Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:14:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1680 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I
> > simply don't understand how the US Congress can legislate the phrase "Under
> > God" without it being a literal State-establishment of religion.
>
> Like it or not, our nation was founded by men who believed that the US was a
> country of higher purpose-- as it has turned out to be. To extricate the core
> values of those who created the Constitution is to unravel the very fabric of
> our being.
You seem to be arguing that there shouldn't be a separation between church
and state, the same thing these 'founding father' seemed wary of.
>
> This country was *not* founded by a group of Atheists;
Deists come *awfully* darn close, in function if not appearance.
> I would submit that the
> founding of such a country wouldn't even be *possible* from such a group
> (Russia is a good example). Fact is, every country will create a "religion"
> whether it is based on a belief in a god or not.
I've always called the communism of the Soviet Union a state religion, but I
must disagree with the rest. Less likely, yes, but hardly impossible.
>
> I think the Founding Fathers believed, as do I, that the US would be more than
> just another nation among nations. We believe that we are special, that we
> have a higher calling and purpose, and indeed it is *because* of that belief
> that we have in fact become that. We are the most powerful nation to have ever
> existed, and yet the idea of conquering the world never occurs to us. Why?
> Because we believe are above and beyond that kind of thinking.
Manifest destiny? Grabbing Spanish colonies? Grabbing American Indian
land? These are the consequences of thinking you are better than everyone else.
>
> And this country did not become great because of "natural resources" or any
> external reasons. It became great because of its citizen's *attitudes*, their
> *optimism* for a better life. This kind of optimism can only be found in one
> who believes that they are a part of some higher purpose.
Religion is not the only source of optimism in life, and it is sheer vanity
and arrogance to think otherwise. This is NOT to denigrate those who find
inspiration in religion, mind you, just the assumption that other values are
inherently worthless.
>
> At the core of our greatness lies the belief in one God. Now, the P of A
> merely says "under God"-- it does *not* say whose brand of God; it does not
> endorse any *particular* religion or denomination, which is the true purpose
> for the separation of Church and State. There is no mention of separation of
> "religion" and state.
It's pretty inherent that it is the Christian God that is being refered to
(Knight's of Columbus, a Catholic organization, was behind the words "under
God" being appended to the PoA). Even if you wish to represent otherwise,
what about non-monotheistic religions such as Hinduism? We were formed as a
country of inclusion, not exclusion.
>
> The fact that Atheists don't believe in a God is irrelevant. Nobody is forcing
> them to-- that right is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Here's a mental exercise and test: what if the tables were turned and the
pledge of allegiance had "under God" replaced with "because there is no
God"? I'd line up against that one, too.
>
> This country is the way it is because it is the way it is-- change it at its
> core and you get a different country.
If you are indicating that the PoA is somehow at the core of the country,
then what about the time when the words "under God" weren't part of the PoA?
>
> The fact is that most of the great men and women who served this country were
> people of faith-- there is simply no denying that and it can't be changed, no
> matter how offensive that may be to Atheists.
What does this have to do with the Constitution, or the PoA (original or
corrupted version)?
>
> We are not a religious state, but we were certainly made great by religious
> people. Denying *that* is offensive.
And we have also been made great by non-religious people. Denying that is
equally offensive. Furthermore, it is really here nor there in relation to
whether public schools should be trying to inculcate a belief in monotheism
(really Christianity).
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
