The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=281137026183269)on Dec. 4 will again hear a challenge by Michael Newdow to the Pledge of Allegiance and its phrase "under God." Newdow won his prior lawsuit against the pledge until the Supreme Court, perhaps to avoid public outrage in the 2004 presidential election year, tossed out his case on a procedural technicality.

Is atheism in schools often censorship in disguise? Or does the author of the article slant it towards Christanity?

The Bill of Rights, as you know, has an amendment that calls for... Freedom of Religion AND Freedom of Speech. The United States was founded as a secular Republic by men who were students of the Enlightenment philosophy... they were Dieists, Unitarians, and Christians. They were very concerned that America not have established religions which become very powereful like in Europe.

Freedom of Speech----go out and proselitize, preach, what ever is lawful.

Freedom of Religion----go out and proselitize, preach, whatever is lawful.

BUT SINCE WE HAVE A SECULAR GOVERNMENT, NOT ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY! Such as schools, courts, government buildings, etc. Nothing that suggests a connection between the government and religion. Everything else, have at it! Build churches, mosques, temples, advertise, proseletize...

The insistence of some religious people to include the mention of God in public school amazes me. I’m not offended in any way; in fact I sometimes invoke the use of the term, but come on, why do some people push it so hard.

sadly christians spend too much time fighting among their denominations, and not enough working together, and to be honest, the US long ago stopped being truly christian because too many christians are not really active or merely want to practice religions according to their own ideas, not real christianity.

if all christians who claim to be actually voted only for christian political people, not by political party, then only chrinstian political people would be in office, and christian values would be inforced.

but freedom of speech is a person thing, not a forced group activity, so one can pray all they want, just not be told to by a teacher.

I think a lot of people don’t realize just how much liberty to practice their religion they really have. Usually the cases we hear about are odd-ball cases that involve activist breaking the rules, or ignorant school personnel.

“Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.

Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are constitutionally protected. Teachers may not reject or correct such submissions simply because they include a religious symbol or address religious themes. Likewise, teachers may not require students to modify, include or excise religious views in their assignments, if germane. These assignments should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance, appearance and grammar.”

http://www.logtv.com/films/schoolprayer/educate.htm

I have traveled to some places in South America before and I work with pastors in the far east, middle east and even places like england where there are all sorts of restrictions we take for granted here in the US, even differences between US and Canada on some church rights.

IN the US, we don't fear of someone coming in and shooting up the church, or we don't fear government coming in and arresting the pastor, many places in the world today that happens.

Why doesn't free speech includes prayer? Hello DC:

It does. You can pray anywhere you like. You just can't organize a prayer in school. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

Plus, if we had our choice of which Pledge of Allegiance to say, then I wouldn't mind if you said the Christian one, and I could say the other one. But, we only have ONE pledge. Therefore it's EVERYBODY'S pledge – not just the Christians. Inserting your god into our pledge separates and divides us into Christians and everybody else. That's not what a pledge of allegiance should do. Frankly, a pledge of allegiance has NOTHING to do with religion.

Clearly, it should be struck down.


Is atheism in schools often censorship in disguise? Of course, it's not surprising that when you see black, I see white.

In my view, the lack of organized prayer in public school is NOT atheism. But, you did give me a chuckle.

excon

First of all, DC's original post never mentioned schools. It mentioned a challenge to the words "under g-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance. So bringing schools into this discussion is a bit of a red herring. The question is whether the government has the right to force us to stop saying "under g-d" in the pledge, just because an individual or group of individuals don't like it. It would seem that freedom of expression includes the right to use the term "under g-d" in the pledge, and would also allow those who do not like that term to not use it. But is it constitutionally permissible to force a change in the Pledge of Allegiance under the First Amendment? I would think not.

However, if we are going to talk about prayer in schools, we should keep in mind that a court recently ruled that a public school had to provide washing basins for Muslim's to wash their feet and for specific Muslim prayer times as part of the daily schedules. I don't remember all the details, but I think the case was adjudicated in Detroit.

The argument made by the Muslims in the Detroit case was the Muslims have to pray at specific times of the day, and that one of those times comes out during school hours. Thus the need to pray duing school time is unavoidable for the Muslim community. And since the prayertime needed is only 20 minutes or so, it does not significantly interfere with scholastic activities.

The argument against Christian prayer in schools is that Christians do not hae specific prayer times during the day, and can pray after school hours without violating religious doctrine. Therefore, there should be Muslim prayer in schools, but not Chistian prayer.

However, what this argument fails to take into consideration is that Islam is not the only religion that requires prayers at specific times. Judaism has similar requirements. In specific, the Mincha (afternoon) prayer service must take place during school hours, and takes about 10-15 minutes. Using the same argument, the Detroit school system should also be providing for Jewish prayer services along with Muslim prayer services. But I haven't heard any judge make this ruling or stand up for this right.

So it seems to me that Islam is permitted and encouraged on school grounds, but Christianity and Judaism are discouraged on school grounds. That strikes me as a double standard.

Elliot

First of all, DC's original post never mentioned schools. But is it constitutionally permissable to force a change in the Pledge of Allegiance under the First Amendment? I would think not.Hello again, El:

Yes, he did. Go read it again.

Is it Constitutionally permissible to force a change in the Pledge?? It was changed some time in the 50's when your side ADDED the words "under God" to our already existing pledge. That happened before you were born. But it DID happen. If we changed it once, we can change it again. And, we should.

excon

Hello again, El:

Yes, he did. Go read it again.

Is it Constitutionally permissible to force a change in the Pledge???? It was changed some time in the 50's when your side, added the words "under God" to our already existing pledge. That happened before you were born. But it DID happen. If we changed it once, we can change it again. And, we should.

excon

Yes, by a vote. Not by the courts. That's the difference. One is making a choice and voting based on that choice. The other is being forced to do something with no say in the matter.

Elliot

ETW,

I think saying that Islam is encouraged on school grounds is going a little to far. If the court had ruled against a case for Judaism in school and for the Muslims the you and I would both be outraged (if that is the case let me know so I can be outraged). I do think that the school paying for the foot washing is a bit silly.

Although on second thought how do I go back to public school and sue them to provide strippers for my lap dances as required by my religion. Which I'm required to be in lap dance meditation for at least 1 hour a day from 8am to 2pm Monday through Friday. OOOO maybe I'm a rastafarian stirppertarian so they have to provide me with pot and strippers. It's my religion so they can't tell me no.

ETW,

I think saying that Islam is encouraged on school grounds is going a little to far. If the court had ruled against a case for Judaism in school and for the Muslims the you and I would both be outraged (if that is the case let me know so I can be outraged).

I don't see a real difference between ruling against Christianity and in favor of Islam vs. against Judaism and in favor of Islam. Either way, there's a double standard in favor of Islam and against other religions.


I do think that the school paying for the foot washing is a bit silly.

Agreed. And "silly" is not the word that I would use.


Although on second thought how do I go back to public school and sue them to provide strippers for my lap dances as required by my religion. Which I'm required to be in lap dance meditation for at least 1 hour a day from 8am to 2pm Monday through Friday. OOOO maybe I'm a rastafarian stirppertarian so they have to provide me with pot and strippers. It's my religion so they can't tell me no.

There you go. I like it. Can I convert?:p

Elliot

Hello DC:

It does. You can pray anywhere you like. You just can’t organize a prayer in school. I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand.

Plus, if we had our choice of which Pledge of Allegiance to say, then I wouldn’t mind if you said the Christian one, and I could say the other one. But, we only have ONE pledge. Therefore it’s EVERYBODY’S pledge – not just the Christians.

Ex, I didn't realize that recognizing "God" made it a distinctly Christian pledge. Does it?

Ex, I didn't realize that recognizing "God" made it a distinctly Christian pledge. Does it?

It doesn't make it distinctly Christian but it does make it distinctly religious. In order to understand how annoyed others are with this. Replace under god with under satan and that your kid is forced to say under satan in public school when saying the pledge.

Yes, by a vote. Not by the courts. That's the difference. Hello again, El:

Yes, Congress voted... And, if the Supreme Court decides that what they voted for is unconstitutional, they'll strike it down. There's nothing new about that.

In our system of government, the majority can't VOTE away the rights of the minority. That IS the way our system works, isn't it?

Or, are the judges only "activist" if they make a decision YOU don't like? Hmmm. I think the latter.

excon

Ex, I didn't realize that recognizing "God" made it a distinctly Christian pledge. Does it?Hello Steve:

Not "distinctly", but pretty darn close.

Yes, there are other religions that worship "God". But, there are some that worship symbols and ideas. There are some who worship the land. There are even some who worship gargoyles and things. Then there's those potsafarians. And don't forget the atheists who have NO God at all.

It's true, they're in the minority. But, they're ALL still Americans who'd like to say the pledge... if it was something they could say without winking and crossing their fingers.

It was - BEFORE the words "under God" were inserted. Truly, it was a pledge that ANY American could say...

I know you're a Christian man. I also know you're a sensible man. That's the way it SHOULD be here in America, no? A pledge of allegiance for EVERYBODY??

excon

It's true, they're in the minority. But, they're ALL still Americans who'd like to say the pledge....... if it was something they could say without winking and crossing their fingers.


When I was in high school just 10 years ago. Teachers forced students to say the pledge in it's entirety. It wasn't something I liked to say it was a requirement for me to get my education. If I would have known anything about anything when I was in high school, I would have raised hell about it.

Hello Steve:

Not "distinctly", but pretty darn close.

Yes, there are other religions that worship "God". But, there are some that worship symbols and ideas. There are some who worship the land. There are even some who worship gargoyles and things. Then there's those potsafarians. And don't forget the atheists who have NO God at all.

It's true, they're in the minority. But, they're ALL still Americans who'd like to say the pledge....... if it was something they could say without winking and crossing their fingers.

It was - BEFORE the words "under God" were inserted. Truly, it was a pledge that ANY American could say......

I know you're a Christian man. I also know you're a sensible man. That's the way it SHOULD be here in America, no?? A pledge of allegiance for EVERYBODY???

excon... add to that : for too many american when the word GOD is mention they think it is jesus, but other religions have others in mind

Frankly, I think Michael Newdow needs to get a life and stop wasting so much time and money fighting 2 little words amounting to all of 3 syllables that have been a part of our Pledge of Allegiance for over 50 years. After all, if it's such a big deal, then why wasn't anything said about it when it was first added to the pledge?

You know slavery went on for probably 5000 years and nobody really said anything about. Does that make it right? Of course not just because the government has everyone to afraid to fight something when the law is passed doesn't make it right. How you feel if you had to say under satan or under Zeus? I bet you wouldn't like it at all.

Hey, why don't we change our money, too, while we're at it. Don't want anyone who is offended by the word God to get their hands soiled when they spend it. Here's a question... is the word God found in the Declaration of Independence? Yes, it is. Nature's God is in the first paragraph. I wonder if Mother Nature has a problem with that one; maybe not if it can be construed that Nature's God is a woman! Come to think of it... the words she and her aren't in that document, but as a woman, I'm supposed to accept that it applies to me.

My point, and I do have one, is that God is just another word for Creator, and each religion has and uses it's own name for it. We can take exception to just about any word; women can take exception to the use of the word he for everything under the sun.

I don't believe we should alter particular words in historical documents, so why would we alter them in the Pledge? If you prefer not to say God, then say the name of the Creator you identify with. Or just say Creator. As for saying the Pledge in the public schools, allegiance to the flag and the country is a personal thing, an adult thing, and children shouldn't be expected to give it.

I don't believe we should alter particular words in historical documents, so why would we alter them in the Pledge?Hello BBW:

I agree. We should NOT do that.

Apparently you don't know that the words "under God" were ADDED to the pledge in the 50's. We should have left it alone.

excon

My point, and I do have one, is that God is just another word for Creator, and each religion has and uses it's own name for it. We can take exception to just about any word; women can take exception to the use of the word he for everything under the sun.

I don't believe we should alter particular words in historical documents, so why would we alter them in the Pledge? If you prefer not to say God, then say the name of the Creator you identify with. Or just say Creator. As for saying the Pledge in the public schools, allegence to the flag and the country is a personal thing, an adult thing, and children shouldn't be expected to give it.

What if you don't believe in religion or a creator?

What if you dont believe in religion or a creator?



Then you still have made a choice. In short, Atheism has never provided any foundational law, not one. We have them via the religious commandments that Jews and Christians hold dear. However even the G-dless unfaithful in the US, and your county as well, find them as necessary.


Bobby

Then you still have made a choice. In short, Atheism has never provided any foundational law, not one. We have them via the religious commandments that Jews and Christians hold dear. However even the G-dless unfaithful in the US, and your county as well, find them as necessary.


Bobby

I didn't make a choice to not believe in god. I don't believe in god because he doesn't exist. That's like saying you made a choice not to believe in the tooth fairy, you just know better.

Even if I made a choice are you saying my choice is less important that yours? The point of complaining about "in god we trust" is that it's a start of something more. If the government has even one thing religious next it two things and then its four and so on by the time it starts to sound no so small it's to late.

Atheism(the lack of religion) was around long before people made up the concept of god. During that time people still had the concept of "do not kill" and "do not steal" they were needed for people to live together even as small groups. So I think it would be fair to say those concepts are atheism based concepts, religion just stole them and called them theirs.
The laws you speak of are basic laws of society and have nothing to do with religion.

What if you dont believe in religion or a creator?

Then the words "under G-d" are meaningless to you, and therefore should not be offensive. They are just three meaningless sylables.

The only way to be offended by the words "under G-d" is if you not only don't believe in G-d or religion, but if you actively hate the concepts of G-d and religion. That's a whole lot different from just not believing in them. And last I heard, the fact that someone hates a concept that others enjoy is not constitutional gounds to eliminate that concept from our lexicon.

If it were, then pornography would be illegal, because a heck of a lot more people hate the concepts of porn than hate the concepts of G-d and religion. Do you advocate censorship of porn and its elimination from the USA?

Elliot

Then the words "under G-d" are meaningless to you, and therefore should not be offensive. They are just three meaningless sylables.

The only way to be offended by the words "under G-d" is if you not only don't believe in G-d or religion, but if you actively hate the concepts of G-d and religion. Hello again, El:

Boy, you righty's should chill. HE didn't say they were meaningless - YOU did. Plus, you're the one making up this hate stuff.

In fact, they MEAN a great deal. They're a big fat LIE for one. I can't say a LIE and call it meaningless. Our country is NOT under God, any more than it's UNDER the tooth fairy.

Plus, it's offensive on its face. It infers that our nation is better because we have God's approval.

Finally, if they're meaningless, just for drill, insert the (meaningless) words Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior in there and whisper them to yourself. You ought to be able to say them, if they don't MEAN anything. You might be even able to say them under your breath, and report back to me that you did it with no ill effects.

But, just try to imagine how you'd feel if those WERE the words that the Christians inserted, and forced you to say (if you wanted to say the pledge). What? It's different than God?? Yeah, a little. So what?

Nahhh, I think you're worthy of a better argument than THAT. But, that's all you're left with, cause there AIN'T a better argument than yours. Bummer.

excon

PS> By the way, I don't hate religion. I just don't think it should be mixed with government. Neither did the founders.

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States." George Washington 1st Inaugural Address.

When Washington recited the oath of office he said : "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will try to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He then added the famous,( and unconstitutional I guess if I was to believe some of the participants of this thread) ,phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oath, and almost every president has added it since. He then bent down and kissed the bible he used in the ceremony .

He then followed the swearing in with the address cited above. He then finished the ceremony by leading a procession to St. Pauls Church (which, with the other churches, had been opened for prayers at nine o'clock that morning), and there they invoked the blessing of Almighty God upon the new government.

The reason I bring this up is that the founders recognized the hand of God ;or province ,which was their fancy word for a non-denominational God ,or as Wahington called it the "invisible hand " ,in the founding of the country . This is an undeniable fact. I doubt if the founders when confronted with this case about the pledge would've supported the proposition that "under God "in the pledge was unconstituional .

I don't believe the pledge in school is unconstitutional because it is not mandatory to make the pledge…it is absolutely a voluntary statement.

When Washington recited the oath of office he said : "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will try to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He then added the famous,( and unconstitutional I guess if I was to believe some of the participants of this thread) ,phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oathHello tom:

There's no question that the founders were religious men. However, I think the fact the words “so help me God” were NOT included in the oath of office when they WROTE the Constitution, say's MOUTHFULS. And they wrote it AFTER Washington was president.

I don't believe the pledge in school is unconstitutional because it is not mandatory to make the pledge…it is absolutely a voluntary statement.Hello again, DC:

You're wrong. Any ORGANIZED activity in school isn't voluntary at all. I know you don't understand this, because you think ORGANIZED prayer in school can be voluntary too.

excon

It doesn't make it distinctly Christian but it does make it distinctly religious. In order to understand how annoyed others are with this. Replace under god with under satan and that your kid is forced to say under satan in public school when saying the pledge.

Who is "forcing" anyone to say the pledge of allegiance? I didn't know anyone is "forced" to pledge allegiance to the flag.

Is this how you see it? Our constitution actually eliminates religion from government instead of preventing the establishment of an official religion such as Christianity, and freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from speech. Our founding document, the declaration of independence is unconstitutional, as is our national anthem for using the words "In God is our trust," all of our money is unconstitutional, as well as the Supreme Court itself for opening with "God save the United States and this Honorable Court," because all of those things are an affirmation of a particular religious faith or an establishment of religion.

Last I checked, "ceremonial deism" has been upheld numerous times by SCOTUS as not violating the establishment clause and also upheld that students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. So what's the beef? If you don't want to recite the pledge, don't. If you do want to recite the pledge drop out during the "under God" portion.

And, if this country had been founded on the tenets of Satanism and had a 213 year history of Satanic principles and ceremonies you might have a point.

You’re wrong. Any ORGANIZED activity in school isn’t voluntary at all. I know you don’t understand this, because you think ORGANIZED prayer in school can be voluntary too.

Thanks I believe to a Jehovah's Witness, SCOTUS held that compelling students to recite the pledge was unconstitutional (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624) in 1943, 11 years before the words "under God" were added.


We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

The decision of this Court in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and the holdings of those few per curiam decisions which preceded and foreshadowed it are overruled, and the judgment enjoining enforcement of the West Virginia Regulation is affirmed.

Hello Steve:

Not "distinctly", but pretty darn close.

Yes, there are other religions that worship "God". But, there are some that worship symbols and ideas. There are some who worship the land. There are even some who worship gargoyles and things. Then there's those potsafarians. And don't forget the atheists who have NO God at all.

It's true, they're in the minority. But, they're ALL still Americans who'd like to say the pledge....... if it was something they could say without winking and crossing their fingers.

It was - BEFORE the words "under God" were inserted. Truly, it was a pledge that ANY American could say......

I know you're a Christian man. I also know you're a sensible man. That's the way it SHOULD be here in America, no?? A pledge of allegiance for EVERYBODY???

Ex, to be honest I would not be offended at removing the words "under God" from the pledge. But if you don't like it don't say those two words.

I'm just asking where does it stop, when we've officially eliminated God from this country? We already have folks throwing a fit - trying to eliminate our free speech in this area - over Christians that dare endorse a candidate or actually mention politics in church. Do you deny our religious heritage? I know you're smarter than that, so why do people want to do just that? They live in a country that is predominantly Christian with a religious heritage, why should the vast majority bow to their will?

I'm just asking where does it stop, when we've officially eliminated God from this country? Hello again, Steve:

Not from the country, but from the government. I want my government to be secular.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Not from the country, but from the government. I want my government to be secular.

YOU I think I could trust, it's those other wackos I wouldn't give an inch to. But really, how is our government not secular? The only constitutional restriction it has I believe is "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Has our government established a religion? Is it compelling anyone to believe in God, not believe in God, attend church or not, favoring one religion over another? Has ANYONE ever been converted against their will because it says "In God we trust" on a nickel?

I didn't make a choice to not believe in god. I don't believe in god because he doesn't exist. Thats like saying you made a choice not to believe in the tooth fairy, you just know better. .


You choose to say there is not a G-d. The evidence is that you wrote that in your reply. Are you going to deny that fact? And to use your porous example here, the one above that amused Excon so much after lighting up another left handed cigarette, you also choose to not believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, I choose not to believe in the tooth fairy. That's my choice. I still made it.



Even if I made a choice are you saying my choice is less important that yours?

See here you do admit that you made a choice. That's wasn't do hard now, was it? Nothing personal, it's just understanding yourself. What's at essence here is your ideology that is being expressed.



The point of complaining about "in god we trust" is that it's a start of something more. If the government has even one thing religious next it two things and then its four and so on by the time it starts to sound no so small it's to late..

Personally I could careless that the currency has anything written on it other than it's value. On this I somewhat agree, but I have perimeters in my life. So exactly why are you bellyaching? If it meant so little to Atheist why do they whine in pursuit of the removal? Ignore it and go your own way or just send your money to me, I'll spend it.:)



Atheism(the lack of religion) was around long before people made up the concept of god. During that time people still had the concept of "do not kill" and "do not steal" they were needed for people to live together even as small groups. So I think it would be fair to say those concepts are atheism based concepts, religion just stole them and called them theirs.

You have a problem here Michael. You claim those laws are not based upon religious Faiths, but as a Jew I have thousands of years of ancestral history, both oral and written documentation and none it came from any Atheist organization. Courthouses have had the Decalogue hanging above judges heads in courtrooms for a longtime. Remember the Alabama controversy? And "yes" there are individual atheists, however Atheism also has organization, just like religion.



The laws you speak of are basic laws of society and have nothing to do with religion

Friend, you're flying a wrinkled faded atheistic flag on a broken pole, stuck in mud. Those basic laws are "the fabric" in most societies, all productive ones, and have come down to us for thousands of years. And BTW it's more than just the basic "thou shalt not murder" and "do not steal." There is much more including damages and liabilities as well. I just gave the basics as an example, which was more than you gave in defense. If need be I'll post more mitzvoth to demonstrate.



Bobby

You choose to say there is not a G-d. The evidence is that you wrote that in your reply. Are you going to deny that fact?! And to use your porous example here, the one above that amused Excon so much after lighting up another left handed cigarette, you also choose to not believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, I choose not to believe in the tooth fairy. That's my choice. I still made it.




See here you do admit that you made a choice. That's wasn't do hard now, was it? Nothing personal, it's just understanding yourself. What's at essence here is your ideology that is being expressed.




Personally I could careless that the currency has anything written on it other than it's value. On this I somewhat agree, but I have perimeters in my life. So exactly why are you bellyaching? If it meant so little to Atheist why do they whine in pursuit of the removal? Ignore it and go your own way or just send your money to me, I'll spend it.:)




You have a problem here Michael. You claim those laws are not based upon religious Faiths, but as a Jew I have thousands of years of ancestral history, both oral and written documentation and none it came from any Atheist organization. Courthouses have had the Decalogue hanging above judges heads in courtrooms for a longtime. Remember the Alabama controversy? And "yes" there are individual atheists, however Atheism also has organization, just like religion.




Friend, you're flying a wrinkled faded atheistic flag on a broken pole, stuck in mud. Those basic laws are "the fabric" in most societies, all productive ones, and have come down to us for thousands of years. And BTW it's more than just the basic "thou shalt not murder" and "do not steal." There is much more including damages and liabilities as well. I just gave the basics as an example, which was more than you gave in defense. If need be I'll post more mitzvoth to demonstrate.



Bobby
Bobby
These 'Religious Laws ("thou shalt not murder" and "do not steal.") you refer to are no more than Political common sense. A bit like atmospheric pressure - omnipresent, incredibly important, but usually very slight or gradual to us: An implicit set of beliefs that "go without saying." They define what seems obviously right and obviously wrong. Their power is all the greater because it feels so natural, so self-evident to us that when we use them, we don't realize that we're using them.

I am exceedingly hostile towards organized religion as a political and moral force, as any reasonable common sense should tell anyone

I need to ask a question here.

Is this topic about whether G-d exists or whether the Constitution allows the use of the words "under G-d" in public schools as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It seems to me that we're starting to get a bit off topic here, with people commenting as to whether there is a G-d or not. I suggest that such a topic be relegated to the religion board, where I will be happy to argue the point with all Atheist and Agnostic comers. THIS topic should be relegated to Constitutional Law and the political implications of "Under God" and "In God We Trust", not theology.

On those points:

Nobody is forcing anyone to say the Pledge of Allegiance in any public school in the USA. If that statement is untrue, please show me the source for it, and I will state for the record that anyone forcing a child to say the pledge against their will is violating the law. But it isn't happening.

Some will talk about "peer pressure" and that kids are being forced to say the pledge because of peer pressure. Well, I disagree. We also talk about kids being forced by peer pressure to take drugs, drink alcohol or smoke cigarrettes. Do we accept the idea that our kids are totally helpless to counter peer pressure and just say "Oh, well, it's not really their choice, it's peer pressure?" Or do we expect our kids to make the right choices DESPITE peer pressure. Do we teach them that they have choices? Do we teach them to stand up against peer pressure? And if not, then aren't WE to blame for not doing so?

So if we and our kids can counter peer pressure with regard to drugs, achohol and smoking, then aren't they also free to counter peer pressure with regard to saying the words "under God" in the pledge? Especially when they can easily hide the fact that they didn't say those two words but say the rest of it? Or not say anything at all. There's no peer pressure involved here, or if there is, it is certainly easily countered. I don't buy the peer pressure argument.

"In God We Trust" is a little dicier in terms of having free choice. It is not really feasible to avoid using money in modern society. All money has IGWT on it. It might be argues that since people are being forced to use money (because you can't get along without it) they are being forced to use the words "In G-d We Trust" against their will.

But the word "God", in my opinion, is very ecumenical. Alchoholics Anonymous, which is as ardently ecumenical a group as is possible to find, uses the terms "Higher Power" and "God" interchangeably, by defining it as "the God of our understanding" and leaving the interpretation open to the individual member. The word "God" in and of itself, is quite ecumenical.

Atheists in AA who do not believe in a deity are taught to treat the AA membership as a whole as their Higher Power... they call this Higher Power G.O.D. for "Group of Drunks". Not exactly a religious image, is it. Others use "Good Orderly Decisions" or some other acronym that fits their personal theology or lack thereof.

When IGWT is used, nobody defines WHICH God it refers to. Does it mean the Jewish God? This Christian God? The Muslim God? Does it mean some other entity that is more sane than ourselves as AA means the term? Does it mean The Great Spirit, Buddha, the Tao, or Enlightenment? Does it mean Vishnu, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or some other entity or pantheon of entities? Does it Mean the Great Bird of the Galaxy (a Star Trek reference for those who get it... )?

The government never defines "GOD". And because it doesn't it allows us to define it however we want, or not at all. THAT is the guarantee of religious freedom that allows IGWT to be used without it being a case of government forcing religion upon us. When it says "In God We Trust", we are free to determine WHICH G-d we mean, or free to choose none at all. That is where the freedom of religion lies. So I don't buy the argument that a religion is being forced on anyone.

Some argue that the existence of the word "god" in the pledge is offensive to them. FINE. Don't say it. Don't say the Pledge at all if you don't like it. Feel free to put your hands over your ears and hum to yourself so that you don't have to hear such an offensive word. I personally LIKE saying "under God" in the pledge. Who is Newdow to say that I don't have that right... that the Courts should no longer allow me to say it as part of the Pledge? What makes his offense at the term "under G-d" more imperative than my offense at having it removed? What about MY religious freedoms that are being stomped on by Newdow? Isn't my right to publicly say "Under G-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance guaranteed by the First Amendment right to free speech and free worship... even in public places?

As I said before, if Newdow is so offended by the words "Under God" then he doesn't have to say them. That's his choice. Nobody is forcing him. His rights aren't being violated by other people saying it, and him not doing so. But the elimination of "Under God" from the Pledge IS limiting MY right to say those words as part of the pledge... a violation of MY 1st Amendment rights.

I'd like anyone to point out where in the Constitution there is a guaranteed right to not be offended? Freedom of Worship is there. Freedom of Speech is there. But I have never found a Freedom from Offense in the Constitution. If Newdow is offended, so what? There is no Constitutional violation there. But if MY Constitutional rights, and those of millions of other Americans are curtailed, that is a matter of grave concern for ALL Americans. At least all those who believe in Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

Elliot

Bobby
These 'Religious Laws ("thou shalt not murder" and "do not steal.") you refer to are no more than Political common sense. A bit like atmospheric pressure - omnipresent, incredibly important, but usually very slight or gradual to us: An implicit set of beliefs that "go without saying."

Chronologically speaking the civil laws came about after as a result of the religious. I'm not really certain if the word "religious" is even proper. That's really a modern word of description. In biblical Hebrew the word to describe Judaism is "dat" which means "faith." We didn't even use or have the word "religion." Anyway in short, more specifically a reference to the Noachide laws, but I don't think this is the board for that discussion. So we may all agree in the laws necessity, which I think we do, but it's not just a set of beliefs that "go without saying." I accept they had origin. I'll be glad to accommodate that subject on the Judaism board if anyone is willing to pursue it.



They define what seems obviously right and obviously wrong. Their power is all the greater because it feels so natural, so self-evident to us that when we use them, we don't realize that we're using them.

I am exceedingly hostile towards organized religion as a political and moral force, as any reasonable common sense should tell anyone

It's like Elliot replies in his post above, "the word "God", in my opinion, is very ecumenical." DC, personally I do understand your point. Being Jewish, I feel the same way about having a missionary at my front door. To which I ignore them or dismantle their arguments using the Torah. I suspect most people must freely come to their own conclusions about life. But I maintain, to get back toward the political ramification of the subject, that I must be equally respected to say the pledge of allegiance, pray, and worship. If anyone doesn't like the words "In G-d We Trust" on currency then send me the money, I'm not offended.



Bobby

I'm not offended by the words under god. Offended is the wrong word. If the pledge was a private thing not endorsed by our country say what ever you want in it. However since we say it in public schools, I remember teachers making kids recite the pledge in high school and getting very annoyed at them in they didn't. Might have been unconstitional but they did it and since there are so few open athiests, chances of parent sueing over it are slim. Even if a parent did complain all that would happen is that a teacher would be told don't do it this year anymore.

I see this issue as a where do you draw the line issue. Do we say well "in god we trust" is okay and then when a christian senator says lets change it to "in Jesus we trust" because they are basically the same thing. Do we complain then? How about when the President of the United States says that he doesn't think athiests should have citizenship. Should we complain then? Wait that thing about the president already happened then we elected his son for two terms.

I'm not offended by the words under god. Offended is the wrong word. If the pledge was a private thing not endorsed by our country say what ever you want in it. However since we say it in public schools, I remember teachers making kids recite the pledge in highschool and getting very annoyed at them in they didn't. Might of been unconstitional but they did it and since there are so few open athiests, chances of parent sueing over it are slim. Even if a parent did complain all that would happen is that a teacher would be told don't do it this year anymore.

I see this issue as a where do you draw the line issue. Do we say well "in god we trust" is okay and then when a christian senator says lets change it to "in Jesus we trust" because they are basically the same thing. Do we complain then? How about when the President of the United States says that he doesn't think athiests should have citizenship. Should we complain then? Wait that thing about the president already happened then we elected his son for two terms.
I think we need to be optimistic at this time. Sure there will always someone who ‘breaks the rules,’ but the rules exist and appear to me to be largely working. And too, let’s not forget the intolerance by some atheists that runs through some courts and promote their position.

As I understand it the comment, “the President of the United States says that he doesn't think athiests should have citizenship” only came from 1 reporter…that’s a bit weak.

I see this issue as a where do you draw the line issue. Do we say well "in god we trust" is okay and then when a christian senator says lets change it to "in Jesus we trust" because they are basically the same thing. Do we complain then?



Good point. While the majority of the country is religiously affiliated with Christianity, the pledge, currency, etc.. Is fairly ecumenical. I can respect that here in the States. As far as the currency I'll spend money with the word "Jesus" on it. However should it be made mandatory for an Atheist to attend church services, or in my case being Jewish have it forced upon me to worship another religions standard, then that's were you'll see my exodus and millions of others.



Bobby

The in the letter written to the President of the American Atheist association. After he demanded an apology from Bush.
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees."

It's a good thing that he is only one man but there are only nine that prevent men like him having their way with the country.

However should it be made mandatory for an Atheist to attend church services, or in my case being Jewish have it forced upon me to worship another religions standard, then that's were you'll see my exodus and millions of others.

Nah, stick around because I would be fighting that fight with you. :)

The in the letter written to the President of the American Atheist association. After he demanded an apology from Bush.
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees."

It's a good thing that he is only one man but there are only nine that prevent men like him having their way with the country.

Let's be clear here, if the atheist comment was made it was by Bush the elder, not the current president.

Hello BBW:

I agree. We should NOT do that.

Apparently you don't know that the words "under God" were ADDED to the pledge in the 50's. We shoulda left it alone.

excon


I did know that... and if we were speaking of that copy of the Pledge, my perspective would be the same. It shouldn't be altered.

Is atheism in schools often censorship in disguise? Or does the author of the article slant it towards Christanity?

Atheism isn't even a belief. So how can it be a form of censorship?

Atheism isn't even a belief. So how can it be a form of censorship?

Lobrobster, I have to say that I disagree with this statement.

Atheism is a belief... an affirmative decision by the proponent that there is no god. It is as much a belief as a belief in a specific god.

AGNOSTICISM is not a belief. Agnostics specifically have no belief, they have made no decisions as to whether there is a god or not, and what form a god might take. But that is not true of atheism.

Secondly, whether atheism is a belief or not has nothing to do with whether Atheists are actively trying to censor those who DO believe in G-d. Let's assume that atheism is not a belief, for the sake of agument. Does that mean that there isn't an active campaign by Atheists to eliminate talk of G-d in public? (I'm not talking about whether such a campaign actually exists. I'm saying that the fact that something is not a "belief" doesn't necessarily mean that there is no censorship going on. One does not follow the other.)

Elliot

Lobrobster, I have to say that I disagree with this statement.

Atheism is a belief... an affirmative decision by the proponent that there is no god. It is as much a belief as a belief in a specific god.

AGNOSTICISM is not a belief. Agnostics specifically have no belief, they have made no decisions as to whether there is a god or not, and what form a god might take. But that is not true of atheism.

Secondly, whether atheism is a belief or not has nothing to do with whether Atheists are actively trying to censor those who DO believe in G-d. Let's assume that atheism is not a belief, for the sake of agument. Does that mean that there isn't an active campaign by Atheists to eliminate talk of G-d in public? (I'm not talking about whether such a campaign actually exists. I'm saying that the fact that something is not a "belief" doesn't necessarily mean that there is no censorship going on. One does not follow the other.)

Elliot

Perhaps... Atheism is difficult to define. I suppose since I'm not willing to claim with absolute certainty that there is no god, you could say I'm agnostic. But then, you'd also have to say I'm agnostic about the prospect of there being little green gremlins living deep beneath the earth that only come out when no one can see them.

I think it is reasonable to for me to conclude/decide that these gremlins do not exist. And it's also reasonable for me to conclude/decide that god does not exist even though I admit to not being 100% sure. So for all intents and purposes I consider myself an a-gremlinist and atheist respectively.

As for campaigns, there just may be such a movement beginning in America (and it's about time). But it has nothing to do with censorship! Quite the contrary... It has to do with not forcing OTHER people's beliefs on everyone. Say what you want. Believe what you want. But don't think that the rest of us have to agree with you.

Personally, I have nothing against "one nation under God", or "in God we trust". I can accept this as tradition. But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming.

What is alarming about ex-presidents, or anyone else for that matter, saying that those without faith don't deserve citizenship? What I would find alarming would be a law against saying that. Faith is a very powerful emotion, whether it is faith in a God, or faith in the spirit of the humanity of mankind.
I also don't believe Atheism is difficult to define…it is simply a lack of belief or faith in supernatural things.

As for campaigns, there just may be such a movement beginning in America (and it's about time). But it has nothing to do with censorship! Quite the contrary... It has to do with not forcing OTHER people's beliefs on everyone. Say what you want. Believe what you want. But don't think that the rest of us have to agree with you.

Personally, I have nothing against "one nation under God", or "in God we trust". I can accept this as tradition. But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming.

Look at the quote from you Lob. Essentially, you just said that it's okay for anyone to say, think or believe anything they wish to without fear of censorship... unless its an ex-President with strong convictions about the role of faith in the USA, or a person who believes that this country has and should continue to have Christian values. Then he must be viewed with "alarm" over his beliefs, which are a "problem".

That sounds a little like censorship to me. Oh, it's not full-blown, cut-off-his-micophone, thow-him-in-jail censorship. But it is an attempt to eliminate his views from the public debate. That's censorship too. And that is a lot more alarming to me than anything said about faith and citizenship. I would rather have people freely saying things that are personally abhorrent to me than have free speech curtailed because someone finds it "alarming" to say what the speaker wishes to say.

Elliot

Look at the quote from you Lob. Essentially, you just said that it's okay for anyone to say, think or believe anything they wish to without fear of censorship... unless its an ex-President with strong convictions about the role of faith in the USA, or a person who believes that this country has and should continue to have Christian values. Then he must be viewed with "alarm" over his beliefs, which are a "problem".

That sounds a little like censorship to me. Oh, it's not full-blown, cut-off-his-micophone, thow-him-in-jail censorship. But it is an attempt to eliminate his views from the public debate. That's censorship too. And that is a lot more alarming to me than anything said about faith and citizenship. I would rather have people freely saying things that are personally abhorrent to me than have free speech curtailed because someone finds it "alarming" to say what the speaker wishes to say.

Elliot

Your point is taken wolverine. Of course, people have the right to say anything they want. But we're allowed to respond, aren't we?

Sure, the ex-president can say or hold any view he wants, but when he makes an assinine and bigoted statement like that, I have a right to call him out for what he is... Assinine and bigoted.

You might think blacks shouldn't be US citizens, or Muslims, etc. and you have a right to say so as well. But my tolerance of your right to bigotry does not include my having to shut up and letting your ideas take over. That's not what makes this country the great nation it is. Sure, people can say anything they want. But those who are rational can fight back.

Lobrobster-

Just to interject here, we all want our views heard, and of course that's natural. Views that do not incite the public to go beyond the law, as protected by our constitutional rights. In fact, on this same post I mentioned to MichaelB, that as a Jew, how I would leave the country if I was dictated to concerning my right to worship, and likewise I'd feel the same way if Atheists were forced to worship or disband their organizations. I would consider that a bad sign, since I'm in the minority, and I don't want to face the possibility of another Nazi Germany.

To quote myself:


While the majority of the country is religiously affiliated with Christianity, the pledge, currency, etc.. is fairly ecumenical. However should it be made mandatory for an Atheist to attend church services, or in my case being Jewish have it forced upon me to worship another religions standard, then that's were you'll see my exodus and millions of others.

I think, however, that ETW was discussing censorship in the context of your opening remarks. After reading the discussion I don't see where anybody was suggesting that you wouldn't have the right of view for disagreeing with an ex-president, or any current politician for that matter. BTW, Tomder55, S-TX, Excon, can someone please share a transcript link of those ex-president's comments so I can read the context before I send the ex-president a New Years card or start tying noose knots? I vaguely remember an incident that seemed years ago. Thank you. Lobrobster, I'm not sure why you brought up the example of "black" or "Muslim." Neither are in a category of automatic guilt in the US. Abiding by the law is what's necessary for every citizen and legal resident. Conviction numbers infer a different subject altogether, per populace, but as much as I love and agree with Bill Cosby, I'll let him do the seminars. He makes a good case as a positive influence. Anyway we all disagree with those elected to office, from time to time, as we should. I applaud them when I think they've done a good job and chastise them when necessary. If they are real bad, I do my best to vote them out.



Bobby

Babram-

Again, atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK of belief. We are all atheists to some degree. I just believe in one less god than you do.

That said, we are still a minority in this country (although I'm sure there are many more closet atheists than the polls account for). I used blacks and Muslims, because they too, are a minority. I find it extremely unbecoming of an ex-president to pick on a minority who are every bit as patriotic and tax paying citizens as HE is, and saying they shouldn't have a right to vote! That's absurd! And was my only point in that regard.

As to censorship, I'm very against it. I think everyone has a right to their own beliefs, thoughts, or worship. Just not in public schools. What's next? Should IBM shut down for 15 minutes so their employees can pray? I honestly don't see what the big deal is... Do your praying at home on your own time. If you're very orthodox and need time for prayer during the day, I'm not even against companies or schools making allowances for that! How much more appeasing can I get on this subject? I'm just saying don't push it on me or my kids. If you want to pray, fine. But I don't want to listen to it. I also don't want my time taken up for it. Pray. Just do so on your own time. That's all.

Babram-

Again, atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK of belief. We are all atheists to some degree. I just believe in one less god than you do.

I see this as a contraction. You said, "atheism is not a belief, then followed that with, "I just believe in one less god than you do." If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. For me it's an expressed ideology, a view, by an individual and/or organization. Personally, I think it's categorically defined, but takes away from more important discussion.



That said, we are still a minority in this country (although I'm sure there are many more closet atheists than the polls account for). I used blacks and Muslims, because they too, are a minority. I find it extremely unbecoming of an ex-president to pick on a minority who are every bit as patriotic and tax paying citizens as HE is, and saying they shouldn't have a right to vote!! That's absurd! And was my only point in that regard..

OK. There are many minorities in this country and all our previous presidents have been Caucasian. Soon all caucasians will be in the minority. Perhaps someone will get me that link to the remarks so I can read the context.



As to censorship, I'm very against it. I think everyone has a right to their own beliefs, thoughts, or worship. Just not in public schools. What's next? Should IBM shut down for 15 minutes so their employees can pray? I honestly don't see what the big deal is... Do your praying at home on your own time. If you're very orthodox and need time for prayer during the day, I'm not even against companies or schools making allowances for that! How much more appeasing can I get on this subject? I'm just saying don't push it on me or my kids. If you want to pray, fine. But I don't want to listen to it. I also don't want my time taken up for it. Go ahead and pray. Just do so on your own time. That's all.

Well if it's an ecumenical prayer that's OK by me. If it's not, I'll tune it out and consider it my personal time for a power nap. I live in Las Vegas and I don't really expect prayer in the workplace is going to become the standard here. The casinos, in respect for President Kennedy after his assassination, only shut down the slot machines for whole whopping five minutes. Our schools in Nevada are so short on good teachers, that I don't expect they have time for much. I forget the ratio of teacher to kids, but I'm sure it's below the national average. Anyway I do understand what your saying. I treat people cigarette smoking breaks as my time to relax since I'm not addicted to nicotine. I can always find a way to make good of the time.



Bobby

I see this as a contraction. You said, "atheism is not a belief, then followed that with, "I just believe in one less god than you do."


Ooookay...

-I believe there is a god.

-I'm not sure if there's a god.

-I believe there is no god.

-I have no compelling reason to think there is an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere.

You can put me down for the last one. ;)

Here is the full story on George Bush.

George Bush on atheism and patriotism
"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"It's bull."
RS:
"What is bull?"
EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bull."
RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."
EM:
"You're welcome."
After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."
For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the American Atheist Press's Cameron Road address.

Michael you deserve the quick research award. I don't know what that will be other than a 'thank you' for taking the time. I've got a kid to feed and cloth so I can't afford much. :)


"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." .

Saying he doesn't know was silly. He knew.


After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."
For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the American Atheist Press's Cameron Road address.


Ann Richards once remarked that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I'm sure his campaign advisers figured it to be his foot instead. I think he was trying for a Jimmy Carter "Christian" moment. Difference being that Carter would had been more tactful, nor would he had suggested the validity of any one's legal citizenship. I never lost sleep over George, I never voted for him. I'm sure he lost many of Atheist vote and some mature Christian support as well. I'm more centrist conservative in my political views now, than I was then. But if such happened again tomorrow, I still couldn't vote for him.



Bobby

Ooookay....

-I believe there is a god.

-I'm not sure if there's a god.

-I believe there is no god.

-I have no compelling reason to think there is an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere.

You can put me down for the last one. ;)

That's still a choice. Somewhere along the line you made an affirmative decision that there is no compelling reason to believe in "an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere." The only one that might not be "belief" is the second one... where the subject has not made a specific decision one way or the other. That is agnosticism.

BTW, I don't believe in an invisible bearded man living in the sky either. I believe in G-d. He doesn't have a beard, he doesn't live in the sky, and his "footprint" is visible to anyone willing to see it. You must be thinking of Santa Claus. But that is a discussion for another time.

----------

I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.

But so does Bush.

And when you make statements like "But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming," it becomes more than just airing an opinion. It seems like an attempt to keep opposing opinions from being heard because they may be "alarming" or "problematic" for you.

Elliot

I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.

But so does Bush.

And when you make statements like "But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming," it becomes more than just airing an opinion. It seems like an attempt to keep opposing opinions from being heared because they may be "alarming" or "problematic" for you.

Elliot

I know I'm new to the conversation, but here's where I see the problem with Bush making those statements:

Of course he is entitled to his opinions, but he should know better than to publicly come out and say he doesn't think someone who is an otherwise law-abiding, tax paying citizen shouldn't be considered an American and should not have equal rights. He's a politician, and one with emmense power (when he was in office) and the fact that he will come out and SAY he thinks these people shouldn't have rights should make EVERYONE question what will he do? Will he try to restrict those people's rights? Replace the word "atheist" with "Jew" or "Christian" or "woman" or "blacks" - is it still acceptable for him to say it? I'm not saying he didn't have the RIGHT to say it, I'm saying he should have KNOWN BETTER than to say it. How is it acceptable for the American people to elect someone who says such things? Who presents a CLEAR bias to someone because of their lack of religious faith?

It's not about censoring him, or sending the thought police after him - it's about the fact that we elected a president who doesn't think ALL Americans should have equal rights. How do you not see a problem with that? Seriously - how do you not see a problem with the (former) leader of our country saying that not everyone is equal based off their religious belief?

That's still a choice. Somewhere along the line you made an affirmative decision that there is no compelling reason to believe in "an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere." The only one that might not be "belief" is the second one... where the subject has not made a specific decision one way or the other. That is agnosticism.

No offense, but you seem to have a propensity for nitpicking. Following your line of logic, the 2nd one is just as much of a belief as the others. You are making an affirmative choice to be non-committal. You have *decided* that you can't be sure. I mean, c'mon we can play this game all day long. But I'm sure you got the gist of what I meant the very first time you read it. Why be nitty about it?



I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.

But so does Bush.

I never said, nor did I imply, that he didn't have a right to say what he did. I just consider it *alarming* that he holds such a view.

I honestly can't tell if some of you guys really don't understand what is being said about censorship, or are just too stubborn to listen to what is actually being said.

I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.


Also... Even though I didn't mention it, I want you to know that your tactic here hasn't escaped me.

What you are doing with the above quote is trying to create a strawman. You are using my reaction to what Bush said and flipping it around. You *agree* that I have a right to say whatever I want?! Well gee, thanks... Since I'm not the one who made such an idiotic statement in the first place! I merely reacted to it.. . So I'm glad you *agree* that I have a right to respond to ex-presidents who make idiotic statements!

Lob,

It would only be a strawman if you handn't made the same argument yourself. Since you did, it can't be a strawman. Strawman is a FAKE argument that one claims is used by one's opponent that is weak and easily dismissed, but which has never actually been used by said opponent. But if you actually made the same argument, and you did, then it isn't a strawman.

And yes, I have a habbit of flipping arguments on people, of holding up mirors to my opponents in an argument, and using that to make my point. What's wrong with that?

And yes, I'm a nitpicker. Comes from a background of being a Treker, a student of the Talmud and an analyst by training. But I wasn't nit-picking in my post to you above. That is a main point of contention between atheists and those who believe in G-d. It is hardly nit-picking to mention a central argument between our belief systems.

I'll admit that you may have a point regarding statement #2. That may be a conscious decision to not make a conscious decision. I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it. But there is no doubt that YOU have made a conscious decision not to believe in G-d because of your own belief system. And it IS a belief system. That's the point.

Elliot

Elliot . You have come across the problem I had when I pretty much stopped debating atheism.

The way it was explained to me is that hard or strong Atheism is an outright disbelieve in God. But soft or weak atheism or non-theists straddles the fence between hard atheism and agnosticism ;that they choose instead to not take a position on the existence of God .

If I am not mistaken the distinction is a relatively recent development when religious people began to say that it takes as much "faith " as it were to believe something came from nothing .

ETWolverine,

Fair enough... But no matter what tricks you attempt with your mirrors, I never said ANYTHING condoning censorship! I never called for it. I never suggested it for Bush. Yet, you tried to make it look as though I did. In reality, I merely reacted to a comment that Bush made. That's all.

Elliot . you have come across the problem I had when I pretty much stopped debating atheism.

The way it was explained to me is that hard or strong Atheism is an outright disbelieve in God. But soft or weak atheism or non-theists straddles the fence between hard atheism and agnosticism ;that they choose instead to not take a position on the existence of God .

If I am not mistaken the distinction is a relatively recent development when religious people began to say that it takes as much "faith " as it were to believe something came from nothing .

I think you have it partially right in your last paragraph. The reason it gets confusing is that the term atheist really shouldn't even exist. We don't need a term for a non-astrologer, or a non-numerologist. We don't need a special name for someone who doesn't believe in witchcraft. To paraphrase a quote from Sam Harris:

-Atheism is simply the noise rational thinkers make in response to outrageous claims.

No offense, but you seem to have a propensity for nitpicking. .

Elliot nitpick and twist... Never!! :D (joke)