The American Image

[toresica]

Well, unless Atheisim wants to be viewd as a Religion, I see no way in which it can claim to be persecuted under Religious Discrimination.
And do you think that an athiest is so weak in his beliefs (or lack thereof) that saying two little words will have his faith (or lack there of) crumbiling to the ground?
And, like I said, "God" is ambiguous. The only religion that does not belive in a God (that springs to mind) are several forms of Buddhisim.
Truth is, the burden of proof is on YOU for saying that there is a dire need to get rid of all patriotisim and all mentioning of God.

You seem to be mixing up Atheism and Agnosticism. Atheists are sure that there is no God, while Agnostics feel that there may or may not be a God - we just can't know.

Paladin Solo, how would you feel about having to stand up every morning and say, "The earth is flat. The Sun travels in a boat over the sky every day, and rests at night."? That's part of the Egyptian belief, but today people don't believe that. It's a fair analogy.

Second, 3,000 people *exaporated*, or jumped out of windows, or burned to death. The bloodiest day in American history sense Antitem.

True, but in the Middle East, they're used to seeing people die. I don't have any exact data to cite, but 3000 people dying in the Middle East wouldn't shock the world nearly so much. In the next few weeks after Sept. 11th, I heard people say that 3000 people die in terrorist attacks so frequently that it's become part of their everyday lives. This comes back to the conversation in "Mowing the Iraqi".

Said it before and I will say it again, "God" is ambiguious. Little Omar Sherrif might have a Muslim God in mind, little Daniel Goldberg might be thinking of a Jewish God, little Sanjay Dravidian might have Shiva in mind, little freaky Danny Black might have Thor, or Athena in mind.

Nitpicking here, but Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (I think) all share the same God.
The point is more about the atheists who have to say it every morning.

The Promise of the Girl Guides of Canada has a line that mentions God, but there is also an option for atheists and people with other beliefs: the official words say, "to do my duty to my God/faith and Canada". (where people are supposed to say either God or Faith, not both. IMHO that's a lot more inclusive.

 

[OnTheBounce]

Faith is a lot different then ignorance. If you read the book called "The Case for Christ", you'll read about lots of people who became Christians only after reading through the Bible and researching things...

This argument is flawed. Arguments rely on facts, this one is an example of an abusive argumentum ad hominem, but in the positive sense, rather than the more usual negative sense. The argument can be re-stated as "these people believe it, ergo it must be true!"

I will grant you that some people are more apollonian than dionysian in their approach to faith -- that is, they have a rational (in the psychological sense of "sober-minded") component to their reasons for accepting their faith, but the fact remains that they accept something as certain w/o any reason to see it as certain. That is why I say that on the Epistemelogical Gauge (tm) the area maked "Faith" is close to "Ignorance" than to the "Knowledge". (BTW, I feel it only fair to mention that absolute certainty is something that is impossible for human knowledge to attain. We perceive reality through our senses and therefore reason a posteriori, which leaves us w/at a high probability of truth, but never certainty.)

As for Lee Strobel I know his books all too well. These were the things that my father beat me over the head w/as a child. Unfortunately for Mr. Strobel, he is living proof that being legal editor for a Chicago newspaper does not exempt one from circular reasoning or being completely lacking in understanding of basic epistemology. You mentioned that The Case for Christ is somewhat biased. I'd go a bit further, and say that it is wholly biased. Nowhere will you find him interviewing any authority that isn't a Christian. The only voice that the opposition is allowed in that book -- or any of his others -- is that given them by Strobel's Straw Man arguments. He is a polemecist and an apologist, but not on open-minded inquirer.

...such as how reliable our evidence of Jesus is - they found that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Jesus having been the Messiah. (Granted, that book is kind of biased - I've been trying to find a book of the opposite viewpoint to read and get a balanced picture - but the fact that those historians and archeologists converted after doing the research remains).

Reliable evidence? Where? The only evidence we have outside of the Gospels -- none of which were written within Christ's lifetime, probably not even within the same century -- is supposedly in Tacitus and Josephus. Neither of them wrote during the supposed span of Christ's life. Also, the reference in Tacitus mentions only "followers of Kristus" who were persecuted during the reign of Nero after Rome burnt, while we can reject Josephus' reference on this basis.

Strobel's argument also basically comes down to the same one that C.S. Lewis used ("Lord, Lunatic, or Liar"). It's a variation of what is known as a "Fallacy of Bifurcation", which is when you argue that something must be either one or the other, except that it's essentially "trifurcation" since he insists that it be one of the three and not accepting that the truth may lie in any number of other explanations.

But I will bring up the point that some of you are using "religion" where "Christanity" would be a lot more appropriate.

I can't speak for others, but I'm as certain as can be that I'm not mislabeling things. Religions -- regardless of whether we're talking about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or New Age -- is a private issue. I would oppose any of them trying to make state-sponsored in-roads into public life.

Now, in closing I will say that I'm sorry if the tone of my post offended you, toresica. I admit it was over-the-top and that it was posted when I was a bit hot under the collar. I didn't mean to side-track the coversation into religion itself, merely to illustrate why it is that seperation of church and state is something worth fighting for.

Edit:

So your ancestors are from Northern Germany?
When did they become Atheists?

Paraphrased, not x-lated, CC.

My "Amurican" grandmother said what I paraphrased. She used to say, "Want in one hand, shit in the other; see which one gets full faster." Wanting and believing can be similar, so I took the liberty of paraphrasing that bit some years ago.

You seem to be mixing up Atheism and Agnosticism. Atheists are sure that there is no God, while Agnostics feel that there may or may not be a God - we just can't know.

Actually, it's a bit more sticky than that. Atheism is simply not believing in god(s). There are "strong" and "weak" strains, the former takes the position that there is no god(s) and actively disbelieves, while the latter simply does not believe in the existance of god(s) and in effect encompasses at least some forms of Agnosticism. There's no simple dividing line between the two.

OTB

 

[John Uskglass]

Actually, it's a bit more sticky than that. Atheism is simply not believing in god(s). There are "strong" and "weak" strains, the former takes the position that there is no god(s) and actively disbelieves, while the latter simply does not believe in the existance of god(s) and in effect encompasses at least some forms of Agnosticism. There's no simple dividing line between the two.

Considering that the word Agnosticisim arose from a need for a man to tell Victoria he was something other then an Athiest (enter Huxely), I would entirely agree.

More to come, but I need breakfast.

 

[Sander]

Some small bits here:

A) Atheism SHOULD be viewed as a religion, because there are no real good arguments for it, no more than there are for any other religion. Therefore, atheists can be relgiiously discriminated, simply because they BELIEVE that there is no god. Please don't take anti-Christianity as the same as Atheism, though, because it isn't. Some people say "I'm an atheists, because I don't trust the bible/think it's bull." But they're not really atheists, merely anti-Christians.

B) Agnosticism encompasses multiple things, but if you take atheism as believing that there is no god, then agnosticism would be not knowing what there is/believing that there could very wel be something, but whatever it is, you don't know. However, agnosts can still feel that certain religions are wrong.

C) According to every single non-Islamic state nowadays, religion and state should stay seperated, and there is good reason for this. First of all, religion tends to make things more extreme, and tends to cause discrimination(Ever seen America's Next Top Model? There are some good examples of how someone can feel discriminated there.) Some people, mainly those of the concerned relgiion, think otherwise. They, however, tend to think about it on the short term, and are automatically biased, giving them a flawed perspective.

 

[Ozrat]

Truth is, the burden of proof is on YOU for saying that there is a dire need to get rid of all patriotisim and all mentioning of God.

I'm not attacking patriotism here, I'm trying to point out that there's a difference between patriotism and blindly following the flock. A big one at that too. Once again, there is absolutely no valid reason why the line is in the pledge, and it was perfectly acceptable the way it was before. Isn't it about time we changed something so outdated and unconstitutional back to the way it was?

And do you think that an Athiest is so weak in his beliefs (or lack thereof) that saying two little words will have his faith (or lack there of) crumbiling to the ground?

My point was that hearing the altered pledge has been a daily ritual for kids in school for DECADES now. How are they supposed to be brought up knowing the true American ideals when they aren't being exposed to it in their education? The longer kids are forced to hear a spiritual preference in their day to day lives, the lower the number of those who realize that this concept is simply against the church/state constitutional separation.

Also, I didn't go to my school a week or so after the 9/11 incident, this was right around the time of my graduation, a whole nine months after it happened. The initial shock and national mourning was over by this time, yet the changes in how my public school treated patriotism had not subdued yet, if ever. I do recall asking my friends who were a year younger than me how things were the next year, and they informed me that neither the flags nor the Pledge of Allegiance had a quieter profile than before.

You'd perfer it was the Socialist mumbojumbo that was first uttered?

And which part of your ass did you pull this gem from? I know and love the Pledge of Allegiance for what it stands for and that's why I want to see it changed back to its pure form.

The Promise of the Girl Guides of Canada has a line that mentions God, but there is also an option for atheists and people with other beliefs: the official words say, "to do my duty to my God/faith and Canada". (where people are supposed to say either God or Faith, not both. IMHO that's a lot more inclusive.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I'm still learning about Canada every day. I was not aware of this before, but this seems to be a much better way to deal with the separation of church and state. Are there any other relevant Canadian examples in the church/state arena?

 

[Ozrat]

You and I? Like this (Murdoch does that eye to eye thing with his hand)

I'm curious...

Is it like this?

or like this?

And Ozrat... *tries to do the eye to eye thing with the hand, but pokes his eyes instead* Ouch.

Sorry to hear about your mishap!

 

[toresica]

I'd go a bit further, and say that it is wholly biased.

True.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I'm still learning about Canada every day. I was not aware of this before, but this seems to be a much better way to deal with the separation of church and state. Are there any other relevant Canadian examples in the church/state arena?

Uh... not really any examples I can think of of Canada doing a good job in the chuch/state arena.
Both the French and the English version of the National Anthem contain references to God or faith: "God keep our land glorious and free" in English, and the French version has: "Car ton bras sait porter l'epee, il sait porter la croix" (which translates roughly to "since you can wield a sword, you can also carry the cross").
The thing about the French version is that there are lots of Canadian elementary-school students who have to sing it every day, without knowing what the words mean. For example, I was in French Immersion from Kindergarten to grade 6, but it wasn't until grade 8 that I actually found out what the words meant. (I'd thought that the "de foi trempee" was "deux fois trompee" - or "we were wrong twice", instead of "infused with/soaked in faith")
(Sorry about not putting in the accents).

 

[Daemon Spawn]

Like this:

 

[Ozrat]

 

[Gwydion]

From the Declaration of independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

From the Great Seal of the United States, the finalized design of which was submitted in 1782:

Annuit Coeptis ("God has favored our undertaking")

The idea that the Constitution forbids any religion or religious symbols from being associated with government is a relatively new one. My guess is that as a mainstream American idea, it's newer than the "God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance and the "In God We Trust" on money.

 

[quietfanatic]

My even longer post was just lost in a fatal error. Divine intervention? No, just microsoft. I will summarise from (bad short term) memory.

People should be free from religion if they so choose. Children should not have to take oaths because they don't understand them and do not need that responcibility. (I found the scene in the film, School of Rock "I pledge to do what I'm told etc." illustrates this point). Pledges should not need unnecessary religious elements because they offend people of other nominations and restrict personal freedom.

In Australia, few people know the oath and kids do not have to say it at school. I think this is good. However I know the oath because I perform in a brass band monthly at citizenship ceremonies. New migrants have to take an oath or affirmation as a 'solemn act of law' to prove that they will become accountable citizens who wish to become Australian. Because many of the people are not part of the three desert religions we have two versions.

From this time forward,
(under God),
I pledge my loyalty,
to Australia,
and its people,
whose democratic beliefs,
I share,
whose rights and liberties,
I respect,
and whose laws,
I will uphold and obey.

Then the mayor gives his unchanging speech and the new citizens get a banksia tree and their citizenship papers to the strains of Waltzing Matilda, (our ‘real’ national song, written about a sheep stealer, composed by a German).

Church and state must be completely separate for democracy to work and although it might be easy to use religious belief/hysteria to justify a nation’s actions, they should not do it, because it alienates the people and can cause large groups to become hostile in reaction to immoral practises. The rednecks can have politics in their churches but it should not be inflicted on people by a supposedly secular government.

The ramblings of the fanatically moderate, or is that moderately fanatical Agnostic,
quietfanatic

 

[Sander]

Annuit Coeptis

The word God is nowhere in that latin sentence. From what I can translate quickly, it means "He has favored out undertaking." God is most definitely not in it.

What's more, all of the other examples you call upon can simply be viewed as expression not having to specifically do with Christianity, but more with a general thing, that there may be a Creator, a Supreme Judge and Providence somewhere.

EDIT: According to my dictionary, Annuit Coeptis means: He nods at our undertaking. Which could be interpreted as "He agrees with our undertaking." Still no god, though.

 

[Murdoch]

You and I? Like this (Murdoch does that eye to eye thing with his hand)

I'm curious...

Is it like this?

or like this?

hmm, more like make a gun with your hand, and shake your wrist in that aristocratic way between us. Or something. Funny how some actions actually translate better over the internet.

 

[Gwydion]

Annuit Coeptis

The word God is nowhere in that latin sentence. From what I can translate quickly, it means "He has favored out undertaking." God is most definitely not in it.

What's more, all of the other examples you call upon can simply be viewed as expression not having to specifically do with Christianity, but more with a general thing, that there may be a Creator, a Supreme Judge and Providence somewhere.

EDIT: According to my dictionary, Annuit Coeptis means: He nods at our undertaking. Which could be interpreted as "He agrees with our undertaking." Still no god, though.

Just what 'He' do you think they're refering to? George III? Heh.

Indeed, Sander, the issue is not that Christianity was somehow the official religion of the US. The point is that the idea of the Constitution acting as a restraining order that forces religion to stay 500 ft away from state at all times is not some treasured American tradition dating back to the founding fathers.

 

[Brother None]

Just what 'He' do you think they're refering to? George III? Heh.

Indeed, Sander, the issue is not that Christianity was somehow the official religion of the US. The point is that the idea of the Constitution acting as a restraining order that forces religion to stay 500 ft away from state at all times is not some treasured American tradition dating back to the founding fathers.

Sadly no, which shows again how outdated the American political system is.

Y'know Norbert Elias argued that the greatest spur of civilization happened between the time of the humanists and the time of the French revolution, so basically from the early 16th century to the early 19th, which means that the old American constitution is in no way outdated.

He was wrong.

Archaic constitutions and political systems, like the Dutch monarchy, the American electoral college, the English electoral college, do exist, but they're not justified in their existance simply by existing.

The fact that some religious smokeys decided a couple of hundred years ago that religion and state went together perfectly (which made sense, since there weren't too many unreligious people back then) doesn't make it valid now.

That asides, however, since you're not really arguing the American constitution is right in tying God and state together, you're simply arguing that the American constitution was not in the basics alien to this concept, which is true

Stupid and outdated.

But true.

 

[Gwydion]

Archaic constitutions and political systems... the American electoral college... [does] exist, but [its] not justified in [its] existance simply by existing.

Indeed. What is nice about the American electoral college is that given our limited two-party system, I can support a third-party candidate and not worry about helping out someone I'd like least of all. In other words, I'm not forced to vote for one of the mainstream candidates in order to vote against the other, like I'd have to without the electoral college.

The fact that some religious smokeys decided a couple of hundred years ago that religion and state went together perfectly (which made sense, since there weren't too many unreligious people back then) doesn't make it valid now.

That is flat out misconstruing what the founding fathers did. They made references to God, but I defy you to show one instance in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or early legislation where they made a decision that was clearly guided by religion alone.

 

[Sander]

Just what 'He' do you think they're refering to? George III? Heh.

Indeed, Sander, the issue is not that Christianity was somehow the official religion of the US. The point is that the idea of the Constitution acting as a restraining order that forces religion to stay 500 ft away from state at all times is not some treasured American tradition dating back to the founding fathers.

Yes, this is true. But your translation was incorrect, and the replacement of he with God can have some severe consequences. The main thing being that you are tying one religious group with the constitution, instead of leaving it open for everyone to decide. You do not know what the founding fathers tried to say, and neither did I. Whatever the case, I'd prefer it if translations were literal, and not interpretational, so that everyone can decide what they think about it.
And one more thing, it isn't in the constitution, but in the declaration of independence, which makes it no law, but merely a thought. You are right, though, Gwydion, that it isn't so thatvthe founding fathers wanted religion and state to be wholly seperated.

But Kharn is also right. It being there doesn't justify it.

That is flat out misconstruing what the founding fathers did. They made references to God, but I defy you to show one instance in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or early legislation where they made a decision that was clearly guided by religion alone.

I don't think that's what Kharn's trying to say. Methinks he's demonstrating that, whatever the reason, because people thought that there was no reason for religion and state NOT to be mixed(This does NOT mean that religion should guide everything, nor that that's how they made decisions), that doesn't make it right in the present age.

Indeed. What is nice about the American electoral college is that given our limited two-party system, I can support a third-party candidate and not worry about helping out someone I'd like least of all. In other words, I'm not forced to vote for one of the mainstream candidates in order to vote against the other, like I'd have to without the electoral college.

So you're saying that it's bad, but that something in there is good compared to the badness?(Ehh..bad sentence. Bah.)

 

[toresica]

Because many of the people are not part of the three desert religions we have two versions.

From this time forward,
(under God),
I pledge my loyalty,
to Australia,
and its people,
whose democratic beliefs,
I share,
whose rights and liberties,
I respect,
and whose laws,
I will uphold and obey.

What's the other version?

 

[Brother None]

Indeed. What is nice about the American electoral college is that given our limited two-party system, I can support a third-party candidate and not worry about helping out someone I'd like least of all. In other words, I'm not forced to vote for one of the mainstream candidates in order to vote against the other, like I'd have to without the electoral college.

Huh? I don't get what you're sayin at all, unless you're being sarcastic...If you support a third-party candidate, your vote's basically forfeit. Which is nice 'n all, and you're free to do that, but I don't see the point.

Whereas the Rhineland model allows you to support any party you wish to, and as long as minimum of people do the same (1/150th of the voters in Holland), your vote gets representation.

I think the difference in freedom between "vote third-party for no effect" or "vote third-party and get represented" makes a vital different between the Rhineland model and the Anglo-Saxon model.

I think you're confusing the Rhineland model with the French model of presidential elections, which is the only system in the world more retarded than the electoral college.

 

[Gwydion]

No, I'm not talking about Rhineland models or French models here.

The electoral college, under its current system, provides us with a bit of a buffer. For some states, it's basically a foregone conclusion as to which party wins and gets the votes. Kansas, for example, will almost certainly be a Republican state in the next election; I've lived here for two Presidential elections and we have never really received any campaign attention from either party. It doesn't matter, then, who I vote for. I can support a third party and help them gain political momentum for a while without worrying about what effect my vote will have on who becomes President. It's true that after a certain point, voting for third parties will still hurt one of the two mainstream parties; there's no avoiding that. But for a while, at least, we have that protection, and that's one less obstacle in the way of getting people to support third parties.

Now, if we simply remove the electoral college system, my vote, and the vote of others around me, suddenly matters a lot more. Even one person supporting a third party will hurt one of the mainstream parties, so everyone is more likely to vote for the lesser of two evils.

If we could remove the electoral college sytem and somehow guarantee that other parties would be viable choices, then that would be fine. What I'm getting at is that in another system the electoral college might not make a whole lot of sense, but it still has some value here.