Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Elation · 05-01-2002, 02:44 PM

Quote:

The recent column, "Church-state wall crumbling," accuses Florida of trying to "sneak any mention of God into schools" by requiring school children to memorize part of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In the author's apoplexy over the audacity of Thomas Jefferson to mention a creator, she overlooks the gist of the statement. Which does she really have a problem with: The idea of equality and having school children memorize that concept as part of our national heritage; or the idea that, for the founders of this nation, our rights and equality stem from an endowment by a "creator?"

The author makes the ringing claim that "one of the founding precepts of this nation is that civil society will be secular." Unfortunately, she is flat wrong. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that civil society will be "secular." The framers of the Constitution sought to avoid the establishment of a required state religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They in no way intended that religion or people of religion be excluded from the public zone.

The author credits the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act to the vast right-wing conservative conspiracy. I don't know anything about the bill, but her blatant falsehoods about history cause me to question her opinion on anything.

I was not able to read the article that this person is criticizing, but I think her claims are excessive in the third paragraph. Yeah, the Constituion doesn't specifically say "secular"--but then again, the Constitution doesn't specifically acknowledge "god" either.

The later half of that paragraph is irritating. What irks me is that the criticizers of church/state separation accuse c/s supporters of attempting to ban religion from society. That is not the case! Simply, government must be separate from religion. That is all.

As for my opinion, I would be against Flordia's Declaration of Independence plan because they are compelling the students to acknowledge the "creator"--there is no doubt that this means a deity. The Florida government would be promoting the students to accept the existence of a god, and I disagree with this.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

Atari2600 · 05-02-2002, 08:11 AM

Well, for me, the key word in the Declaration is the one right before "creator". You know, the one most people forget about or read as "the". To me, that phrase can be interpreted to mean many things. It's up to the reader, but it sure doesn't establish a specific "creator" in my book. My creator was my parents, and I am thankful for the December in 72 that they decided to get busy.

Jamie_L · 05-02-2002, 08:18 AM

I have no problem with kids reading and even memorizing the Declaration of Independence. But why not the whole thing? Why this one little part? I hate it when people try to use "history" and "heritage" to mask religious motives.

The worst is people pushing to post the Ten Commandments or "In God We Trust" under the guise of "history", "heritage", or other excuses. The attempt to mix religion with government is bad enough, but don't lie about it. If you want God in the schools, at least have the balls and integrity to say so. Why on earth would you fight so hard otherwise?

Would they kick and scream to make kids memorize the next part: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?

Lying sacks of *&#*.

Jamie

ex-idaho · 05-02-2002, 09:02 AM

Something that I always think of when I read that portion of the Constitution is that at the time it was written there was no other accepted origin for man other than a creator.

Of course Jefferson and the other framers cited a creator in the document as the source for human rights. They lacked the scientific insight that we are so fortunate to have in our time.

It is a silly argument just as the 2nd amendment people are making a silly argument suggesting that they should keep guns to fight an insurgent government.

Wizardry · 05-02-2002, 11:50 AM

Actually, I believe that the Florida Law involves repeating the whole Declaration of Independence, one section at a time every day for a whole week in September in every Social Studies class.

It's a monumental waste of time that could be better spent doing things that the kids will actually pay attention to.

RufusAtticus · 05-02-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by idaho:
<strong>
the 2nd amendment people are making a silly argument suggesting that they should keep guns to fight an insurgent government.</strong>

With Ashcroft and Bush in charge and a growing influence of fundies in politics, that is not a silly argument.

-RvFvS

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

05-02-2002, 08:11 AM	#2
Atari2600 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: IN, USA Posts: 36	Well, for me, the key word in the Declaration is the one right before "creator". You know, the one most people forget about or read as "the". To me, that phrase can be interpreted to mean many things. It's up to the reader, but it sure doesn't establish a specific "creator" in my book. My creator was my parents, and I am thankful for the December in 72 that they decided to get busy.

05-02-2002, 08:18 AM	#3
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I have no problem with kids reading and even memorizing the Declaration of Independence. But why not the whole thing? Why this one little part? I hate it when people try to use "history" and "heritage" to mask religious motives. The worst is people pushing to post the Ten Commandments or "In God We Trust" under the guise of "history", "heritage", or other excuses. The attempt to mix religion with government is bad enough, but don't lie about it. If you want God in the schools, at least have the balls and integrity to say so. Why on earth would you fight so hard otherwise? Would they kick and scream to make kids memorize the next part: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? Lying sacks of &#. Jamie

05-02-2002, 09:02 AM	#4
ex-idaho Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Spudtopia, ID Posts: 5,315	Something that I always think of when I read that portion of the Constitution is that at the time it was written there was no other accepted origin for man other than a creator. Of course Jefferson and the other framers cited a creator in the document as the source for human rights. They lacked the scientific insight that we are so fortunate to have in our time. It is a silly argument just as the 2nd amendment people are making a silly argument suggesting that they should keep guns to fight an insurgent government.

05-02-2002, 11:50 AM	#5
Wizardry Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 363	Actually, I believe that the Florida Law involves repeating the whole Declaration of Independence, one section at a time every day for a whole week in September in every Social Studies class. It's a monumental waste of time that could be better spent doing things that the kids will actually pay attention to.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.