Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:14:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2121 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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!
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 right-wing folks pushing God
is just going to cause derision and separation--having it in just causes
greater division--those that believe in God don't need it there to believe
what they do, and those that don't believe don't want it--so take it out!
That said, O Canada has 'God keep our land/Glorious and free...' and, IIRC,
that line was put in post 1970's-ish. Again I reiterate, thank God I'm
Canadian :)
Dave K.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
