for everyone, of all faiths and beliefs.
If schools were locally controlled as they were originally, the Supreme Court wouldn't have to be involved.
Again, segregation exactly fits your argument. Can you not see why the Supreme Court needed to get involved?
I could ramble more about why public schools are so important - but you didn't really argue that they should cease to exist... You just said that people who don't want God taught to their kids in school should go to "a different school." I disagree, it is the parent who does want God taught to their kids in school who should go to "a different school." But I hope that they realize that spending a day at church, and talking about religion with your family is enough - because public schools are a vital part of a healthy community, in my opinion. They teach children citizenship, and hopefully, the importance of diversity, and a respect for differing points of view.
While "wishy washy" may seem pejorative, I find it an apt description of someone who believes that each person makes his own truth.
Okay, so, when two people both believe in objective truth, but they think that different things are true, how would you describe them? Self-deluded? Irrational? Or merely misinformed?
If I find myself in that situation, I try to think outside of the box of my beliefs, and recognize that what I believe is objective truth might actually be subjective truth.
I would point out that based on your own reply, you clearly do not fall into the "wishy washy" category.
But, I don't believe in the constancy of objective truth - and I certainly don't believe that humans are very effective at discerning objective truth. So, if we're flawed as human beings in our understanding of the world, and it's difficult for us to perceive objective truth - isn't that a lot like subjective truth?
By engaging in this argument, you're quite obviously interested in finding truth and are zealous in attacking the propagation of falsehoods. A "wishy washy" person would have no motivation for doing so.
But, but, but... Whether or not objective truth exists, I think our perception of it is flawed. So, I think that under most circumstances, we must act as though there is merely subjective truth... Doesn't that make me, by your definition, "wishy washy"?
Let me distill my argument. Rational people understand that truth is an absolute and fixed thing--it doesn't change with the whims of mortal men.
Scientists recognize that our understanding of absolute and fixed things is neither absolute or fixed. Our understanding of the universe changes so often that you might as well describe it as being at the whim of mortal men. No one could argue that the Earth was not flat. It was a simple, self-evident truth. More threatening, belief in round-Earth interfered with peoples' relationship with God. And since God is absolute, it must be wickedness to discuss this round-Earth nonsense. Except, it is our very understanding of God which has changed. God doesn't require the Earth to be flat - that was merely our understanding at the time. It was not God that changed, but us. Thus, our perceptions of what is absolute and fixed changes over time.
Rational people also understand that for a society to be just, members of the society must measure their own judgments against this objective truth.
Reflection is wonderful - and self-doubt is the only way to achieve correctness. Big fan of doubt and reflection.
The phrase "under God" acknowledges this fact by referencing the source of truth identified by the majority of people in the world.
And here's where your argument falls flat on its face. You assume that there is a source of the universe, and thus, a source of truth. You happen to be in the majority, in this opinion. However, it is mere belief. While I agree with you that the universe does exist, and there might actually be objective truth - that in no way compels me to label a "source" of those things. Because the label "God" as "source" of the universe (and objective truth) is meaningless to me. Why not label the source of God as Blixplorg? Surely, if the universe must have been created by God, then God must have been created by Blixplorg? As rediculous as my argument sounds, your argument that I am compeled to believe in God, because the universe exists sounds to me. You would argue that God needs no source, that God is the precedant to all causes - is the first cause. I don't need to back up one step from the existance of the universe - to me, the existance of the universe is the many wondered thing without explanation. I don't need to anthropomorphize a creator out of the fact that the universe exists. And I specifically don't believe in a deity that is external to the universe, who is not bound by the laws of it, who created himself, who is the meaning of the state
I really, honestly respect the way that you've stated your opinions - I think you've spoken well, and I respect that.
You're awefully close to saying that man can create something that God cannot destroy.
I would say "Man can create something that God will not destroy."
God lets us fight our own battles on Earth. He may give people strength, but we have to fight for what we believe in.
Most of the people who slaughtered the nations of native Americans thought that they followed God's will.
Our nation was so strong that it was independent of what most Christian people today would say was God's will.
Our collective understanding of God's will is not static - it is a flowing river. To swim in a part of the river, and to decry the actions of everyone in another river, or even in a different part of the same river, is foolishness.
I don't believe in your God. Therefore, I don't believe that God had a part in the creation of this country. I don't believe that God had a part in slaughtering the native Americans. I don't mean to disrespect your beliefs, but if you honestly think that God had a part in genocide, then I think that's incredibly disrespectful of man's sometimes strong and sometimes weak will.
Rather, we recognize that God is the objective third party who is the source of truth.
Wrong. You recognize that God is the objective third party who is the source of truth.
I don't believe that at all.
I agree with you absolutely that you've correctly identified the purpose of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I couldn't have said it better myself.
And I don't share those beliefs.
The laws of this land should not give your religious beliefs preferential treatment over mine.
It is an assertion that we believe in and are ultimately held accountable to absolute truth and not the wishy washy idea that everyone makes his own truth.
Thanks for calling my ideas "wishy washy." Gee. Here's where you've offended me. Simply because you don't understand my beliefs, doesn't give you the authority to ridicule them. In fact, I'd say it's just about the opposite. Ignorance of my beliefs specifically denies you the authority to ridicule them. Please don't call them "wishy washy," okay?
And you seem to think that I'm "evil," since your beliefs obviously represent "good." Thanks again.
I'm not asking you to acknowledge that "evil" is an equal force to your "good." I'm asking you to acknowledge that we have different beliefs about good and evil. The laws of our society are set up to be objective and fair about the fact that our beliefs differ.
You've spoken very fairly and true - and I respect the way that you've done it. Were I to believe in the same things as you, I would be cheering you on. I don't. And you're not "right," any more than I'm "wrong" about the nature of God, or the existence of God. I acknowledge that it's your belief that you're "right". But it's belief. It's faith. And that's powerful - incredibly powerful. But if I have different beliefs, and different faith, shouldn't the "correctness" of our two systems be adjudicated by the powers that we believe in? If I'm right, you'll be fine, since all good people are rewarded. If you're right, I'll probably burn, because I reject the God you worship. But that's between me and your God, if your God exists.
While we're both alive, let's let our beliefs lead our personal lives, and a government that doesn't side with either one of us lead our public (political, law-abiding) lives.
Congressmen pray all the time before meetings and no one has a problem with it.
Do you honestly not see the difference between someone taking a personal moment for reflection, and that same person forcing everyone to do the same?
For some reason some school systems have problems with kids leading their OWN prayer within the school.
And for some reason some school systems have problems with kids leading their OWN Nazi groups within the school.
These are just beliefs. One is not correct, and the other incorrect. It's just that I get to throw in the word Nazi, and all of a sudden you get upset, and think of a whole slew of things that the Nazi party has done that you find offensive, like, I dunno, killing millions of Jews. (For the record - I'm not a big fan of Nazis.)
Well, hey, wait a minute - haven't some nut jobs actually killed other people in the name of religion? Sure, like I said, they're nut jobs, but guess what? I find the mention of religion in schools to be probably about as offensive as you find demonstrating Nazis.
This is a free world.
The belief in entitlement is probably the worst virus that has existed in this society. No, it is most definately not a "free world." It is a world in which, most people are not free. Free to worship how they want, free from hunger, free from oppression. Thankfully, in our society, you are actually free to believe what you want, and to worship both in privacy and in communities of other worshipers. But you are not entitled to any of it - you have to earn it by being a good citizen, and by making sure that the rules you live by are fair to everyone.
It's little people like you that are somehow able to persuade courts to make landmark decisions instead of letting the public vote on it when the majority still wants it.
I'm going to quote myself from a previous SlashDot article. (This one.) I was specifically speaking about government funding and democracy, but the point holds up against your inane view that "majority rules" produces the best results.
I'm glad that we as a society don't directly vote for government funding. I think we would make HORRIBLE choices. For one, we would probably vote away our national debt ("why should we pay?!"). We would probably stop aid to Afghanistan ("feed Americans, not Afghans!"). We would probably chop public schools ("I have a right to raise my kid like I want to - in Catholic schools!"). We would probably stop AIDS research ("Why should we pay to find a cure to a disease they got by sinning against God?"). We never would have gotten involved in the European Theater in WWII ("what have the Nazis ever done to us?"). There would be no national archive ("who cares about old books?"). The results of the Human Genome Project would be patented and copyright by [insert major corporation here] ("Why should taxpayers pay for something that a private company is perfectly willing to do?"). Hell, there would be no public domain! ("You mean someone could make pornography with Mickey Mouse in it! Hell no! Let Disney hold the Copyright forever, so we can PROTECT THE CHILDREN!")
Never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd. I, for one, am glad we don't live in a true Democracy.
Back to your comments...
You have a wacked out view of bringing God into the situation. He is a headstone just like a father is to his family. It does not hurt that he is there.
The Little Green Monkey that Lives in My Closet tells me to shoot people who don't believe in him. You have a wacked out view of bringing the Little Green Monkey that Lives In My Closet into the situation. He is a headstone just like a father is to his family. It does not hurt that he is there.
Don't you understand that you've just described your belief in God,
But America == democracy so if the majority wants God in the government and in public areas then shutup about it.
No, wrong, stupid. That's not how society works, and I'm very thankfull that's not how OUR society works. For one, don't tell me to "shutup about it." What laws do you think we exist under? I must give voice to my beliefs, and you can give voice to yours. Don't try to silence me - but instead publically disagree with me, and if the location or timing of my offensive speech particularly perturbs you, then ask me to change the forum, or ask me to delay my speech until another time. But your blanket "shutup" speaks volumes about your disrespect for the individuality and good citizenship that the laws of our nation encourage.
For another thing, yes - it is possible that a majority of our society could make stupid laws come to pass. Like, everyone has to cut off their left thumb on their thirteenth birthday. That could become a law in this nation, since our nation is run by people, and people are falible. But that doesn't mean that people should be silent about improper laws. Specifically, were such a law to pass, it would be a failing of our government as an institution. Democracy, or "everyone votes, and we all do it" doesn't result in the best outcomes. Not even close. As I argued in a previous thread on SlashDot, people are not informed enough to rule an entire nation through the choices inspired merely by their BELIEFS. Our laws exist to try to select leaders who will make WISE choices, not POPULAR choices.
Gah - I have to go right now, but I hope to make it back, and debate the rest of your position - which I think is pretty crazy...
Anyway it's arguable that all monotheistic religions must by definition worship the same god...
You might be able to succesfully argue that within the tenets of a specific religion, one at a time, but making that blanket statement disrespects the individual beliefs of every monotheistic religion. Specifically, most religions don't have the concept that "these are some laws our God teaches." Most religions believe in the completeness of their beliefs - these are all of the laws of God, and all of the teachings that are required to understand God. When those details differ from religion to religion, I think most members of that religion would vehemently disagree with you that, all "religions must by definition worship the same god." Also, I don't think they'd appreciate your statement that they "all derive from one original such religion." While it's possibly historically true, it won't make anybody happy that you said it. Within the beliefs of each of those religions, the religion itself didn't "derive" from anything - other than the will of their God - all other religions being false. (I know there are exceptions, that teach that all prophets, of every religion, are teaching about facets of one God - but most religions don't teach that.)
I acknowledge that it's a minor point in this discussion, but it's important to respect the beliefs of people - and I don't want to appear to agree with your statements by my silence.
If you think that the government is telling you how to have a good relationship with your deity through the two words "under God," I would be interested in hearing the logic behind that belief.
Someone else in this thread put it very well when he suggested replacing the phrase "under God" with "under the Kindly All-Knowing Purple Octopus."
I don't believe in the Christian God, or, to my knowledge, a form of deity worshiped by any major religion. It's kind of a long story, but the short of it is that I believe that the universe itself is God. I can't explain the existance of the universe, and I acknowledge that fact - and am amazed by it. I don't believe in an external source of love in the world - a personified God that loves us, and teaches us to love eachother. I believe that all of the love in the world was created by intelligent beings who had to work hard to make it happen. Therefore, to me, suggesting that some external force, a God, holds any "moral authority," or "ultimate judgement," or embodies holiness that by its existance, must be worshiped, insults the hell out of my beliefs. Suggesting that some external force is to thank for all that we accomplish, and for setting the standard that we should all aspire to, insults me so deeply that I'm willing to stand up and yell about it. Having my government tell me that, yes, an external force of authority exists beyond our knowledge or understanding - well, that's telling me how to have a good relationship with my deity - the very existance of our universe, and the love we are able to create in it.
You've already made the assumption that the God referred to in the prepositional phrase "under God" is the same God that millions of Americans pay lip service to and yet refuse to associate with in any other way.
Uh, no. I've made the assumption that the phrase God refers to an external force of power, a deity. You've jumped to the conclusion that any reference to external deific power must of course refer to the Christian God that millions of Americans believe in.
If you really want to know God, go to the source. Pick up a Bible, and make your own decision.
*anger* Okay, no. If you really want to know God, seek him out in all of his forms, and in none of them. Learn the beliefs of others. Question your own. Try to learn why someone believes in something that sounds so rediculous to you - like worshipping the spirits in rocks and trees. Doesn't that sound nuts? Well, your belief in the God of the Bible sounds nuts to me. But I respect your faith - very deeply. Especially if it gives you power, and guides your life. And I won't pass judgement on the specific teachings, as long as they don't interfere with the laws of a fair society.
get off your anti religion high horse.
Well, if I were to label my high horse, I would call it the "every religion high horse." Every religion, including none at all, should be equal in the eyes of the laws of our nation.
forcing kids to "pledge their allegiance" is more hideous and evil than anything you can show me that the catholic church did through the centuries..
I don't agree with your asserion that it's evil. I think it's important that children understand citizenship. I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is an effective tool in that teaching, but I think it's a valid part of it. Part of citizenship is recognizing your voice in this society, and that you can change the laws of the land through a democratic process. Pledging Allegiance to that ideal isn't a bad way to unite people under a system of laws that we can all live by.
this is about forcing kids to do something that is pretty much anti-american. laws that require a citizen to perform an act to publically support their current rulers.
I don't think they're publically supporting their current rulers. They're publically supporting the system of rules by which our society is held together. BIG difference. Especially since the rules themselves are mutable, through a democratic process. If you can think of a better system of government, I'll support it.
That is something that flies in the face of EVERYTHING that this country is based on.
Our nation does have laws that provide preferential treatment for our leaders; specifically, you can't legally threaten the life of the President of the United States of America. That kind of thing is more about the office than the one who holds it. It is acknowledging the fact that our leaders are defending our freedoms. Even if we disagree with them personally, as citizens we must respect the office.
And me, personally, I think that questioning authority and those who wield it is a vital part of citizenship. But I think that citizenship is an equally vital part of a strong society. It's all about We the People. We, each and every one of us, must defend every citizen of our country - each and every one. Even the ones whose ideals we violently object to. Our laws hold us together - and nothing more. Not our religion, not our ethnicity, nothing else. We Pledge Allegiance to those laws.
And God has nothing to do with it. You must decide how best to act a Citizen, and God might have a huge part in how you make your decisions. The same is true of your neighbor, whose God might teach things completely opposite of yours. We all have to live together, though, and laws that respect all religions, and every form of God, can do so only by not specifically refering to any of them. And yes, even the phrase "Under God" specifically refers to something, monotheism. Which does not respect polytheists, or atheists.
Suggesting that people should live without acknowledging the proper authority of their government, and without supporting the proper leadership of their people, is to believe in anarachy. (When I say "proper", I mean that people have to try to make their governments do the best possible thing in all situations.)
Yeah, I know. I was using the common slang, "America," instead of the proper "The United States of America." I know it's not correct, but I think the slang is common in the U.S.A., and that was my intended audience, anyway.
Watch government officials; they say "America" all of the time. That doesn't excuse the use of my slang, but it kind of shows where it comes from.