To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 16744
16743  |  16745
Subject: 
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:21:17 GMT
Viewed: 
1611 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
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.

What I'm arguing is that the FF used religious language pretty freely
(non-specific to be sure).  Of course they didn't want a state-sponsored
religion, but at the same time they recognized the importance of religion to
the people.


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.

Exactly.

  Less likely, yes, but hardly impossible.

Who knows?  It hasn't happened yet....


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.

Because in many ways we were.  I really don't want to get into this, but
history is about superior cultures taking over inferior cultures.  Suffice to
say that we did limit our expansion voluntarily.


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.

I don't know.  The optimism and spirit of the early settlers and throughout our
history is hard match in history.  Perhaps you can explain it.


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 FFs all spoke English and ate cows-- wouldn't *that* exclude Indians more?
Sorry, don't buy it.


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?

No, I was referring to generic references to God throughout our history.


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)?

Because they chose to speak using religious language.  What about the Lincoln
Memorial?  It has Biblical references all over it.  Would you scrape it clean
and replace it with something else?


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).

NOT really.  This is a disingenuous obfuscation of this issue.  I have
purposefully tried to refrain from referring to Christianity, but you and
others keep bringing it up-- it is irrelevant.

-John



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) This is a perfectly valid observation. Certainly there are those that feel the 9th Circuit Court's ruling will be struck down along those lines - the "liberal" Los Angeles Times entitled it's editorial on the subject "A Godforsaken Ruling" and (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) 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. (...) Deists come *awfully* darn close, in function if not appearance. (...) I've always called the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR