Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:33:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3675 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
Interesting that the same Amendment that you cite condemning his "endorsment"
of religion protects his right to do so. But I think you are applying it
incorrectly in this case. The First Amendment prohibits *congress* from
establishing religion (ie through law). Since the excutive branch is not
empowered to create law, it by definition couldn't "establish" 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'm not sure a President of the United States *has* a private life while he is
in office-- just ask Willy Clinton;-)
>
> > 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!
This is why I keep going back to the DoI. If the FFs (talking "heavy hitters"
here) were such firm believers in separation of church and state (to which I
wholeheartedly agree), how can such obvious references to God in the DoI be
explained? Either:
1. The mere mentioning of God doesn't establish religion (my view)
2. The DoI does indeed establish religion, in which case Jefferson (for one) is
inconsistent. (your view)
I'm not willing to start second-guessing our FFs, or changing the DoI.
>
> > 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.
Yes, I think at this point it becomes opinion, and the highest opinion in the
land gets to decide. I still think Jefferson's mentioning of a Creator in the
DoI is a salient argument that such language *doesn't* constitute establishment.
>
> > 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.
> 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.
This is a great example. Death is the ultimate question and fear we will all
face, and therefore the stakes are about as high as they come. At times like
those, people (and kids especially) need meaning to go along with comfort and
support. Naturally, for the religious, those answers come from a belief in
God. I don't fault religious people who try and provide meaning and comfort
the only way they know how-- their intentions are good.
I honestly wouldn't know where to begin to comfort an atheist in such
situations (perhaps you might be willing to shed some light here as to what you
might find comforting or meaningful in such situations).
> 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.
Personally, I think that children *need* some sort of assurances of a God in
those type of situations. Atheism is a pretty brave and mature attitude to
hold and I would say above kids' intellects (as if theism and atheism weren't
far beyond our own;-) Teach them about a God when they are young; let them
eschew those beliefs when they are old enough to think for themselves if they
wish (that's just my feelings about the subject-- please spare the tar and
feathering)
Either way, it is a difficult situation to be sure. Agreed, public schools are
especially delicate places. Mandatory prayer, grace, etc are troublesome--
topics such as integrity, honesty, and truthfulness should be emphasized more.
Problem is, being good for many is a direct result of their religion.
I still don't have an adequate reason why an atheist should act "good"...
-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
|
|
|
|
