Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:42:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1931 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> How exactly is "force" used when I say to you "God bless you"? It may be
> insensitive to your beliefs, (but certainly no more than someone lampooning
> someone else's religion, which I think we both agree anyone has the *right* to
> do) but where is the coercion, where exactly is the wrong? (especially in the
> light of the fact that an atheist *knows* that all of it is fictitious >anyway!)
Well, "force" might have been too strong a word for me to choose, and the
"black magic" angle was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you ask a
good question.
When someone says it to me I repond on two levels. The primary meaning is
obviously a offering of goodwill meant at face value with no evangelizing
subtext, and that bothers me not at all. But on the other level not always
present (and probably not always there even when perceived to be), it comes
across as a sort of "I know you *say* you're atheist, but here's the
blessing anyway" message. No one articulates it that way, of course, but
it's very similar to the patronizing comment sometimes made in religious
debates: "you'll believe in God once you're dead."
Naturally, the perfunctory "God bless you" response to a sneeze has become
empty of nearly all religious meaning (enough, perhaps, to put it in
violation of the 2nd Commandment!), and I'm not bothered by it at all. But
when someone goes out of one's way to write "you're in my prayers," then I
feel a little put-upon and preached-to.
> I'm sure you recognize by now that I am referring back to the "under God"
> debate a while back. If there isn't any *actual* force being brought to bear
> on an individual to actually hold any particular belief, I don't understand how
> this can be construed as the actual *establishment* of religion.
For the benefit of our readers I, like you, won't jump wholeheartedly back
into that debate (until the decision of the 9th comes before the Supreme
Court!), but I'll summarize the point that the Government simply has no
right to comment on religion in any way, except to prevent religious
discrimination or persecution. Individuals (even individual
politicians)certainly have the right to comment as they see fit, but as
official agents of the Government they are Constitutionally forbidden (as is
upheld by numerous court cases) to give an official opinion. The "force"
element comes in when we consider the savagery with which Newdow was and
continues to be attacked, and the widespread sentiment that patriotism
depends upon acknowledgement of God. Again, I have no problem with
individuals maintaining that view, but Congress and The White House have no
right to make such claims. *That's* the force element, sadly.
> The phrase, in essence, becomes a toss-away, neither requiring it to be
> believed and/or spoken.
There's that 2nd Commandment again! But the question is this: If it's
just a toss-away, why not toss it away? It wasn't in the original Pledge,
after all.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) And I completely concur--if someone made a law in which folks would have to pledge 'there is no God', I would protest. If you have a constitutional ammendment saying no religion in official state stuff, then remove 'God-talk'. These zealotous (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Either way it's not cool to force a blessing (...) Even in the middle of composing another post, I was struck by your words, because they echo a similar ascertain you made which I didn't understand in (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 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
|
|
|
|
