Still One Nation, Under God

[Timber Loftis]

Hey, Cerek, let's really trace back that Christian influence and see how important it is.

How many of our founding fathers were non-Christian? Anyone? Bueller?

When did "In God We Trust" get put on the money? In the courtroom? Anyone? Bueller?

And Yorick can make his argument that "God" can mean Buddha, Shiva, Athena, Uranus, Demeter, Loki, Cthulu, Horus, or whatever, but no, "God" tends to mean the Christian/Jewish "God" otherwise known as "Jahweh" or "I am." We all know that, and any pretense otherwise is reverse-engineering the saying so it does not offend rather than reading the phrase as it was meant.

Not that I care. I'm fine with the slogans and the "God" this and "God" that. It bothers me, an atheist, not a bit. I think society *needs* religion, whether or not I subscribe to it, so I really don't mind. I'm just pointing out the flaws in any argument that there's some sort of rhyme or reason to the whole structure. There ain't -- it's all fiat of a majority at a given time. Now, we think it's venerable, or "traditional," but it ain't -- it's just older than us.

[ 06-15-2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hey, Cerek, let's really trace back that Christian influence and see how important it is. How many of our founding fathers were non-Christian? Anyone? Bueller?

That is precisely why I stated that the assertion of our country being "founded" on Christian principles was debatable. Before the subject was taboo, there were many threads claiming that most of our founding fathers were deists rather than Christians - and some claimed they were actually atheists.

Documentation of statements would then be offered as evidence to substantiate the claim, only to be followed by other statements by the same founding father that would indicate they were, indeed, a Christian.

Since nobody here knew any of them personally, I submit that the personal theologies of the founding fathers (and how much that theology or lack thereof influenced their actions and decisions) will always be debatable.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Stratos: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Good. It's a stupid argument against anyway. Arrogant in fact. Arrogant in the assumption that every person reciting the pledge has the Western concept of who and what God is while they recite it. Is God "everything in existence" as per pantheist Hindus/Buddhists etc, a human concept as per Atheism/Humanism or an omnipresent personality as per monotheistic Christianity/Judaism/Islam? Why should Atheism become the state worldview? Isn't that what happens if you remove any and every mention of the metaphysical? Enforce and legislate atheism?

I disagree, not mentioning God does not make anything atheistic but since a higher power have putted a ban on religious discussions, we unfortunately can't discuss this further.

(Just wanted to have the last word. [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) [/QUOTE]Banning people from mentioning their God, and legislating to ensure people cannot make reference to their faith or God is legislating atheism.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, if their religious proclivity is debateable at best, then the most we can do is give meaning to their words. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress passed a law putting the phrase "under God" into the pledge of allegience to the Republic. Seems pretty cut and dried that Congress did what it was not allowed to do.

[Timber Loftis]

Banning people from mentioning their God, and legislating to ensure people cannot make reference to their faith or God is legislating atheism.

Sure -- mention your God all you want. You are free to stand on street corners shouting hallelujah far and wide, just as the Naked Cowboy is free to sing songs in his underoos. But, when you put your God in OUR pledge of allegience you have gone from proclaiming what you want to making me proclaim what you want me to. A big big difference.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: And Yorick can make his argument that "God" can mean Buddha, Shiva, Athena, Uranus, Demeter, Loki, Cthulu, Horus, or whatever, but no, "God" tends to mean the Christian/Jewish "God" otherwise known as "Jahweh" or "I am." We all know that, and any pretense otherwise is reverse-engineering the saying so it does not offend rather than reading the phrase as it was meant.

Very American response. However, if the phrase was inserted to distinguish from the "Godless" communists, then all those are applicable. Russia and China legislated against Buddhism (The Dalai Lama still suffers as a result of this) Falun Gong, Christianity, Taoism, Islam... the lot.

The fact is, the concepts of who or what God is, vary drastically. "One nation under God" can mean very different things to whomever is saying the phrase - if they even say those lines. If the writers meant "Jesus" they could have written "Jesus". If they meant "Yhwh" they could have written "Yhwh". A Muslim would have no problem uttering that statement. "Allah" is the Arabic for "God". Nor a Hindu. "God" is Brahman. Everything. Nor a Jew. Nor a Taosit. The only worldview that possibly takes umbrage is Atheism So the Atheist will enforce their worldview on every other religion or worldview. Nice one.

Cencorship gets another kick in the nuts! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

"We all know that..." was the American response. No we don't all know that Timber. Tsk tsk.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Not that I care. I'm fine with the slogans and the "God" this and "God" that. It bothers me, an atheist, not a bit. I think society *needs* religion, whether or not I subscribe to it, so I really don't mind.

But this however is awesome. You're the man Timber. Very openminded and mature viewpoint.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: A ballot referendum amounts to simple majority rule -- and that's not our system here. Our system in fact has a "check" against simple majority rule, it's called the constitution. So, when majority rule prefers "under God," that's all well and good so long as it does not offend the constitution. In particular, the phrase that the government shall "respect no establishment of religion" as found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I agree with Davros on one important point here -- it means a lot to me that the phrase was only inserted post-WWII to separate us from the pinko commies. If the phrase was traceable back to our venerable founding fathers, I would consider it more, well... venerable.

While the idea that our nation was founded on Christian Principles may be debatable, the influence of Christianity on our heritage cannot be denied. God has always been an important influence on American culture - especially during the early years of our formation.

While the Constitution provides checks and balances to protect the minority view from being overrun, the "democratic majority rule" is also a fundamental part of our heritage. If the majority of the people want the phrase "Under God" left in the Pledge - then the gov't is NOT "establishing a religion", it is honoring the wishes of the majority of the population. As long as the pledge isn't made mandatory, the argument that the state or gov't is "establishing a state religion" is invalid.

Yes, I understand that non-Christians may be ostracized by their peers for not saying the pledge - but this is true of anybody that chooses NOT to follow the majority on ANY issue you bring up. [/QUOTE]Well said. It's like trying to remove the flag from govt buildings because it's offensive to a minority.