Philosoft

No. Those "government entities" weren't established by decree of the government. The incorporation of existing townships is not tacit approval of the religious nature of the names, IMO.

Philosoft

What differences in currency? What freedom of speech? Are we not talking about the singular US dollar? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

John Page

According to the CNN report, the judge believes the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words 'under God,'

So, irrespective of what the judge personally believes (maybe he's a Confucian) the point is whether he's correctly interpreted the constituiton. Assuming that US citizens are all equally as free regarding their religious beliefs, it is clearly a burden on those who profess no god to have to state "under god" regarding their relationship with the state.

The only way out of this is for theists to prove there is a god that we are all under.

Cheers, John

Autonemesis

The US Navy does. The nuclear missile submarine USS Corpus Christi was renamed to USS City of Corpus Christi because it was deemed inapproproate to name a US warship "Body of Christ."

HAND

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

WJ

cope!

C'mon now, do you really think folks had held such a hidden aggenda?

"It was put there by people who wanted to make the point that most Americans are not atheists."

I thought it was put there by people who wanted freedom from "religion" and not the assertion that Gods exist (though it certainly assumes that). I guess I'm a little different. I do think that there ought to be separation of C/S mainly because of all the 'battles' relative to religious organizations/man-made dogma and such. But if I go to Japan or somewheres else and there is, what I'll call, such a "generic statement of belief", I'm still wondering what makes it appropriate for me to contest it? Perhaps in one sense, we are back to what it means to have and hold a "belief" (as the Judge so well pointed out in his reasoning).

The sticky whicket is that government should not impose or mandate any religious "beliefs" on the masses. But in a democracy, if the masses endorse a particular "belief" what "beliefs" are considered appropriate an inappropriate? It doesn't say, 'in catholicism we trust'.

I don't know, I'm just trying to get inside the minds of folks who contest such things and/or anticipate what will or could be be next, and why.
I suppose in theory, if the masses decide that believing in a God is not an appropriate endorsement for us here in america, it simply means that the masses don't believe in a God. And so to be consistent, any laws, customs, rules of conduct and behavior endorsed by american society/government ought to be examined for links back to sources from particular beliefs based upon such God(s).

Kind of seems like another double standard. If a principle is good and works for everyone, I'll take it(use it), otherwise... . I guess it goes back to the appropriatness of beliefs and how far reaching they are and what should they mean in terms of value and the purpose they should serve.

I would argue that our way of life rests on such principles and beliefs which overall, has been a very good thing for the country.

Just my two pennies.

Walrus

himynameisPwn

WJ, would you agree slavery was appropriate when the majority ruled so?

The majority isn't always right.

Yes, the government did have such an agenda to point out Americans were god fearing, because we were fighting the baby-eating atheist communists! Look up McCarthyism or study US history.

Why isn't secularism good for everyone? You certainly cannot agree that we should establish a Judeo-Christian religion(which is what anything under God does)? Government should never fund religion.

The Other Michael

All of those places were named before they were incorporated into the United States, not afterwards.

cheers,
Michael

The Other Michael

Perhaps "USS Bloody Smiting Hand of Christ" would have been OK? Certainly more accurate a representation (thats right, I forgot that Jesus had nothing to do with the Crusades or various inquisitions).

cheers,
Michael

John Page

I'm agnostic about that. However, since some legal tender refers to god and not others, yet all seem to function as a medium of exchange, I would say its a purely a matter of taste and democratic vote (as long as the rights of the minority are not infringed upon).

Taste? Why yes, the stamping us surely a combination of an anti-forgery device and aesthetic embellishment.

Perhaps, depending upon the ratio of atheists to theists, different factions should take turns. This way we could have, for example, the "godollar", the "cent from allah", "sidartha's nickel" and the "nondenomenational dime".

Cheers, John

John Page

I agree, god never signed a 1040 so why should it get a tax break? god's a non-profit? - it's certainly been expensing those options to get into heavan. The US has a worldwide income tax rule, let's get that extended.

Cheers, John