Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Elation · 03-15-2002, 06:55 AM

<a href="http://bakersfield.com/opinion/story/783092p-843471c.html" target="_blank">Response to the motto.</a>

You may recall when I posted a thread a few weeks ago regarding my city's decision to place the words "In God We Trust" on City Hall.

The reaction to this is demonstrated by the link that contains letter to the editors. A couple of them simply anger me, like the very last one by a Susan. No one said you couldn't express your belief--just don't throw it upon those who don't believe.

MassAtheist · 03-15-2002, 07:30 AM

Will the stupidity never cease?

Quote:

God is singularly and personally exalted in our Constitution ...

Jamie_L · 03-15-2002, 07:47 AM

Mass Atheist beat me to it.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what makes them believe the Constitution is built on Christianity.

Jamie

Darwin's Finch · 03-15-2002, 08:20 AM

That's easy, Jamie. You can say anything you like about documents you've never taken the trouble to read.

Secular Elation · 03-15-2002, 11:37 AM

However, unfortunately, I must say that the person named Susan (the letter at the bottom) does have a good point: why should she have her "hard earned" tax dollars spent for things she disagrees with, such as abortion and homosexuality? It is my opinion that a person should not have their money pay for things they dislike. I recall a Thomas Jefferson quote: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."

However, I do not like her argument that "I have to pay for things that offend me, so atheists will have to put up with IGWT." We should never think little about offending others by the views of the oppressive majority.

Secular Elation · 03-15-2002, 11:59 AM

One other thing...

About the person who wrote the letter titled "Don't foreget free will," some of his attacks were unwarranted. He begins:

Quote:

Contrary to the wishful thinking of atheists, the framers of our Constitution did not advocate the tearing down of every cross from every public hill, the erasure of God's name from every public monument and document, nor the prohibition of prayer at public gatherings.

Indeed, and I never said that the framers wanted to tearn down religious icons or erase their gods name from the public. He is likening us to the anti-religious policies of Joseph Stalin. Give me a break!

But it's always easier for a Christian such as this to label anyone who disbelieves in gods as "anti-Christian" or in favor of totalitarianistic destruction of religion. Come on!

MassAtheist · 03-15-2002, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
<strong>However, unfortunately, I must say that the person named Susan (the letter at the bottom) does have a good point: why should she have her "hard earned" tax dollars spent for things she disagrees with, such as abortion and homosexuality? </strong>

And my wife is an ardent pacifist and disagrees with the military budget. Why should she have to fund something she disagrees with?

What about the elderly whose property tax is used to fund public education for the small children? Why should they pay for this and get no benefit?

It's the way our system works. Essentially, taxes go into a central fund which our elected representatives decide how to spend. If you don't like the way the money is spent, vote for someone else.

This argument has nothing to do with government actively supporting a particular religion, which is explicitly prohibited by the constitution.

Jamie_L · 03-15-2002, 12:12 PM

A government cannot function if it has to ask every citizen's permission regarding every thing that tax dollars are spent on. That's what government representatives are for.

Maybe some people don't think roads are worth spending money on? Should they be exempt from paying taxes for roads? Some of our citizens surely think it should be legal to kill certain ethnic minorities. Should they be forced to spend their tax dollars on enforcement of laws in those cases?

Furthermore, certain rights are established specfically to protect minorities from the tyranny of an opposing majority. That majority may feel persecuted for being forced to pay to support rights they disagree with, but it's not up for discussion unless enough people agree to overturn the right (i.e. amend the Constitution in the case of the U.S.)

Jamie

Secular Elation · 03-15-2002, 05:41 PM

Look, I understand that is the way the system is--its just unfortunate that it is somethihng we have to put up with. It is necessary for the system to be that way, I suppose.

However, it doesn't seem that the IGWT motto is unconstitutional. The establishment clause (congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) is not violated here, neither is the free exercise clause. All they are doing is putting up a motto, not passing a law for religion.

Though I wish it was unconstitutional...hehe.

03-15-2002, 06:55 AM	#1
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Response to IGWT <a href="http://bakersfield.com/opinion/story/783092p-843471c.html" target="_blank">Response to the motto.</a> You may recall when I posted a thread a few weeks ago regarding my city's decision to place the words "In God We Trust" on City Hall. The reaction to this is demonstrated by the link that contains letter to the editors. A couple of them simply anger me, like the very last one by a Susan. No one said you couldn't express your belief--just don't throw it upon those who don't believe.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2002, 07:47 AM	#3
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Mass Atheist beat me to it. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what makes them believe the Constitution is built on Christianity. Jamie

03-15-2002, 08:20 AM	#4
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	That's easy, Jamie. You can say anything you like about documents you've never taken the trouble to read.

03-15-2002, 11:37 AM	#5
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	However, unfortunately, I must say that the person named Susan (the letter at the bottom) does have a good point: why should she have her "hard earned" tax dollars spent for things she disagrees with, such as abortion and homosexuality? It is my opinion that a person should not have their money pay for things they dislike. I recall a Thomas Jefferson quote: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." However, I do not like her argument that "I have to pay for things that offend me, so atheists will have to put up with IGWT." We should never think little about offending others by the views of the oppressive majority.

03-15-2002, 12:12 PM	#8
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	A government cannot function if it has to ask every citizen's permission regarding every thing that tax dollars are spent on. That's what government representatives are for. Maybe some people don't think roads are worth spending money on? Should they be exempt from paying taxes for roads? Some of our citizens surely think it should be legal to kill certain ethnic minorities. Should they be forced to spend their tax dollars on enforcement of laws in those cases? Furthermore, certain rights are established specfically to protect minorities from the tyranny of an opposing majority. That majority may feel persecuted for being forced to pay to support rights they disagree with, but it's not up for discussion unless enough people agree to overturn the right (i.e. amend the Constitution in the case of the U.S.) Jamie

03-15-2002, 05:41 PM	#9
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Look, I understand that is the way the system is--its just unfortunate that it is somethihng we have to put up with. It is necessary for the system to be that way, I suppose. However, it doesn't seem that the IGWT motto is unconstitutional. The establishment clause (congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) is not violated here, neither is the free exercise clause. All they are doing is putting up a motto, not passing a law for religion. Though I wish it was unconstitutional...hehe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.