Freethought & Rationalism Archive

enemigo · 06-30-2002, 08:52 PM

I am in the middle of a discussion, on another board, concerning the pledge ruling. The person I am arguing with is arguing that this whole thing is not about constitutionality, its about atheists having their feelings hurt about being excluded. Here are some sample arguments:

Quote:

The whole reason he brought it to suit was because he was tired of being reminded that he is *different* than the rest of society.

Quote:

[Its] the borderline socialist thought that nobody must be made to feel different or left out, because if you don't have a group identity then you have no identity. Bullocks. What's wrong with being an individual and being different. This family is atheist, they are DIFFERENT. So what?

[quote]The issue is some people being made to *feel* different than everybody else. Boo-fucking-hoo.[quote]

Quote:

So, do you think you are not an American because of this law? Or do you just *feel* that way? Because, guess what, no matter what this law says, you are still an American. I don't know, maybe you just need to hear that every once in awhile.

Well.. you get the picture. I personally don't give a damn about the pledge. I don't think any pledge is necessary at all. However, I support the decision because I see it has a symbollic victory that makes the point that this country is not a Christian country.

I am interested in how other atheists feel about these "accusations."

richard

Toto · 06-30-2002, 10:50 PM

I think that concentrating on "hurt feelings" is a way of trivializing the issue.

<a href="http://www.morons.org/articles/1/1704?u=3432" target="_blank">Morons.org</a> has an interesting column.

enemigo · 06-30-2002, 11:24 PM

Yes I agree that it is trivializing the issue. That is why I am just throwing it right back at him like this:

"Oh no... The original pledge doesn't acknowledge the theists! We better include them in the pledge so that they don't feel excluded. Boo-fucking-hoo."

It works both ways. They felt excluded by the original pledge. Poor bastards.

edit: would his arguments be appropriately categorized as ad hominem arguments?

richard

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]

Nira · 07-01-2002, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by enemigo:


edit: would his arguments be appropriately categorized as ad hominem arguments?

richard

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]

Red herring.

Quote:

Red herring
This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.
"You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?"

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring</a>

Instead of discussing the issue, they attack something else that is easier to get support for. In this case Atheists.

It does not matter _ if _ Atheists are behind the lawsuit, or if they have their feelings hurt. It�s about the constitution and the issue about separation of Church and state.

enemigo · 07-01-2002, 02:25 AM

thank you nira,

His argument is that he doesn't even want to discuss constitutionality. Obviously because he knows there is no case against that. He is up-front about wanting only to debate motives. Would it still be considered a red herring?

richard

Nira · 07-01-2002, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by enemigo:
thank you nira,

His argument is that he doesn't even want to discuss constitutionality. Obviously because he knows there is no case against that. He is up-front about wanting only to debate motives. Would it still be considered a red herring?

richard

If the discussion is about the recent ruling it certainly is.

enemigo · 07-01-2002, 03:48 AM

Quote:

I said earlier:
Yes I agree that it is trivializing the issue. That is why I am just throwing it right back at him like this:
"Oh no... The original pledge doesn't acknowledge the theists! We better include them in the pledge so that they don't feel excluded. Boo-fucking-hoo."

It works both ways. They felt excluded by the original pledge. Poor bastards.

Ok, I just realized that using his argument against him is a tu quoque fallacy. It does make a very strong point though, and completely shows that even by his own reasoning that he is applying to atheists, the theists never should have put it there because they were just doing it to feel special.

Is it ok to use this kind of counter-argument even if it is tu quoque?

richard

Nira · 07-01-2002, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by enemigo:


Ok, I just realized that using his argument against him is a tu quoque fallacy. It does make a very strong point though, and completely shows that even by his own reasoning that he is applying to atheists, the theists never should have put it there because they were just doing it to feel special.

Is it ok to use this kind of counter-argument even if it is tu quoque?

richard

Why would you want to?

The argument for a separation of church and state stands solid on it's own, without having to turn to cheap shots.

If that's all one wants one could turn it around and ask the question of his/Christians motives and throw in some innuendoes.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61275-2002Jun16.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61275-2002Jun16.html</a>

It might give instant gratification, but in the long term you would be better served taking the high road.

queue · 07-01-2002, 06:31 AM

Quote:

The whole reason he brought it to suit was because he was tired of being reminded that he is *different* than the rest of society.

Mr. Newdow brought the suit because his daughter was put into the position of either stating what she did not believe (under God) or protesting the pledge and possibly being harassed or shunned because of the protest. He also brought the suit because the federal government was promoting a specific type of religion (monotheism) at the exclusion of all other religions. It was not because he was different.

Quote:

[Its] the borderline socialist thought that nobody must be made to feel different or left out, because if you don't have a group identity then you have no identity. Bullocks. What's wrong with being an individual and being different. This family is atheist, they are DIFFERENT. So what?

First off, everyone is different from everyone else, so that is irrelevent. Secondly if this person has a problem with socialists then he should not be saying the pledge either since it is attributed to being written by a Christian Socialist ( the Fox News link to the history of the pledge can be found <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56320,00.html" target="_blank">here</a> ).

[quote] The issue is some people being made to *feel* different than everybody else. Boo-fucking-hoo.[quote]

Quote:

So, do you think you are not an American because of this law? Or do you just *feel* that way? Because, guess what, no matter what this law says, you are still an American. I don't know, maybe you just need to hear that every once in awhile.

How would this person "*feel*" if it said under gods, or under Goddess (the christians do not believe that that their god is a male nor female so what would it matter if God or Goddess is used?)? The issue is that the federal government is promoting a specific type of religion (monotheism).

IMO, the pledge is contradictory with the phrase "under God" in it, since it is dividing the country into monotheists and everyone else (so it is not indivisible).

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: queue ]

Jamie_L · 07-01-2002, 06:53 AM

My response is this:

The suit was brought because it the pledge was violating the rights of this man's daughter, admittedly in a small way, but it a real way.

When you allow the will of the majority to override Consitutional rights, you defeat the purpose of rights. What is permissible in a small way eventually becomes permissible in larger ways.

This man cares about his daughter. He cares about her, and his liberty and freedom. The only way to defend that freedom is to defend the rights on which they are based. It's that simple.

If that's not a good enough motive, what is?

Jamie

06-30-2002, 11:24 PM	#3
enemigo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: atlanta, ga Posts: 691	Yes I agree that it is trivializing the issue. That is why I am just throwing it right back at him like this: "Oh no... The original pledge doesn't acknowledge the theists! We better include them in the pledge so that they don't feel excluded. Boo-fucking-hoo." It works both ways. They felt excluded by the original pledge. Poor bastards. edit: would his arguments be appropriately categorized as ad hominem arguments? richard [ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]</p>

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

06-30-2002, 10:50 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that concentrating on "hurt feelings" is a way of trivializing the issue. <a href="http://www.morons.org/articles/1/1704?u=3432" target="_blank">Morons.org</a> has an interesting column.

07-01-2002, 02:25 AM	#5
enemigo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: atlanta, ga Posts: 691	thank you nira, His argument is that he doesn't even want to discuss constitutionality. Obviously because he knows there is no case against that. He is up-front about wanting only to debate motives. Would it still be considered a red herring? richard

07-01-2002, 06:53 AM	#10
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	My response is this: The suit was brought because it the pledge was violating the rights of this man's daughter, admittedly in a small way, but it a real way. When you allow the will of the majority to override Consitutional rights, you defeat the purpose of rights. What is permissible in a small way eventually becomes permissible in larger ways. This man cares about his daughter. He cares about her, and his liberty and freedom. The only way to defend that freedom is to defend the rights on which they are based. It's that simple. If that's not a good enough motive, what is? Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.