Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:59:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2412 times
|
| |
|
|
We have a disconnect here. There is something resistant to logical analysis
in what John is saying. It just doesn't gibe with what the other side is
saying, in that it shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental point.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Personally, I don't think that atheists apply because they don't constitute a
> religion; practicing atheism is akin to doing nothing (unless one is an
> atheistic activist who goes about crying about being persecuted for believing
> in nothing).
And the above seems to sum it up nicely.
Inserting statements about god into important documents means that,
fundamentally, the US is a religious country (of some sort, of no particular
sort, it doesn't matter really) rather than a country that takes no position
on the matter.
I am glad that the US doesn't have a state religion. But I dispute that the
founding fathers intended that the US be religious. I claim they intended it
to take no position pro or anti with respect to the question. Intent is hard
to decipher at this remove, though.
So I also use the angle that statements like this one:
> (unless one is an
> atheistic activist who goes about crying about being persecuted for believing
> in nothing).
show a lack of understanding that atheists are *in fact* persecuted and
stigmatised on a regular basis in this country, and further, it implies that
the writer of such statements is OK with that if they are.
OK with persecution for lack of a particular kind of belief or world view,
in other words, or OK with nonconformance with the author's world view.
And although John is a friend of mine I find it personally disappointing as
I thought he was a bigger person than that.
I persecute no one. I interfere with no beliefs. I tolerate everything
except intolerance.
Inserting "under god" into official statements or worse, into things that
people have to *affirm to be citizens* (all new citizens are required to
recite the pledge and I know of no provision for omitting words as the
reciter so chooses), is *intolerance*. It is intolerance of a belief system
or world view that does no harm to others in and of itself, and that I
cannot tolerate.
I have said my bit now, and I don't think this debate will get much further
in terms of adding new information, but who knows. If it does I may chime in
again, we shall see.
I welcomed the change in the 9th district, just as I welcomed the removal of
the Noah's Ark mural from our local public school. That removal stood.
Whether this removal will stand is another matter. I expect it won't. Most
of our politicians are too craven to do what is right.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
