Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Elation · 03-07-2002, 07:44 PM

MassAtheist · 03-08-2002, 09:51 AM

Wow.

Quote:

[Council member Paul] Neufeld said, "Let's take some positive steps in bringing our country back to God's leadership rather than continue floundering around so much."
...
Neufeld said he does not see a conflict of interest between church and state in regard to a plaque.

So putting our country under God's leadership is NOT a conflict of church and state?

Quote:

"Some people say it's a divisive issue, but we've had divisive issues throughout our history, like slavery," [Neufeld] said. "Slavery was divisive, but opposing it was the right thing to do."

So opposing slavery was right, but opposing this is wrong? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Secular Elation · 03-08-2002, 12:10 PM

I have mailed this letter to the Wasco City Council:

Quote:

Recently, the proposal to place the words “In God We Trust” on city hall was presented by a member of the City Council in Wasco. This is following, and is inspired by, the success of the same proposal in Bakersfield. The Wasco City Council has promulgated approval of the proposal and will vote in the issue March 19. I am composing and submitting this letter in opposition to the proposal.

When matters of religion and government are the issue at hand, it is important to determine whether or not there is a violation of the separation of church and state. Of the First Amendment, there is the Establishment Clause (which prohibits the government from establishing a religion) and the Free Exercise Clause (which prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s right to worship). The “In God We Trust” proposal does not seem to violate either of these; therefore there are no constitutional issues at hand.

Despite this, however, I am of the opinion that approving the proposal would be wrong. My opposition does not originate from any constitutional issues, but from philosophical reasons. I believe there is a strong philosophical case to be made against the proposal.

First, the phrase "In God We Trust" is terribly vague in two places: “God” and “We.” “In God We Trust”? Which god would that be? The Christian god? A Roman god, such as Zeus? A Buddhist deity, such as Vishnu? The “God” in question is not specified by the phrase proposed. However, it cannot be denied that what you mean by “God” is the Christian god, as described in the Bible. Since this is so, it is not fair nor is it respectful of the religious beliefs of others that you have reserved this phrase for your Christian god. By posting this decidedly Christian phrase on City Hall, you would be disrespecting the beliefs of non-Christians by demonstrating that the Christian religion alone is welcome in the governing offices of Wasco. You will not have indicated otherwise by posting the proposed phrase. You are preferring one religion over another.

In addition, “we,” as it appears in the proposed phrase, is vague as well. Who precisely does “we” incorporate? All people? The people of Wasco? All Christian people? You cannot expect “we” to mean all people, for there does exist numerous non-Christians in this country, even perhaps in Wasco. These non-Christians include Deists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims, and many other religions. Atheists are also excluded from the “we.” By posting the proposed phrase, you are excluding non-Christians from your support. “We”—the people—is invalid because not everyone places his or her ‘trust’ or beliefs in the Christian god.

Secondly, the Bakersfield newspaper reports Wasco city attorney Alan J. Peake claimed that the phrase seems to be a patriotic gesture and not a religious one. However, it is without doubt that the phrase is indeed religious. The subject of the phrase is our supposed trust in “God”—and god(s) are precisely a part of religion. Religion is defined as “a system of worship for gods or deities.” Such a god is an important part of the proposed phrase, and therefore it is undeniably religious. Yet, lets assume that it is also a patriotic phrase. Does this mean that non-religious opinion is not patriotic? It is completely presumptuous to equate religiousness with patriotism. Non-Christians can hold as much patriotism for our country as you presume to do with the proposed phrase.

Third, council member Paul Neufeld, who proposed the phrase, claimed that this country was “founded on Christian principles.” On the contrary, many of our Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Madison, were Deists, not Christians. They respected freedom of conscience, and thus they did not establish this country on any one religion. This is evident in the fact that our constitution is godless—the word “God” is found nowhere in the amendments, articles, or the preamble. This does not mean that our government is atheistic—rather, it is secular, in that it does not deal any particular respect to one religion. It is neutral in religious matters. As a result, any religion is free to live in America without the worry of allegiance with the government. This is also why you should be neutral and vote against posting the proposed phrase.

Fourth, Neufeld also claims that, despite the divisiveness of the proposal, the country was built on divisive issues. He uses slavery as an example. He claimed, “Slavery was divisive, but opposing it was the right thing to do.” I concur; precisely the reason why posting “In God We Trust” on City Hall is divisive, and opposing it is the right thing to do.

Finally, other City Council members claimed that they did not expect substantial resistance to the installation of the phrase. This does not mean that it is appropriate to approve the proposal. Even if no one voiced against the installment, there are certainly those whose views are against it, including myself. This is why the City Council should respectfully consider both sides in influencing their decision of the proposal on March 19.

It is not my intention to criticize your religious beliefs. I respect the sincerity of your views regarding this issue. Even though I am myself an atheist, there are many religious people who would oppose the proposal. Many religious people spoke out against the proposal when it was an issue in Bakersfield, for they agree that the phrase is divisive and that religion and politics do not belong together. Both the religious and nonreligious alike have dissenters from the phrase. My being an atheist should have no relevance to the validity of the points I address. My arguments deserve as much consideration as those of a religious person.

In conclusion, I hope you will consider the points I address. You may agree with them or disagree with them, and you may also agree with some points and not with others. Regardless, it is my suggestion that the arguments therein contained in this letter are discussed with the Council members before concluding upon a decision. Please, prove to the public that you respect religious diversity by disapproving the proposed phrase.

With Great Respect,

Edited for paragraph errors.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

crazyfingers · 03-08-2002, 12:29 PM

SE,

Good letter.

I also suggest that a quick little letter from the ACLU to City Councel will put the fear of big $$ lawsuit and legal bills into their hearts.

<a href="http://www.aclu.org/community/calif-n/three.html" target="_blank">ACLU In California</a>

Secular Elation · 03-08-2002, 03:01 PM

Hm, I hadn't thought of that.

cartman · 03-08-2002, 03:52 PM

<a href="http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=19W1STT8C9&mscssid=KP39XG00 1UDP8GEDR2QTBRFWGER6908A&isbn=0385021747" target="_blank">In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</a>

ohwilleke · 03-10-2002, 03:01 PM

Vishnu would be Hindu.

Secular Elation · 03-10-2002, 06:40 PM

Uh oh! Well...hopefully the City Countil won't know any better. Damn my ignorance!

Goodness, that is so embarrassing! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

03-07-2002, 07:44 PM	#1
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	IGWT to be considered <a href="http://bakersfield.com/local/story/777222p-829393c.html" target="_blank">Look here.</a>

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

03-08-2002, 12:29 PM	#4
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	SE, Good letter. I also suggest that a quick little letter from the ACLU to City Councel will put the fear of big $$ lawsuit and legal bills into their hearts. <a href="http://www.aclu.org/community/calif-n/three.html" target="_blank">ACLU In California</a>

03-08-2002, 03:01 PM	#5
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Hm, I hadn't thought of that.

03-08-2002, 03:52 PM	#6
cartman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: USA Posts: 175	<a href="http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=19W1STT8C9&mscssid=KP39XG00 1UDP8GEDR2QTBRFWGER6908A&isbn=0385021747" target="_blank">In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</a>

03-10-2002, 03:01 PM	#7
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	Vishnu would be Hindu.

03-10-2002, 06:40 PM	#8
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Uh oh! Well...hopefully the City Countil won't know any better. Damn my ignorance! Goodness, that is so embarrassing! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> [ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.