anti-religious extremist gone too far??

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: The phrase "under God" is a statment that the USA is suboardinate to God. Not an additive to make the oath somehow more trustworthy.

But that’s going against the separation of church and state, since in this case the state is lending credence to the idea that a god does exist and that the U.S is subordinate to it (with all the things that entails…)[/QUOTE]Well that's the whole crux of the agruement that is going on here in the USA currently. The 1st amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no laws establishing religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. (Chewbacca earlier posted a link to the US Constitution, for each person to check out the Constitution themselves). It has been stated here and in other places that the words "under God" were added by an executive order of then President Esinhower(sp? yeah, yeah, I know but I just don't want to take up the time to look it up) which would not be by a law made By Congress, therefor Constituional. It has also been stated that the words "under God" were added by a law of Congress, therefor Unconstituional. I personally haven't got'en the straight poop on which one really happened! And I don't really care, because when I say the pledge of allegiance, I say it for myself and no other human on the face of this earth. If anyone doesn't want to say the pledge then they don't want to say it for themselves, and have the right not to say it! Or say it however they so wish.

The term "seperation of Church and State" originated with the Fedralist Papers, writings of some of the men that created the US Constitution, explaining their views on the Constitution and their vision of how this nation should work. Not all of the men that created the Constitution agreed with what was written in the Federaist Papers. Sep of C.& S has since been incorporated into several of the Supreme Court of the Unitied States decisions, based on part on the Federalist Papers. As for the rightness or wrongness of the SCoUS, I'll leave that up to each and every citizen of the USA.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: I was brought up a Jehovah's Witness, and wasn't allowed to stand up during the national anthem. I remember going to a concert once (of course, it wasn't played in school!) and having to stay sitting down, for religious reasons, when everyone else stood up. Quite hard when you're only 10![/QB]

Well, we had several families of JW's in my school and at age 10 my classmates and I were very understanding when several sat through the pledge of allegiance every morning. A teacher explained it was against their religious beliefs, said it was perfectly ok and nobody gave it a second thought or gave them any reason to feel badly over it.

I'd say it's all in how the school, teachers, parents and kids handle things. And I see no reason for taking the pledge away. This country was founded not by atheists running fom God and religion, but by people of faith who were in countries where only ONE religious view was tolerated at any given time because it was a STATE religion, the OFFICIAL religion, thus the accepted one. Those who differed were persecuted at worst and at best merely existed in some places. They left to find a place where they could worship in their own way.

The so called 'separation of church and state' was designed to address THAT issue. The Constitution says Congress cannot declare any ONE religion a STATE or official one at the expense of others. It does NOT say nobody may ever pray or use the word God/Jehovah/Allah etc... in a public place or building. The SPIRIT of the law was to protect the population from a state imposed official religion which at that time was the norm in most of Europe. It was not to protect them from ANY religion whatsoever. Personally, I don't feel that if a child says a prayer or sits quietly while someone else does, that they or we are being forced to follow any 'state' imposed religion.

In my opinion, schools should allow a short (few minutes) quiet period each morning where if a child WANTS to pray, he or she may. Or meditate or count holes in the ceiling or just wait to get on with business. But banning it or the pledge just makes the issue that much bigger and it won't go away on its own. Should be interesting to watch all the fighting and namecalling that will ensue now. Personally, I shall pray as I always have and hope for the best.

Funny how so many people in these debates often seem to feel that getting forceful with their own opinions will make what they say 'right' (LOL, or as Dram would have it, 'Left'! ).... all it does is add to the thread... and make a few folk reply. I don't see anyone here changing their minds after reading any of this... it's an excercise in exchanging views but a futile one if anyone gets too fired up, thinking he or she will sway another's thinking their way. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-29-2002, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Melusine: Hang on, I found it on bloody page 24... Moderator Status on IW Quote from the post by Memnoch: I just noticed that there seems to be a bit of confusion over the relative status of the moderators of each forum here at Ironworks - do moderators of one forum have policy authority at another forum where their name is not officially listed (eg Cloudy at GD, Mouse at BG2 etc). The short answer to this is YES. Ironworks moderators are Ironworks moderators, no matter what forum they are on. Just because they don't have admin authority to lock down threads doesn't mean that they don't speak with Ironworks authority when they have their "mod hats" on. Please respect their wishes as it is their job to make sure that the forum runs smoothly. If you have a problem with something a moderator does (and nobody's perfect), please communicate this to the moderator or the moderator team tactfully, in private (via email or PM). Our moderators are all very reasonable people and will be more than happy to listen to your comments if you phrase them in a polite way. I always reply to any PM or email sent to me and I'm certain that all the others do as well. Respect for authority (meaning ALL moderators) is something that is taken VERY seriously here, and this is not negotiable. Don't like it, don't want to abide by it, the door's that way - don't let it hit you on the way out.

Thanks for digging that up, Mel! [img]smile.gif[/img] Page 24? Hope the search function worked! Perhaps it's time to bump that baby for general information purposes.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Funny how so many people in these debates often seem to feel that getting forceful with their own opinions will make what they say 'right' (LOL, or as Dram would have it, 'Left'! ).... all it does is add to the thread... and make a few folk reply. I don't see anyone here changing their minds after reading any of this... it's an excercise in exchanging views but a futile one if anyone gets too fired up, thinking he or she will sway another's thinking their way. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course Cloudy. Only an idiot would think otherwise. What you resist persists, and all that.

If I get forceful, it's not because I'm trying to 'convert' others to my views. More that I sometimes enjoy interacting in a certain way. It certainly does spice a thread up when a couple or more people go head to head. Personally, I quite like it, as long as it doesn't go totally over the top.

When people get a tad pissed off, they are more likely to come out with what they really think, rather than the sweet sugar coating. Generally, it tends to be more interesting.

I'm aware that not everyone agrees with this viewpoint, however. But hey.

[AliCat]

Cloudy,
I know this is slightly off-topic, but it applies in a way: Why even have an official "moment of silence"? Seriously, if people want to pray, they're going to pray, and we all know that the time most folks pray in school is during the "moments of silence" that come when you turn over the test paper!! So why make something official when we all know that it's an attempt by the Religious Right to stick their noses into the public school system? Okay, maybe I said that a little strongly, but I did grow up in the public schools, and they do work just fine without religion getting involved, IMHO.

AliCat

[Mouse]

Glad though I am to see some old faces back and kicking up a storm in this thread, some of you might have missed a lot of the stuff that's been going on here, especially with regard to any thread that includes religion. Let me briefly bring you up to speed.

At the moment, we seem to be at a crossroads. There has been serious thought given to making religion a taboo subject here because of the ill feeling that seems to go hand-in-hand with the subject. I'm afraid the restraint and good humour that used to characterise most of the threads on GD seems to disappear when religion gets debated. Since the closing of the "War" forum, religion has caused more trouble for the Mods than any other subject.

One way or another, this must stop. Currently there are two choices.

a) Either those who hold sincere views and convictions on this subject self police the threads and make sure the debates are conducted in a manner that shows respect for everyone's diversity of opinion or
b)We embark on a new regime where the flamebaiting and bad blood will be dealt with by suspensions, bans and the subject of religion being no longer debatable here at IW.

Personally, I would prefer that we go for option a), but be in no doubt that option b) will be implemented if the situation deteriorates.

It's up to all of you who participate in this type of thread to influence how this subject will be handled in future.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Mouse: It's up to all of you who participate in this type of thread to influence how this subject will be handled in future.

Gotcha. Thanks for the info.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by : [QB][/QB]

Thanks, AliCat!

EDIT: Hey! Where did AliCat's post get to??? How bizarre........

[ 06-29-2002, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[AliCat]

Well, I'm glad YOU saw it, Silver Cheetah! I removed it and sent it privately to one of the moderators, so that I wasn't going to get kicked off from the board, as Memnoch's quote of the TOS does remind us.

Anyhow... back to the subject... I found it interesting about you sitting through those things. I didn't have religious reasons for same, but I did object in a student assembly to standing during the playing/singing of Bach's (????) Hallelujah Chorus (especially as the student choir/orchestra was rather lousy) primarily because of the religious implications in a state-run setting.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by AliCat: Cloudy, I know this is slightly off-topic, but it applies in a way: Why even have an official "moment of silence"? Seriously, if people want to pray, they're going to pray, and we all know that the time most folks pray in school is during the "moments of silence" that come when you turn over the test paper!! So why make something official when we all know that it's an attempt by the Religious Right to stick their noses into the public school system? Okay, maybe I said that a little strongly, but I did grow up in the public schools, and they do work just fine without religion getting involved, IMHO. AliCat

Ahh but refusing to allow me or mine a chance to have that silent moment TO pray could be seen as a ploy by the anti-religious left to take away my right to practice my religion the way I see fit, now couldn't it?

Alicat, we all have things we park on our 'agendas' and frankly I find this feuding over allowing or not allowing things like the pledge or a silent moment to be trivial compared to the massive problems facing us in so many areas. To me, seeing yet another law suit to remove the word "God" from a traditional place, is petty and wasteful. Yet I'm sure that there is someone out there who finds it worth their time and the most important issue in their lives.

To each his own, I guess. [img]smile.gif[/img]

To SC: I disagree on one main point. Making someone angry and upset is hardly a responsible way to hold a conversation, in my opinon. In fact, I'd have to say that it hampers communication in a lot of ways because personally, if I'm mad or offended, I'm less likely to really care what the other party thinks or if they even see my viewpoint. Things escalate to insults and injury rather than an exchange of opinions and thoughts. The very fact that the person is hurtful and purposely causes others to get angry says to me they aren't much interested in a fair exchange of views, but rather in a verbal duel or all out brawl.

I guess we come from different schools of thought on that one.

But maybe you refer simply to 'passion' about an issue. Getting passionate on a subject is one thing, getting rude or downright offensive is another.

That said, I'll add that as long as everyone shows maturity and respect, a good 'head to head' is fine. But if there's any hairpulling on either part, a Mod has to step in.

edit: PS, Alicat, I went to Public Schools too (well, I did go to a private school for part of first grade and fifth was on an AF base but we had a civilian teacher and after that all my schooling was in public institutions). We had quiet moments in my 6th grade, I can't recall about later on.. we also said the pledge in home room every morning and I don't think anyone expired from it, either! LOL

[ 06-29-2002, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]