Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:41:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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 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 just about openly mocked it (but if you read the
front-page article you'll see lots of law professors agree with the ruling -
and also predict that it will be struck down anyway).
> > 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.
I'm not going to argue the first or last sentences above mostly because I
feel they are accurate to some degree or another (being superior, and
feeling you can stomp someone else because you are are two different things,
but I don't want to split hairs). The middle sentence is a worthy area of
discussion - it happens without doubt. But I'll pass on it if you wish to.
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
Opportunity. Open land. An open society with social mobility. Escape from
oppressive European states. Something as simple as having food to eat - the
Irish side of my family came over during the Potato Famine <g>, though
oddly, the German side was coming over at roughly the same time and they had
land (the family farm is marked on German maps I'm told). And, yes, freedom
from a state religion other than yours.
> > 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.
Sacred Cow makes the best hamburger, of course (just ask Odesseus' crew).
But putting that aside, what don't you buy? That it's the Christian God
being refered to? That non-monotheistic religions are being excluded (and
slighted)?
I only buy Sacred Cow when it's on sale, oooooOOOOOOooooo, sorry.
> > > 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.
Generic references to God, and implying that people are non-patriotic if
they object to having to pledge allegiance under God are two different
things. Those that argue in favor of the "under God" addition, never EVER
address that it was addition, and that it was a cold war addition to boot.
> >
> > >
> > > 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?
That's an emotional argument that really doesn't address what is a legal
issue. If the PoA is okay as is, it's immaterial. If the PoA isn't, then
you are either equating two things that aren't the same, or are claiming
that somehow two wrongs should be allowed to stand because it's inconvenient
and upsetting to fix them (which is why I believe the whole thing will be
overturned - witness the Jim Crow laws persistence for so long).
Others have made note of the religious stances of many of the important
founding fathers, so I'll not duplicate their points (you passed over
without comment my observation that Deists aren't that different from
atheists, so I'll let that end go).
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
YES really. We are NOT a religious state. We are NOT a theocracy. Yes,
many people are influenced by the pervading religion of their society, but
it is NOT the same thing as being a religious state, and it is a
disingenuous obfuscation to say otherwise.
The references to Christianity are most certainly not irrelevant: that is
the element in society that is trying to get prayer into public school,
replace science with dogma, and got "under God" into the Pledge of
Allegiance (and it currently whining about the 9th court's ruling). They
try and lay down a smokescreen to hide that that is their agenda (Creation
Science isn't about Biblical creation, oh no, but we sure aren't going to
mention a tree named Yggdrasil or any multi-armed guys dancing the world
into creation and oblivion), but they are simply and plainly lieing. They
try to make it sound generic-enough to give plausable deniablity, but I
don't thing they are fooling anyone except those that wish to be fooled.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
