Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shake · 03-07-2003, 08:05 AM

I'm glad I found the online version of this article of his that I saw in the paper the other day, 'cause I meant to start this thread earlier, but work interfered.

An exerpt:

Quote:

Yes, the unelected and still mostly liberal federal judges continue their four-decades-old nasty habit of dismantling our institutions, symbols and beliefs for the sake of a microscopic minority. The courts demand that every religious person must accommodate a single atheist who might be "offended " at the favorable mention of God's name (unfavorable or blasphemous mentions, we are told, are protected by the same First Amendment that prohibits favorable mentions). But no atheist can be forced to accommodate a single religious person who might be offended by the atheist's unbelief, or who wants to be part of the pluralism and diversity about which liberals regularly speak, but which is not broad enough to embrace people who believe in God.

Yes Cal, but there are also unelected conservative judges in the courts as well. "Our beliefs" are not the beliefs of everyone, and if you study your American history, then you'll know that we're (supposedly) a nation of religious freedom. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say, "... so long as you do practice some religion." I will gladly embrace religious folks in a plurality of society, but don't try to inject your religion into my secular government.

Another one:

Quote:

Why do people who believe in and teach their children about God at home and in church put them in government schools that often undermine those beliefs? If parents would not put their children in a religious environment that does not reflect their faith, why do they send them into a school system in which faith and secularism so often collide, often to the detriment of faith?

Because they want them to learn critical thinking and reasoning. I don't believe in God, but if I did, I'd still want my son to be able to think independently and reason things out for himself. If through his own experiences and thought processes he takes a different religious philosophy from my own, I'll be happy to know that he reached his decision on his own. I'll hope he has the integrity to stick to his decision unless he is later convinced otherwise.

A better question is: why do we let Faith into our secular institutions in the first place? They do not belong there, and it is typically the introduction of Faith into secular organizations that cause problems. Tradition or a lack of earlier dissent about the mixing doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist (i.e. PoA, or Congressional chaplains).

Further ramblings:

Quote:

Now we are told the government should be doing this through the Orwellian-named "faith-based initiative. " What faith?

What faith indeed? Evidently GWB's own particular flavor is what's being pushed.

Quote:

The high court should decide to allow the pledge to be recited as is.

The high court should decide to allow the pledge to be recited as was originally intended (and used for many years, including the Great Depression and 2 World Wars)!

Finally:

Quote:

Is God the "Lord " of the United States? Do we act like it? Should our government formally say so if it isn't true? Saying so will not make it true.
(my bold)

... finally, he gets something right! Saying so doesn't make it true. So, remove it, and remove the divisiveness that has become more rampant at a time when we need to be more unified! E pluribus unum, baby!

Bill Snedden · 03-07-2003, 11:32 AM

IIRC, this is the same Cal Thomas who used to be the functioning leader, while Falwell was the titular head, of the so-called "Moral Majority"...

Mr. Thomas is one of the shining examples, along with such other notables as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, & Bill O'Reilly, of the talking head who is all talk and no head...

I especially like the way, in this article anyway, he conflates free speech and establishment issues, somehow appearing to indicate that forced prayer is a free speech issue (??!!).

The real question is, why would anyone care what such an empty-headed loser has to say, anyway?

Philosoft · 03-07-2003, 01:00 PM

This is funny:

Quote:

Yes, the unelected and still mostly liberal federal judges continue their four-decades-old nasty habit of dismantling our institutions, symbols and beliefs for the sake of a microscopic minority.

Yeah, Cal. Judges have only been "dismantling our institutions" as long as you've been paying attention. There were certainly no legal decisions that ran counter to the prevailing public mores before 1950. Everything was just peachy for the first 170 years.

Shake · 03-13-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
IIRC, this is the same Cal Thomas who used to be the functioning leader, while Falwell was the titular head, of the so-called "Moral Majority"...

Mr. Thomas is one of the shining examples, along with such other notables as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, & Bill O'Reilly, of the talking head who is all talk and no head...

I especially like the way, in this article anyway, he conflates free speech and establishment issues, somehow appearing to indicate that forced prayer is a free speech issue (??!!).

The real question is, why would anyone care what such an empty-headed loser has to say, anyway?

I honestly didn't know about the "Moral Majority" thing!

*hums some bars of Green Day's I want to be a minority*

As for the last part, I don't particularly care what he has to say, except that he's a syndicated columnist and reaches lots of people! A very scary prospect if you ask me! Hopefully, there are those like us who won't be swayed by this crap!

03-07-2003, 11:32 AM	#2
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	And how... IIRC, this is the same Cal Thomas who used to be the functioning leader, while Falwell was the titular head, of the so-called "Moral Majority"... Mr. Thomas is one of the shining examples, along with such other notables as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, & Bill O'Reilly, of the talking head who is all talk and no head... I especially like the way, in this article anyway, he conflates free speech and establishment issues, somehow appearing to indicate that forced prayer is a free speech issue (??!!). The real question is, why would anyone care what such an empty-headed loser has to say, anyway?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.