Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mecha_Dude · 09-13-2002, 07:33 PM

rebelnerd · 09-13-2002, 09:50 PM

Quote:

The concentration camps bore the mark of the American Swastika- A black cross on a white circle surrounded by a red border.

Like this?

Filo

Toto · 09-13-2002, 10:56 PM

Oxidizing Material - what have you been smoking?

Oxidizing Material · 09-14-2002, 05:38 AM

Nothing; I don't do drugs.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oxidizing Material ]

galiel · 09-14-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gooch's dad:
n case you didn't know, before 1954 we didn't have 'under God' in the pledge, and we didn't have 'In God we Trust' on our paper money. Both were added by McCarthy-era laws that tried to make a point about those 'godless communists'. In the process, they forgot our 1st amendment, wherein the Founding Fathers saw fit to state that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof". Those laws in the 1950's clearly tried to establish belief in God as an official Federal doctrine.

We won 2 World Wars without 'under God' in the pledge. Many people in this country believe in a different god than you do, and it isn't called 'God', it might be called Allah or Shiva or the Great Spirit. Many believe in multiple gods. Many believe in no gods at all. We are all still citizens of one country. Our original motto was 'e pluribus unum', which means 'from many, one'. With many different religious beliefs we are all still Americans. We still fight for our country, volunteer to help others, and care deeply about the losses that this day commemorates. We are Americans, regardless of whether we believe in 1 God, 20 gods, or no gods at all.

You do NOT have the right to have the US government endorse your specific monotheistic religious belief as the official belief of the country. Try finding where 'God' or 'Jesus' or 'Christianity' are mentioned in the US Constitution. You won't find them anywhere. Our Founding Fathers didn't just 'forget' to include these words in the Constitution, the absence was heavily debated during the ratification. They knew exactly what they were doing--founding a purely secular government, and leaving religious belief as a right of individual conscience.

Extremely well reasoned, concise statement. May I use it? (with attribution, or at least with a "posted on the Net" disclaimer)

kdouthit · 09-14-2002, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxidizing Material:
Long cool story well writting by OM.

Great story, reminds me somewhat of the one done on the Secular South..

<a href="http://secularsouth.org/show.php?column=bible_belt&story_id=14" target="_blank">http://secularsouth.org/show.php?column=bible_belt&story_id=14</a>

Can only hope that neither one happens.

Oresta · 09-15-2002, 05:28 AM

You do NOT have the right to have the US government endorse your specific monotheistic religious belief as the official belief of the country. Try finding where 'God' or 'Jesus' or 'Christianity' are mentioned in the US Constitution. You won't find them anywhere. Our Founding Fathers didn't just 'forget' to include these words in the Constitution, the absence was heavily debated during the ratification. They knew exactly what they were doing--founding a purely secular government, and leaving religious belief as a right of individual conscience.

A great response, Gooch's dad. Indeed the founders didn't forget to put God in the Constitution. I recently came across the Massachusetts' Constitution drafted by John Adams in 1779. It has often been described as the model for the U. S. Constitution.

<a href="http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm" target="_blank">http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm</a>

While Adams' MA Constitution is similar in significant ways to the U.S. Constitution, Adams' is riddled with religious references such as "worshipping God", "every denomination of Christians", etc.

Quote:

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII.]

Check out Article III.

Quote:

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Finally, Adams' oath of office:

Quote:

"I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seised and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

My point in this lengthy post is that our founders were unddoubtedly familiar with Adams' MA Constitution. They took his three branches of government, the bicameral congress; but they took out God, and all other mention of sectarian religion.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]

4th Generation Atheist · 09-16-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kdouthit:


Great story, reminds me somewhat of the one done on the Secular South..

<a href="http://secularsouth.org/show.php?column=bible_belt&story_id=14" target="_blank">http://secularsouth.org/show.php?column=bible_belt&story_id=14</a>

Can only hope that neither one happens.

I don't think either is very likely. Ashcroft would be more likely to do something like that, but he lacks the personal charisma. Bush doesn't really want to and lacks the, um, stones. I think it more likely that what we have to be concerned about are a "New McCarthy" era, an end to abortion rights, a return to the '50s for gays, and a serious uphill battle for liberals seeking election, especially when the campaign finance rules combine with the new guidelines on churches donating to candidates. These things aren't nearly as bad as the scenario presented by these stories (which serve as good cautionary tales in general, for those who tend to forget the price of freedom). But they're definitely undesirable and worth fighting against, even if they're as bad as it would get.

lisarea · 09-16-2002, 03:15 PM

This whole idea that it's somehow patriotic rather than seditious to support government endorsement of religion is supremely ironic.

I'm honestly curious: Are they really that stupid, or does their emotion somehow cloud their ability to reason?

Gooch's dad · 09-17-2002, 06:57 AM

Galiel, you're quite welcome to quote my response, and I'm flattered that you asked. If you care to attribute it, my name is Kelly Cox.

Oresta, that stuff about Adams' constitution for Massachusetts is just fascinating. I hadn't run across that before.

I do know that many 'Christian Amendments' were proposed in various states during ratification debates, in 1787-1788. All these proposals were voted down.

So far, I've had mostly positive responses from the others who were on the 'reply to all' list. I got two poorly reasoned replies, one from the brother of the original spammer, which included this bizarre bit:

Quote:

I have no problem with a separation of Church and state yet a nation
must reflect the opinions and values of the majority of its peoples. We are
a nation that believes in God! Not everybody does and nobody has to be
shamed for not doing so, but to remove a term that reinforces the right to
be proud to worship a God because a small minority finds it "offensive" is
outrageous.

Huh? We aren't doing it because it is 'offensive', but because it violates the first amendment. I think this guy forgot to read what I wrote.

He also found it necessary to try to slander the town I live in:

Quote:

I noticed Miss Cox wrote in from Madison, Wisc. the home of the U.
Wisconsin and the infamous Donna Shalala. Only in a liberal haven like that
could Condoms be handed out, gay, and homosexual art like the Maplethorpe
Exhibit be encouraged to be shown with the use of public funds, yet a beer
ad for Spring break involving a Playboy promotion sparked outrage and
protest from the tainted minority; saying it was 'sexist' and exploitive.

Can you say 'poisoning the well'? Of course, he wouldn't even know what that meant.

Soon after my original reply, I got this from the woman who sent the spam:

Quote:

Dear friends, I am sitting at my friend XXXX' computer as she just notified
me that my "friend" Kelly Cox sent a nasty reply to all of you. I am livid and
I apologize for this because I only sent this message to those who would
appreciate my disappointment in Pepsi and congress allowing "under God" to be
eliminated from the pledge of allegiancee, especially during our nation's
tragedy when we need God the most, as I all know you agree. In the future I
will avoid sending everyone's name in my distribution list. Even if my own dear
friends don't agree as strongly as I do Kelly, they would let this kind of
email go, or just read it or whatever. My friends are all God fearing good
people. You are neither a God fearing man, which is your decision, nor are
you a friend to me any longer. How dare you insult and harass my friends. If
you don't agree with something, let it go, or combat me directly, but don't
involve my friends...instead why don't you go fucking drown yourself in a
barrel of Pepsi while I laugh my ass of drinking a Diet Coke!

What a Christian, eh? Wishing that I'd go drown myself? What lovingkindness. Apparently one of her 'god fearing friends' agreed with me and sent me this:

Quote:

Kelly, I wasn't harassed, and boy are you lucky that this woman is no longer
your friend. some Christian, huh?

I received several other very nice responses from people who sided with me on the church/state separation issue. One woman said she was a Christian and a teacher, but knew enough history to know that I was right. Good to hear news like that.

09-14-2002, 05:38 AM	#14
Oxidizing Material Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Somewhere where I don't know where I am Posts: 2,069	Nothing; I don't do drugs. [ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oxidizing Material ]</p>

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

09-13-2002, 07:33 PM	#11
Mecha_Dude Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Everywhere... I'm Watching you... Posts: 1,019	<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

09-13-2002, 10:56 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Oxidizing Material - what have you been smoking?

09-16-2002, 03:15 PM	#19
lisarea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 5,550	This whole idea that it's somehow patriotic rather than seditious to support government endorsement of religion is supremely ironic. I'm honestly curious: Are they really that stupid, or does their emotion somehow cloud their ability to reason?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.