| Author | Message | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 464 Registered: 5-2002 |
Thank you William - I think the problem is just the word God. People are associating it with a "big guy with a beard" or whatever was said before in the thread, instead of what William is saying - a set of metaphysical beliefs. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3475 Registered: 2-2001 |
Actually Mitch Metaphysics is not strictly related to the Supernatural. Atheism, nihilsm, scientism & realism are all metaphysical beliefs just as much as believeing in the easter Bunny or Santa or whatever | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Intermediate Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 1255 Registered: 4-2002 |
"Perhaps everyone doesnt believe in a Creator but Everyone has a metaphysical belief." I do not have a metaphysical belief. I believe that the univers got started without any help from supernatural powers. I believe that life on earth got started without any supernatural interactions. I believe that there has never been any evidence that supernatural stuff has ever existed. I believe that when one dies the chemical factory shuts down and thats it. No metaphysics at all! | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 347 Registered: 9-2003 |
Ya see this is why I take the issue serriously. Here we sit with the freedom to debate and discuss the issue without any risk of reprisal from anyone. As i stated the plege is something I am going to be presented with in the near future and the under god part is the only thing I have issue with. In taking the plege I am going to give up quite a bit, my Canadian Passport for one. Anyone who has travled extensivly knows how well recieved by those in Europe and other places due in large part to how the military did in WWII There are other things too (My Queen Commonwelth affiliation and ability to work in any of her lands.) My life is in this country my future as well the Under God part is sometihing that i don't want to say. The rest I am proud to. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3470 Registered: 2-2001 |
Hugh, whats beyond the Oven ? More Ovens  | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3469 Registered: 2-2001 |
Perhaps everyone doesnt believe in a Creator but Everyone has a metaphysical belief. If you believe that only the physical part of life you can see, hear, smell, touch, & feel is real thats just as much of a metaphysical statement as saying you believe that Jesus is the son of God | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3468 Registered: 2-2001 |
Buddhism is odd because its both a philosophy & a religion. Also some Buddhists believe in a creator diety & some dont. Buddhists definately believe in spirituality, we are not nihilists | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 346 Registered: 2-2003 |
John, sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I am an American citizen. I am currently attending Texas A&M University. My parents' families are Palestinian, but have been settled in Jordan for quite some time. My parents have lived in Texas for 20+ years. I thought you were asking about my name, which is indeed Middle Eastern. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1637 Registered: 1-2002 |
Kraut? Hey, JohnR, do you really pigeon hole everyone like this in real life? Do you pigeon hole in every post on every board on every forum on the 'net? Do you like being pigeon holed? Aww, what's that on your shoulder? Some tounge in cheek? | ||
| JohnR. (Rivee)
Member Username: Rivee Post Number: 301 Registered: 1-2002 |
What country? Me? American, Kraut | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 345 Registered: 2-2003 |
John, yes. How about you? German? French? English? Irish? Do tell. Do I believe everything I say? You bet. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 344 Registered: 2-2003 |
John, do you have something to add or are you just following other people around the threads? Surely you can see that Art, I, and everyone else are voicing our views on matters we consider important enough to voice our views on? I am not going to speak for others, but I don't post in every thread. Surely you can see that? | ||
| JohnR. (Rivee)
Member Username: Rivee Post Number: 300 Registered: 1-2002 |
Arthur, amir, Do you guys always argue and disagree with people this much in the real world? Do you post in every thread in this chat room? Do you really believe everything you say? Arthur, are you just practicing for your next case? Amir, are you of middle eastern decent? | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 340 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ricky, agreed. Certain elements in the church maybe? I was just trying to illustrate that some aspects of some religions are better than others'--who are we to judge and demand that everyone utter "under God," especially when it wasn't there in the beginning, and especially when the founding fathers took pains to protect these freedoms? | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 463 Registered: 5-2002 |
Amir - Christianity protecting pedophilia? Come on, this is a little bit of a cheap shot. There are pedophiles in all walks of life, and consequently in all religions. The Catholic Church may not have handled this certain situation very well, but that does not speak for all Christianity. In fact, it doesn't even speak for the Catholic Church (except maybe for the Pope, a bit), but rather for the sickos who committed the sick acts. | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Intermediate Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 1213 Registered: 4-2003 |
 | ||
| michaelthuber (Mikehuber)
Junior Member Username: Mikehuber Post Number: 119 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mitch, Your point goes back to my original statement where we are guaranteed "Freedom of Religion, not "Freedom FROM Religion". | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Intermediate Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 1248 Registered: 4-2002 |
"Ok. I see your point, BUT if agnostics and a atheists and animists <snip> are also religions, how CAN we be guaranteed of a "Separation of Church and State"? " A) the disbelif in all gods does not constitute a religion of any form or flavor. It has no tenets, no belifs, no ritual, no gatherings, no holy books, no monks, priests, cardinals,... They can observe or not any holidays, and any days of the week. B) separation of church and state can only occur when all political decisions have no religious undertones. "Under god" has religious undertones it is not neutral to those who simply disbelive; no mater how softly one defines 'god'. The part "under god" was installed in the Pledge in 1953 or 54. "In god we trust" was inserted on money in 1954 or 53. Both in the boom of the MaCarthy era. They have run their course, it is time to return to our roots where everyone is free to believe as they choose (or not). | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 337 Registered: 2-2003 |
Good question. Art? | ||
| michaelthuber (Mikehuber)
Junior Member Username: Mikehuber Post Number: 118 Registered: 3-2003 |
Amir, Ok. I see your point, BUT if agnostics and a atheists and animists (you got me here, becuase I am totally ignorant of whatever that is) are also religions, how CAN we be guaranteed of a "Separation of Church and State"? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2850 Registered: 6-2001 |
William: Einstein was not a devout jew. He was a Zionist. That means that he wanted a Jewish state, in the middle east. Because he was born after the programs of eastern europe in the late 1880s, he knew that jews had to have their own home, because we couldn't trust the europeans to allow us to live. I suggest you read the following, which was one of his earliest papers about religion: http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/freethink.html By the way, they have pretty much most of his papers. Art | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 336 Registered: 2-2003 |
I understand your point. But I think you are wrong in saying that a religion requires a god or supreme being or deity in order to be considered a religion. Here's Webster's definitions: Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- Date: 13th century 1 a : the state of a religious <a > b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS You are right, Buddhists would not be excluded according to your philosophy. But animists, etc. all would be. As would be atheists and agnostics, all of whom still hold a set of beliefs and value system. Usually one that does not protect pedophiles (like Christianity) or cruelty to animals (like Islam). Religion today can simply mean a system of beliefs, which don't necessarily include a god. Thus, if your beliefs don't include a god, you still can have a religion. Is zero a number? Fact is, the pledge of allegiance was corrupted from its original version. Nobody had a problem with it before that. It wasn't broken to begin with. It was broken on purpose. So let's fix it and be done with it. Why kick up a fuss over fixing something that's broken? | ||
| michaelthuber (Mikehuber)
Junior Member Username: Mikehuber Post Number: 116 Registered: 3-2003 |
Amir, Maybe it's just my culture, but if Buddah is not a deity then what do you call a single supreme being you worship? In my old dictionary a deity is to take as God, or supreme being. Religion is defined to worship a God. Same dictionary says Buddhism is an "Eastern Religion". I don't what you meant to infer about my beliefs or religions, but by my logic I wasn't excluding Buddhists. My point was you should be free to practice any religion you choose, but if you don't have one you are not guaranteed the same rights as those who have chosen one and are guaranteed the freedom to practice theirs. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 335 Registered: 2-2003 |
Does a religion need a deity in order to be classified as a religion? Isn't religion just a system of beliefs that one holds? If so, then freedom of religion also includes religions without gods. such as Buddhism. And everyone has a right to comment. | ||
| michaelthuber (Mikehuber)
Junior Member Username: Mikehuber Post Number: 115 Registered: 3-2003 |
I tend to stay from these type of discussions here but I feel compelled to comment here. I believe our Constitution guarantees the right to "Freedom of Religion". I do not see where it says you have "Freedom FROM Religion". If you define "Religion" as a belief in a diety, I think the Pledge works, as is. If you do not believe in a diety, then you are not specifically guaranteed the right to comment. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1634 Registered: 1-2002 |
William: That's a very plausible explination; what gets me is the relation of our universe to a rising loaf of rising loaf of rasin bread in the oven... what's beyond the oven you ask? Nothing? What???? | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3465 Registered: 2-2001 |
According to Quantum Physicist David Bohm our entire Universe may be just a mere ripple on a vast ageless Ocean of Universes. Who needs drugs to blow your mind?!?! | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1632 Registered: 1-2002 |
>>Einstein was also a devout Jew and disliked quantum physics because as he said " God does not play dice with the Universe"<< Yeah, but Einstein was wrong in this regard; he couldn't forse the connection between general relativity and quantum mechanics; both illustrate relative behavious of physical object, but vary on the size of their scale; i.e., general relativity (macro), quantum (micro). Further, science stops an instant before the big bang; most people are inclined to believe that it's an iterative process of creation and destruction, or they simply defer to "...science doesn't exist before the big bang..." | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3464 Registered: 2-2001 |
1 thing that really attracted me to buddhism was exactly becasue it is so open to science. Quantum physics has gone a long way to prove a lot of what the Buddha said about reality, In modern terms the Buddha would agree that the Universe is essentially a vast interconnected ever fluxing soup of quantum particles. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3463 Registered: 2-2001 |
Art, as Rick said we dont need a creator diety in Buddhism, its rather complicated but then so is the Universe Einstein was also a devout Jew and disliked quantum physics because as he said " God does not play dice with the Universe" | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2847 Registered: 6-2001 |
William: Take a look at Einstein's writings regarding religion. He didn't believe in what he called "a personal god", i.e., that described in the various religious tracks written, such as the bible, etc. If, indeed the theorists are correct, and the string theorists are correct about the "big bang" there is no way that a deity could exit, because there can be no connections between what was before the big bang and afterwards. Think about this: University about 15 billion light years across. Populated by about 1 trillion galaxies, each with about 1 trillion stars, about 30 - 40% of which are type G (same as the sun). Possibility of so many types of life, we could very well be an accident, incidential to the creation of this very, very vast universe. The reason the church (literally all of them) have at one time or another been anti science, is that ultimately we will figure out how this was created, and God won't be a part of that theory. Art | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3461 Registered: 2-2001 |
Mitch, you have a whole Universe, what more evidence do you need ? LOL | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Intermediate Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 1245 Registered: 4-2002 |
It would be so much easier to allow these word into the Pledge if there were any reasonable evidence whatsoever that one or more of these god thingies actually exist! | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3449 Registered: 2-2001 |
Rich S, I take it you have studied some Buddhism ? Do you practice it ? I have an MA in Buddhism. | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 329 Registered: 9-2003 |
Steven I think you are missing the point here. The foundation of the country was baised on freedom of religion. Seems to me that not having a religion is freedom too. I am not a US citizan yet but when I am asked to make that plege as part of my journey I would apreaciate that I will not have to say UNDER GOD because that would mean that I have taken a plege under false circumstances. The under god part was added in the 50's just remove their edit and i don't have an issue. I take the thing rater personally right now due to impending ceremony. Don't see what the big issue is after all where NO religion spacifically listed in the first ammendment the issue will resolve itself in the supreme court. take out under god and i will shout my plege. I am very apreaciative of the oppertunities this country has afforded me and the freedoms. | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 141 Registered: 1-2003 |
Fascinating article with great quotes I'll be sure to memorize. "Religion is the invention of an animal that is afraid to die." | ||
| Stephen S. Saia (Sssaia)
Junior Member Username: Sssaia Post Number: 61 Registered: 4-2003 |
Ok, who really gives a ••••? God is a word. If it offends you to hear or use the word god, you are a •••••. Seriously, why would that offend you? If it's that bad don't say the pledge. "I Pledge A Grievance To The Flag Of The United States Of America and To The Republicans Whom I Can't Stand One Nation Under Smog Indispicable.." | ||
| todd (Flat12)
Junior Member Username: Flat12 Post Number: 85 Registered: 7-2003 |
Nothing worse than taking credit for "the workers in the trench" that made it happen. Makes me sick | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 282 Registered: 9-2003 |
Thanks Rich You are right, there is a lot to be learned from the Buddist's. in many ways their particular slant on things is something I can deal with. When it comes the Plege and Religion and all that in todays Dallas Morning News there is an article about the pending visit of our Born Again in Chief to the opening of a 25 million dollar Church and community center in OakCliff (not the most desireable zip code in Dallas) there are at least 3 quotes from the pastor on how JWB has helped and how they (the church) wants to put GOD in to Government and back into school. NO. Not gonna happen the way they want. Item that puts this in perspective. Oakcliff is one of a number of Crime ridden lower income areas in Dallas. It seems to me instead of spending $25 million on a building could that money not have fed a lot of people? housed a bunch? Educated a few? The offencive nature of this is it seems that there is a excessive demand for "Bricks and Morter" money to make "My Steeple bigger than yours" (sounds like congracational Phallic envy) There are too many groups out there trying to insert more GOD into life. Call me a skepic but by doing this I think they are just trying to justify their own existance and control over the people who will hold bake sales, make the effort, raise that 25 million.... | ||
| rich stephens (Dino2400)
Member Username: Dino2400 Post Number: 642 Registered: 10-2001 |
Just for the record, I want to point out that Buddha is not a god, is not to be worshipped and Buddhist do not believe that Buddha created people. Therefore any reference to "god" certainly does conflict with Buddhism. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 439 Registered: 5-2002 |
Hubert, Well, I respect what you have to say, although I think that you are wrong. Look at the quote by Thomas Jefferson. This is the meaning of God as used in the pledge. We will see what the Supreme Court rules. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2794 Registered: 6-2001 |
FranK In the USA majority doesn't rule. The big argument that the founders had in the 1780s and 1790 was how to protect against majority rule. Their solution: bill of rights. Designed to protect the unpopular minoirty against the majority. Look it up, read the federalist papers for a better understanding of the argument. Art | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 270 Registered: 9-2003 |
What this can boil down to is this God may not be a RELIGION Spacific word. I do not believe there is a God. Many believe there is, Good for them, I would not dispute or belittle their right to believe. Under God in the plege is asking me to say part of the plege that I do not believe in. Drop it, No worries. Keep it you are excluding me and the rest of us Godless Heathens. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1592 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ricky: there is not general sense of god. if you use the terminolgy you implicate it by the faith, period. if you use allah, buddha, etc you implicate the faith by mention of it's figurehead. you can disagree all you'd like, but ultimatly, you're playing sliding scale semantics, and it's not an apt defense. there's not "vernacular" use of "god" with out reference to the christian faith. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 438 Registered: 5-2002 |
Hubert - As I said previously - God refers to a general being, a creator. It could be Yahweh, Allah, Science, or whatever the heck the person wants it to be. The government is not married to a specific religion, as this would be unconstitutional (as would requiring the citizens to pledge allegiance to it). As it stands, the pledge simply refers to God in the general sense, not the Christian view of God. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 437 Registered: 5-2002 |
Well a few points - first we are neither a republic nor a democracy. We are a democratic republic. Democracy is what the people of Athens tried out a few thousand years ago - it would never work in a society such as ours today. Every eligible citizen is given a vote. Not sure if you are familiar with New England town meetings, but this is an example. Republic is what the Romans practiced for a time - also very different from us today. They believed that every citizen should be civicly virtuous, and sacrifice for the common good of the community. Generally, this classical republicanism lended to small agrarian communities. The Framers pulled in these different government systems, as well as the works of philosophers of the time such as Locke and Montesquieu. While this is kind of a side note, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, there were no such things as political parties. Factions were talked about, specifically by Madison in the Federalist Papers. Check out Article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. While our government is based on a federal system where both the states and the federal government have independent powers, the trend is for the national government to become stronger. Still, we are required to abide by the "supreme law of the land" or Constitution. What I am getting at is if some state tried to make laws that refused whites the right to drive or permitted the rape of hispanic women, they would be struck down immediately by the Courts as unconstitutional. This is part of the great system of checks and balances as well as separation of powers that we have in our system of government. An issue that springs from this is nullification, where a state would reject or make null and void a federal law. This happened in South Carolina with the Tariff of 1832 and the Tariff of 1833. Ultimately a war was fought over this (state's rights) and I think we all know who prevailed. Our government is based on the consent of the governed. We elect representatives to speak for our views. These representatives, while not going by a strict majority vote, more or less make laws based on the majority opinion. As long as these laws are Constitutional and are signed by the President and so forth, I would say that our country IS based on majority rule (for all intents of purposes). If the government started enacting legislation that did not fit the views of the people, as Jefferson says in the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." We would remove our consent, and the government would no longer have any power to rule. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1591 Registered: 1-2002 |
>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<< Ricky : The latent implication of "under God" appearing in a "pledge of allegiance" to a symbol of a nation (it's flag) and it's government, implicates those taking allegiance to said nation , are also submitting to an implicit allegience to said deity (i.e. God) and that give deities preamble of faith (i.e., Christianity). Weather or not God exists, if we exist, etc is irrelavent as the pledging of allegiance and "faith" unto a government explicitly married to a unique deity implicates a union of citizen to nation to deity and ultimatly as a minion of the sect known as christianity. regards, hubert ps: interestingly enough, one of the most "sound" proofs re the existance of God (or the neccessity therof) was written by soren kirkegard ( a christian existentialist). a hard pill to slow for the latter existentialists who along with the nihilists later disbanded the notion of a God, and adapted to atheism. regards, hubert. | ||
| Joseph (Mojo)
Member Username: Mojo Post Number: 375 Registered: 9-2002 |
What pisses me off is that part of the pledge "under god" was added to the pledge in the 1950's. So it should be taken out just as easy as it was put in. It was added because of the whole commy thing in the 50's, we didn't want to be like russia. Also don't get me started about prayer in public schools, Its damn ridiculous. freedom ha. | ||
| Robin Overcash (Robin)
Member Username: Robin Post Number: 302 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'm not sure what country you're from Frank, but it's definitely not the USA. We have never been about majority rules. We are not even a democracy in its true definition. As Randall pointed out, we're a republic. The founding fathers knew the shortfalls of a democracy and specifically formed a gov't that includes devices to overcome these problems. Elected representatives, a robust legal system, checks and balances, a multi-party system in which a plurality can win an election (Clinton vs Bush vs Perot in which Willie won with 46%, etc..) are a few examples. While a democracy forms its policies and rules by a vote of the people, a republic is based on laws that are created by elected representatives, and are not changed as easily as a vote of the people (ok except for California... but they're a bunch of nuts). A democracy based on majority rules is a dangerous thing. For instance, if hispanics became the majority race in Texas, they could do anything they wanted to do because they were the majority. Spanish as the official language of TX? Just vote! No whites allowed to drive? Sure, majority says so! Legalize rape of non-hispanic women? Why not? Majority says so! Democracy is *not* a good thing.. I cringe every time I hear GW roaming around talking about what a great democracy we are and how great it will be when we introduce the rest of the world to democracy. History has a way of getting lost in the shuffle... "[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration -R | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 715 Registered: 1-2003 |
This country is not based on majority rules, at least not at all times. Slavery was ended when majority wasn't for ending it, and same with the end of segregation. This country is a republic, which means it stands up for it's citizens, not just the majority. | ||
| Frank Wiedmann (Frankieferrari)
Member Username: Frankieferrari Post Number: 578 Registered: 8-2003 |
What ever happened to "Majority Rules"? It seems that,as of the past few years,even ONE person can get something changed,if THEY don't like it. THAY,my friends,is BULLSH*T. What happened,and when? Our whole principle of government is based on "Majority Rules".(except,that we know what happened at the last election) But,when we lose the "Majority Rules" concept,whats going to happen next? Are "They" just going to start appointing people to office? Are one person,or a very SMALL group of people going to be able to change anything and everything they want? It's almost getting like that now,and is like that in a few cases. There's a town in Northern Illinois called "Zion" It was founded by religious people,and had a cross on it's city seal,water tower,stationary,everything. Well.one guy,who is an atheist,decided that HE didn't like it,or think that it was appropriate. ONE GUY. So,he sued,and they had to remove the cross from EVERYTHING. ONE GUY. Now,whether or not you agree with him,and that decision, Don't you think that the RIGHT thing to do,would have been to put it up for a vote in a general election,and let the MAJORITY of the townspeople DECIDE whether or not to change it? THAT is what our Democracy is all about. If we continue to let just ONE GUY decide whether something stays or goes,we will be in alot of trouble. Look out,here comes Big Brother! | ||
| Robin Overcash (Robin)
Member Username: Robin Post Number: 301 Registered: 1-2003 |
You're right about that Rikky, the word "god" meant something entirely different to a majority of the framers. Most were deists, a belief system with one rule: we're here, therefore something must have created us. Deists use God, Creator, Nature, and Supreme Being interchangeably to mean "that thing that created the universe." The word God has been warped by modern revisionists to mean "christian god." This is a matter of misunderstanding made by people who are incapable of realizing that "god" means more than jesus and his pappy. James, those are some handy quotes, but I think you misrepresent John Adams. I can't speak about some of the others, but Adams was vehemently against religion, specifically christianity. The two quotes of his that you've provided here could be read several ways, depending on context. I'm including a few that can't really be interpreted any other way "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" [letter to Thomas Jefferson] "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." [letter to John Taylor] "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religous opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [1797-05-27, Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the US and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. Treaties and Other International Acts of America, ed. Hunter Miller] And last but not least, from Adams: "Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." There's plenty more from him and his contemporaries, including Benjamin Franklin, whom you quoted. Franklin displays a refreshing pragmatism towards christianity that bears more gratitude for good deeds done than maintaining the appearance of being a religious fellow. I'm sure he'd be shocked at some of our current atrocities... -R | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 434 Registered: 5-2002 |
The founders/framers believed in separation of church and state - true. The establishment clause is what it is for a reason. To the framers/founders, God was the creator - it did not refer to a specific church or denomination. It referred to all figures - Buddha, Yahweh, Allah, all of them. "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821 "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - These are the principles on which our government was founded. It does not make reference to any single religion, as above stated, but it refers to a creator. It is not denominational. It is not taken from any sort of religious text. Religion - this is a specific set of beliefs held, or a refence to a set of beliefs held concerning a god and creator Church - specific organized religion Again - the founders wanted a separation of CHURCH and STATE (refer to above definition of church) "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. What I am saying is that this "under god" does not violate the Constitution. And as I said, I feel that the Supreme Court will rule in the same way. I don't really care whether it is there or not, unless of course it is taken out for being unconstitutional, in which case I think the Court making that decision is wrong (although I accept it - such is the legal proces of the United States). | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 433 Registered: 5-2002 |
Amir, I realize this, and of course it doesn't matter what I think. However, it does matter what the Supreme Court thinks, and we will soon see. My prediction is that they feel the same way as I do. When it comes to Constitutional Law there are no facts. | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Intermediate Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 1131 Registered: 4-2003 |
"In God We Trust" seems only too appropriate on paper money | ||
| James Dunne (Audiguy)
Member Username: Audiguy Post Number: 371 Registered: 6-2003 |
I think that this discussion will never reach an amiable reasonable agreement. Too many opinions, too many beliefs. I only ask one thing. Please do not distort the truth. If you can back up what you say, please do. I have found a number of quotes by some pretty recognizable people that you might be interested in reading. You may not agree with them and that is your right. We live in a nation of free choice. "I believe that there is only one true and living God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. The the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glirify and enjoy Him". Roger Sherman-Connecticut The only man to sign all four papers, Articles of Association in 1774, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". John Adams It must be felt that there is no national ssecurity but in the nations humble achknowledged dependance upon God and His overruling providence". John Adams "I have lived sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs the affairs of men.....And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business". Benjamin Franklin-requesting prayer before the Continental Congress "It is in the man of piety and inward principle that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen and the invincible soldier. God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparble, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one many in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both". John Witherspoon-Signer of Declaration of Independence. "I am sure that there never was a people who had more reason to achknowledge a Divine Interposition intheir affairs, than those of the United States. And I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our revolution or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of God who is alone able to protect them". George Washington These are direct quotes of these men. Please do not belittle them, distort them or attempt to change their words. Do that and you are attempting to change history as it actually happened and none of us have the authority to do that. We can influence the future by our actions but we cannot change the words or actions of those who went before us. Believe as you will, you have freedom of choice. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 312 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ricky, it's not about how you feel. Some things are facts, plain and simple. | ||
| todd (Flat12)
Junior Member Username: Flat12 Post Number: 77 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well income tax was supposed to be temporary also...Lets get rid of both! | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 432 Registered: 5-2002 |
well, if it taken out because it is not necessary and it was added during the communist scare then so be it - I just feel that it is not unconstitutional, that's all. | ||
| Robin Overcash (Robin)
Member Username: Robin Post Number: 297 Registered: 1-2003 |
Rikky, you DO realize that the "under god" line was added to our pledge during the communist 'scare' in the 50s, right? This was done by paranoid gov't officials in a strange attempt at combating communism. What you just wrote is exactly what happened...the gov't became to involved and put forth some things that should have never been brought up. By removing this garbage, the gov't wouldn't be getting too involved. They'd only be putting things back to the way they were originally intended to be. Art, re your point about cosmologists and their atheism... Seneca the Younger said this back in the day (somewhere between 40bc and 65ad..) "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Sums it up pretty nicely I think... -R | ||
| todd (Flat12)
Junior Member Username: Flat12 Post Number: 76 Registered: 7-2003 |
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " Exactly my point. It's NOT A LAW. If you don't like it, don't say it. You won't go to jail if you don't. Who is GOd anyway? If you don't believe in a Christina GOD why are reading the Bible? I think Cindy Crawford is a God. Who is anyone to say what is and isn't God? God is very personal. Once again, it's not against the LAW and that's what the constitution says. Now, you if got arrested for not saying it I could see the point. I really don't see the damage it does to be honest. There are posters here I don't like so do I ••••• to ROB? No, I just ignore their posts and move on. People need to stop whining. If you don't like it, ignore it. If it bothers you that much then write congress and try to do something about it. I think people want to make everything "their way". So if it's not "their" way then change it....NU UH. The world doesn't revolve around anyone, especially you and if you don't like something either get off your ass and do something about it or shut the •••• up. If people are "so strong" in their "own religion" than these things will just role off their shoulder. I can see where it may bother some practices, and they can A) Write congress to change, or B) Don't say "God".....But befoire congress is going to do anything about it, "God" has to be defined...and If you can do that accurately and with proof you now have my attention. On another note: What about these damb pop-ups | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 431 Registered: 5-2002 |
Well, I don't really feel that it is religion. But anyway, I still think that god is a very general and vague term. It simply meanings higher being or deity - thats all. While there may be some who are offended by having it in there, there are a lot more who would be pissed off by having it taken out. One must not only look at this case individually, but what sort of precedent it would set for the future. What else would the government be able to do to take out any reference to god if this happened? There is a point where when the government becomes too active with issues such as this, that is becomes oppressive. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 714 Registered: 1-2003 |
What word does the bible use? I thought it always said "god", which seems pretty specific to me. If it's not, maybe we should be fair and switch it to allah for 50 years, and when allah's turn is up it can go to budda. What harm is there restoring things back to how they were? It gets rid of the complaint, and solves the problem. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing, and that's why it shouldn't be in schools. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 429 Registered: 5-2002 |
re�spect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spkt) tr.v. re�spect�ed, re�spect�ing, re�spects To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit. To relate or refer to; concern. often Establishment An established social order, as: A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the. ----- Congress shall make no law "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. " "A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. " ---- God is a very nonspecific and ambiguous term. Muslims worship a god, Christians worship a god, Jews worship a god, Buddhists worship a god, etc. Under God makes has no, in my eyes, religious connotations. I feel that this will be the decision of the Court as well. | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 269 Registered: 9-2003 |
I will try this again make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Who is to say that GOD exists, you may believe I do not. your belief denotes a religous belief in god. fine and dandy. My lack of belief may be my religion. By putting UNDER GOD in there you are excluding my religion that is different than yours. SO NO RELIGION is fair to both. you believe what you want just keep it out of the government. i will do the same. I will not force you to swear to my beliefs or lack there of so please don't try and make me swear to yours. I think that is clear | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 428 Registered: 5-2002 |
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Please tell me how this prevents the word "under god" from being included in the pledge of allegiance. I personally do not see it. | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 267 Registered: 9-2003 |
Art I have found the weaker someone's arguement the easier it is for them to get their knickers in a bunch when you question their facts. I was raised Catholic but grew out of it when, amongst other things, I watched as the "One True Chruch" abandoned their responsabilities to safeguard the childern in thieir care in favor of protecting a bunch of predititory priests. This was YEARS before the poo hit the fan in Boston. In Canada that hornets nest was knocked down back in the 80's with a scandal at the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland. Now i was personally never involved in any of this but watching the reaction of the people in charge who tryed to cover it up or brush it asside made me begin to question things. What was fun was having some of these questions dealt with by my uncle (he was a priest and proof that not all are sick bastards) we would debate and discuss. this is something really rare in this world because of the quick draw mentality of the "Radical Right" (granted the Looney Left ain't any better) My dad always used to insist that If we had a disagreement that we could argue till we were blue in the face but the first one to raise his voive or yell was the looser. This is the way to do it. If you Yell You LOOSE | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2790 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jim: I have a great question? Why do all those who profess to be quite religious require others who don't have such beliefs to swear to someone's else's belief? What insecurity do those folks have that require them to make me, an unbeliever, swear to their god? When I can get a coherent answer for that simple question, and the answer makes sense, I'll have far greater respect for those people. I'm not holding my breath however. A study of cosmologists (those that study the originals of the universe, through physics) shows that only 2% of them believe in a deity. Their average IQ was in excess of 140. Maybe something there? Art Art | ||
| Nick (True)
Junior Member Username: True Post Number: 64 Registered: 6-2002 |
US Currency next please. | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 261 Registered: 9-2003 |
What is the big deal.... Well Three referance points on this All named George George Orwell {animal Farm, 1984} on the power to influence and control the "Masses" through incremental change. Never one swift move but little by little eroding the "Freedoms" George Carlin (many) He has managed to reduce the 10 commandments down to two by eliminating "Bull Shirt an Fear" Down to 2 "Be good and honest / Try not to kill anyone" George Washington (ok just the Framers of th e constitution wrote) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Word for word the first amendment | ||
| Nibblesworth (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 787 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art - you and I agree on this. I find it horrifying that the Gov't would endorse the pledge to our flag with the words "Under God", as horrifying as if the Gov't put "Under Allah" or "Under Buddha". In a secular nation like the US, "Under God" does not belong anywhere in Gov't functions. I'm not a christian, and I disagree with the pledge to my country requiring the words of a religion that I do not subscribe to. I swear, if some of the bible thumpers who b!tch and moan about taking this out were to have to accept "Under Allah" they'd revolt. If I ever have kids, they will remain silent for the pledge, unless "Under God" is no longer a part of it, because my children will not pledge allegiance to a flag that endorses a particular religion. Just my 0.02. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2787 Registered: 6-2001 |
Todd: The problem is that they are indeed forced to say them. The urge to get along and not be different from the others makes little kids have to recite the pledge, even if there is language that the kids family doesn't want the kid saying. It's exactly what the founders meant when they said no establishment of a religion. Art | ||
| todd (Flat12)
Junior Member Username: Flat12 Post Number: 74 Registered: 7-2003 |
I guess the the "who" in "who cares" was referring to "me" rather than a question. I just think there are more important things to rework in the govt than a few words that some people don't like. It's not like they are forced to say them. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 305 Registered: 2-2003 |
Robin, well said. Art, thank you for the link. Todd, who cares? I do! | ||
| Joe Bennett (Formula1joe)
New member Username: Formula1joe Post Number: 16 Registered: 7-2003 |
Here here Robin. I could not have said it better myself. True words that come from facts. | ||
| Robin Overcash (Robin)
Member Username: Robin Post Number: 294 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yes pop ups are a bigger problem.. but as for rewording the pledge, removing the god part will put it back to the way it was originally written. god was just added in by the McCarthy nutcases who thought that the evil atheist commie spies wouldn't be able to say the pledge if it included a plea to some fairytale deity. Same goes for 'in god we trust' on our money. It wasn't there before, so why is it there now? Because a bunch of paranoid extremists put it there. Time to remove this stain... Enjoyed the comments about Jefferson and the founding fathers as well. I've done a bit of reading on those guys and their beliefs.. it amazes me that people still think of the founding fathers as a bunch of christians set out to form a christian nation, when half the reason people left england in those days was to get away from christian tyranny. I can remember as far back as preschool when my teachers told me about the Pilgrims leaving for America so they could practice their religion openly. What no one bothered to tell us that the reason they couldn't worship in their own manner was because of the various sects of christianity who were hellbent on torturing and murdering members of other christian sects. It was christians fleeing the iron maidens and whipping posts of other christians... And now there's a huge contingent of Americans, including citizens, lawmakers, and the president, who want to bring this back to the forefront of the political landscape. I'll suffer through infinite pop-ups before I let the biblethumpers take over the gov't... -R | ||
| todd (Flat12)
Junior Member Username: Flat12 Post Number: 73 Registered: 7-2003 |
2 things to say about this. WHO CARES! Leave it in, does it really HURT anything. Just don't say htos ewords if they bother you that much...Gezzus.... The other thing...Less time on rewording the pledge and more time on ridding the world of pop-ups | ||
| PeterS (Peters)
Intermediate Member Username: Peters Post Number: 1633 Registered: 1-2003 |
Who is Richards Stands? | ||
| Jim Muise (Writerguy)
Member Username: Writerguy Post Number: 251 Registered: 9-2003 |
Thanks Art Living round mid point of the bible belt has got me a little on edge and this Under God thing is just enough to make me worry. Just got my temp Green Card and as a Newby to the USA some of the current godsquad has been troubleing. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2778 Registered: 6-2001 |
An interesting discussion of the pledge and our founding fathers. Interesting quote from Jefferson. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/23/EDG562H6J71.DTL Art |