Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:30:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3084 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I'll give you that the president, Ashcroft have Christianity as their moral
> compass (the overwhelming majority of the FF did as well), but never have they
> or tried to *establish* Christianity as a state religion
In every speech in which W invokes God on behalf of America, he's
endorsing religion. When he condemned the court's decision, he explicitly
endorsed religion. In his private life, George can worship absolutely
anything he chooses, but as The President of The United States of America,
he should serve the country first and not issue religious policy.
> I'd say the proper analogy would be "under Christ" (if you were
> trying to assert that "God" refers to Christianity). "God" is just too generic
> a term, no matter what connotations you would associate with it. I would
> equate it with "our Maker" or "our Creator". It simply is not specific
> enough to be labeled any one particular religion.
Ah! Now I see where you're coming from. However, as has been pointed out
previously, the invocation of "God" is an endorsement of a supernatural
higher power or, at the very least, an endorsement of monotheism.
But at least I understand your "under Jesus" point now!
> I say it doesn't. Perhaps you could show evidence of this establishment of
> some religion since "under God" was added in '54, because I don't believe the
> mere existence of it in a voluntary pledge does this.
We may have reached an impasse, then. To me, there's no need to show
"evidence of this establishment" beyond the fact that Congress endorsed the
inclusion of the phrase "under God." It doesn't matter whether there's been
an upsurge of sincere Christian belief or if there are no God-police
knocking down my atheist door; the fact that Congress endorsed the phrase
is, all by itself, inappropriate establishment of religion.
> You may find it offensive, but it isn't violating any of your constitutional
> rights to worship (or not) freely. I need to see some evidence.
I don't have any court documents from my own life, but I can reiterate
that anyone in my school who chose not to recite The Pledge was singled out
as somehow "wrong," and that type of pressure is a violation of one's rights
to worship freely.
During my senior year of high school a student died in a car crash. My
school was fairly small (~500 kids) and very close-knit, so we were all
affected by her death. In the days following the accident the school
brought in counsellors to speak with the students, if the students wished.
There were also numerous teacher-led prayer sessions. At the time I didn't
really mind, since I was less prone to argue for my beliefs in those days,
but I certainly didn't participate. However, outside of the counseling,
non-believers like myself had no non-religious venue in which to share our
feelings. If the prayer-groups had been organized and led by students,
there would have been no problem. But because they were teacher-run, the
school made a clear, if only implicit, endorsement of community based on faith.
Granted, this example (like my earlier example of the teacher who made us
say grace (1)) isn't expressly about The Pledge, but it speaks of the very
fragile wall that actually separates the State from the church. Chris stated
the point very well when he observed that it's just not reasonable to expect
children to handle that kind of social pressure, especially when a teacher
(or similar authority figure) is leading the charge, and even moreso during
a time of trauma.
Thank you, though, for the more thorough elucidation of your points!
Dave!
(1) I still remember it, lo these 25 years past:
"God is great, God is good, and we thank him for our food."
Hardly the Lord's prayer, I admit, but not every student in the class
adhered to a monotheistic faith, and denying food from a non-praying child
seems like a particularly cruel sort of indoctrination!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
