FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-26-2002, 05:40 PM   #251
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
Posts: 264
Post

I’ve been watching local news here in California. It’s really hard to watch. They are pretty much missing the point or misunderstanding. People on the street seemed to be disagreeing with the ruling saying that they should in fact be able to recite the Pledge, not really paying attention to the reason why the ruling was made. They see it as a matter of their patriotism being taken away and so do not want to lose that.

They also showed the reaction of some Congressmen, which was of course that they were “stunned”. Pretty much everyone they showed was against the ruling. There wasn’t equal time showing people who agreed and why.
sandlewood is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:42 PM   #252
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: small cold water flat
Posts: 471
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ELECTROGOD:
<strong>Actually "In God We Trust" IS some off-the-wall, Christian, Right Wing, political slogan that was added to the money along with "one nation under god" in the pledge that many people including children are required to recite back in the early 1950's by the anti-communist right wingers (research MacCarthyism). Most people seem oblivious to that today and think, mistakenly, that it has always been our nation's "motto". By putting "In God We Trust" in public schools and government buildings that service all people, including many Americans who do not believe in an unproven god, some are trying to declare that their (or any) god is what rules the nation. That is what the Taliban did except that they have been a little more successful and getting the people to accept it. If the government is going to back religion then it need to be able to prove the infalibility of the religion it chooses, otherwise it doesn't know what the heck it is pumping money and power into. There are fakers, cults, small religions, large religions, mostly forgotten religions, gods and spirits of all sorts that no one can prove or agree with. Obivously the only conclusion is that the government can only officially back one religion or back them all...every last strange belief...or...none at all and let people handle their own beliefs.

About the founding of this country as it pertains to Christianity:

Both Washington and John Adams, both Federalists, proclaimed religious days of fasting and prayer. These proclamations were highly controversial at the time, and received much press. Jefferson broke with this tradition, after his election, much to the dismay of adherents of the Congregationalist Church, and lauded by the Baptists who were being persecuted in some states.
NEITHER Washington nor Adams were Christians. Adams was a Deist, and it is believed Washington was as well, but he was generally tight lipped about religion. He never took the sacraments, was never heard to utter a prayer himself, and refused to expel a Universalist Chaplin from the army for not believing in hell.
In fact, the following founders were admittedly either Deists, agnositics or atheists: Thomas Paine, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. (Read 2000 years of Disbelief, by James Haught, for some excellent quotes).
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797 states "...The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
What is often lost when discussing what the founders believed is the fact that the construction of the Constitution was anything but harmonious. The Federalists, many of whom were monarchists, were generally satisfied with the checks and balances of the document. The Republicans, who advocated a single assembly government, but weren't going to get it, felt that more protections were needed and insisted upon a "Bill of Rights." The Federalists gave in because it was clear that ratification was impossible without these amendments.
As with all human endeavors, the final product was an act of compromise. But that compromise, regardless of any individual founder's beliefs, very clearly separates Church and State. Admittedly, the language of the First Amendment leaves it open as to how separate they should be. Yet, the framers who insisted on the Bill of Rights, and succeeded in gaining its passage, were unambiguous about their desire to build an impenetrable wall between religion and government.


</strong>
Well put.
Bluenose is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:43 PM   #253
himynameisPwn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I don't know what to say. In one sense Im happy, but in another, I think this descision might be overturned, and not only made into a holy cow amendment that we'll never see overturned in this generation, but give religious people even more rights to take away our freedom. Hopefully this won't turn into a Plessy vs. Ferguson for atheists.

I can't goto the march on washington, but more than ever I feel compelled to stand up for my rights. I've told my family what I think, but I know they respect my beliefs. I feel compelled to convince other people atheists are human. I think, this goes against everything America stands for, but people still see America as under god.

Does anyone have an idea on how long its possible for this descision to be debated by the supreme court compared to the shortest possible resolution? Will this be decided in months or years? I think the march on washington has a new agenda though. We must communicate that secular doesn't mean anti-religion, and that everyones beliefs should be respected by the government.
 
Old 06-26-2002, 05:47 PM   #254
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: small cold water flat
Posts: 471
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by d'Naturalist:
<strong>

And why can't a black man just not join the country club? Or why can't a woman just not get equal pay for equal work? Because it's discrimination. Christians do not deserve special rights.

Now it looks like the Congress is voting to codemn the 9th courts decision? Why in HELL (if you'll pardon the pun) are we fighting the imposition of a single religion by the Taliban in Afghanistan if we're going to do the same thing in this country?

Time to call the fundies on their position. America can be a christian country or a free country... it can't be both.</strong>
Wow, you are my third or fourth "right on" in a row. Are you reading this TPaine ?
Bluenose is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:49 PM   #255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 666
Post

As regards the "man-on-the-street" reaction that many of us are watching on the local/regional news, let's get real! The majority of people sounding off on this issue know only what they have read in online news glosses and on TV. The percentage of people who have actually read the Court's decision is probably not much higher than the percentage of people who claim "no religion" in polls. (I'm not suggesting that these groups are identical; I'm simply trying to underline the fact that most people base political judgements on insufficient information.)

Having read the decision, I am beginning to suspect that the Supreme Court won't touch this one with a ten-foot pole. I'm no legal scholar, but the reasoning used by the 9th Court seems formidable. I don't see how the SC could overturn it without looking like clowns. (Not that that's stopped them before.)
Darwin's Finch is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:53 PM   #256
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: who knows
Posts: 154
Post

"either Deists, agnostics or atheists"

Name me one atheist founder. I have nothing against atheists or atheism itself but I've never heard of any of the founders being agnostics or atheists and technically Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen wouldn't be considered "founders" in the sense that we refer to those who participated in the framing of the constitution. Of course they're very important people in regards to the history of this country and I admire them both but they can't really be called "founders".
The Dionysian is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:54 PM   #257
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 292
Post

Yeah, it's also struck me as ironic that these are the same people that whine about how bad, no, how EVIL Afghanistan's religion-run government is, and then want to run our country with their religion. Religious hypocrisy at its finest!
Atheist121 is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:54 PM   #258
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,158
Post

My eyes gleam at the thought of the Supreme Court upholding this ruleing ....

One can only hope, one can only hope ......
uhcord is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:55 PM   #259
atheist_in_foxhole
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

We Americans sure do live in a strange country. Nobody seems to care when the Republicans call for the teaching of crap like creationsim in public schools, yet virtually EVERYONE throws a fit when someone like Newdow dares to speak up for church/state separation. WTF???

Just watch...the fundies are going to use this ruling to ram their "religious freedom" amendment (school-sponsored prayer) through Congress and finally get "god" in the Constitution. It's possible that the wall of separation might be gone forever.
 
Old 06-26-2002, 05:57 PM   #260
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 45
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by vonmeth:
<strong>My eyes gleam at the thought of the Supreme Court upholding this ruleing ....

One can only hope, one can only hope ......</strong>
Hopefully Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Vishnu, Krishna, Marduk, Odin, Osiris, and all the other non-Jeebus gods will hear that

Eric
Methos is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:04 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.