Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:31:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2228 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Chalk this part up to miscommunication, then. And for the record, I
certainly don’t believe that any “rights” are truly inherent and undeniable
(inalienable).
|
But the Declaration of Independance states that our founding fathers did.
| |
Science may be a flawed tool, in the same way that the Constitution is a
flawed document, but each carries within it the means by which it may be
improved. I would contrast these with dogma, which are resistant not merely
to specific changes but to change in general.
|
Some are more mutable than others, particularly in Minnesota.
| |
Of course his statements don’t carry the force of law, but can you find me a
record of someone in Congress disagreeing with him? I would be content to
read some Representative who said “you know, Dwight’s wrong about this
fealty-to-the-Christian-God thing, but the basic idea is good anyway.” I
don’t think that such a statement exists.
|
I don’t remember ever hearing anyone else credited with a similar statement. It
was a dangerous time to step too far out of line by protesting the details, even
though you were generally in agreement. I feel strongly that socialists were
entitled to the same opportunities to have their ideas voted down by the
majority as any other political group that hoped to take over the US by
displacing the government, but stating that back then would have given me a
rather unenviable chance to meet McCarthy, even though we would have both agreed
on the point that socialism is a bad system to base your government on.
| |
But are you suggesting that some day atheists will realize that, heck,
they’re all just as religious as Christians? This sounds like nothing but an
attempt to maneuver atheists into an awkward position so that theists can say
“gotcha.”
|
I’m just concerned that the lack of organization allows the religion to act as a
non-religion in the US courts. Every single ruling that I’ve heard of that
barred the free practice of religion from schools or government was
basically Atheism vs. Christianity. I can see that having a teacher start a
prayer club as a formal public school organization can be seen as violating the
1st Amendment, but the current interpretation bars them from participating at
all in any student-organized informal clubs. Now, I draw two conclusions from
that. The first is that no other formal religion besides Christianity has the
vote necessary to step up to the 1st Amendment line, but the second is that
Atheism can be just as intolerant of other relegious paths as any other
religion. The difference is that they only need one or two people to act on it.
| |
Okay, okay, I’ll buy that. But in casual conversation and in debates in
general, can you give me a term to use that will be as readily understood as
“atheist?”
|
I think the UUA’s term “non-theist” is the most appropriate, where the
individual in question truly ascribes to no religion (including Humanism). Not
monotheism, not pantheism, not polythesim, not atheism. It’s also close enough
to “athist” that most people will get the gist without needing to read a
pamphlet.
| |
and I hate hate hate the idiotic term “bright,” which was recently and
stupidly coined by well-meaning atheists in a limp attempt to put a positive
spin on their public image.
|
*snicker* That is pretty dumb.
| |
I could go with “empiricist,” but that would require a 20 minute explanation
every time I used the word, which would hardly help the matter.
|
That’s as vague as “bright” in that it doesn’t specifically refer to religion,
but at least it’s less pretentious.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
|
|
|
|
