Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 Jun 2002 04:18:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2637 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Yes. I am trying to explain the use of such language as "the Creator" from our
very first document as a nation which. Is that offensive to atheists? Why
not? Should it be changed? Why not?
>
> 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.
Well, that's my point. I think the FFs *did* have a position on that matter.
Again, take the DOI for instance.
>
> I am glad that the US doesn't have a state religion.
As am I.
But I dispute that the
> founding fathers intended that the US be religious.
They didn't *intend* it to be; they knew it was *already*.
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.
Yes. They knew many to be religious, but they didn't want to differentiate or
show any *particular* preference, but they recognized the importance of
religion to the people.
>
> 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 don't condone the persecution of any group. For the most part, I am for
tolerance and respect. As long as every group shows tolerance and respect, I
can live with that.
I happen to believe that atheists will be persecuted for their beliefs no
matter *what* the US gov does-- removing "under God" or "In God we Trust" won't
stop that. In fact, the sad thing is that if those things we removed,
persecution would probably *increase*! Christians will be persecuted for
theirs. Jews as well. I just find it disingenuous of atheists to say that
they are being persecuted *because* of these things, rather than for their
beliefs (or lack thereof) themselves.
>
> I persecute no one. I interfere with no beliefs. I tolerate everything
> except intolerance.
Careful there...
>
> 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.
"Under God" isn't intolerate. It may discriminate, but not it's not
intolerate. And so what if a person wants to become a citizen of this country
and is required to cite "under God". Nobody is forcing them to become a
citizen. Nobody is even forcing them to believe in a God that this nation is
supposedly (to them) under!
Besides, our government discriminates and is intolerant of all kinds of things.
Polygamy comes to mind. Eating cats and dogs. These are norms in other
cultures and are perfectly acceptable there, and yet we don't tolerate them
here. Why not? Because we as a society don't want it that way in *this*
country. We even make LAWS against such behaviors. But that's *intolerate*!
So what?
In the same kind of way, people like the "under God" phrase. Personally, I
really believe that it has nothing to do with religion per se (agreed, for
some), but rather reflects the unique attitude Americans feel towards their
destiny in this world.
We are the greatest nation to have ever existed. So if it ain't broke, why
fix it?
-John
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
