| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Well, I guess I just wonder why Christians don’t get upset at this
widespread violation of the 2nd Commandment. I mean, if the phrase is
“secular in nature and in use,” then that’s a pretty serious dilution of the
Big Guy’s name, isn’t it?
|
But your interesting angle only answers the question, because it is not the
intention of Christians to turn the US into a theocracy, Dave! Look, this
nation was founded by people who sought religious freedom, to be free to
worship their God in any way they saw fit (or not to have to worship at all,
for that matter).
|
I’m down with that, but here’s the problem. The same current-day (and vocal,
and generally unopposed in public) fundamentalists who complained about the
so-called War on Christmas wouldn’t see it that way, and since they control at
least two branches of the government, it becomes even more significant. These
are the ones who surprise me most, since they wouldn’t tolerate an ad campaign
that featured a secular version of Jesus selling XBox or tampons or whatever.
Clearly there is “acceptable use” and “unacceptable use,” but if the message is
indeed intended by its authors to be secular, then believers surely have no
grounds for objecting to it.
| |
It’s all about the freedom. Yeah, the country was founded by religious
people, but they didn’t care if you practiced their religion or not, and they
were determined to make sure that the government certainly didn’t have a say
in the matter, either. So, Newdow can whine all he wants, but in the end,
there is no evidence of coercion by the government making him (or anyone)
worship or think in any particular way or not.
|
Forgive me, but that’s coming from the position of one who believes. If every
coin were stamped with the slogan “There Is No God,” would you be as receptive
to the argument that the message is secular in nature and in use? Every piece
of currency that I encounter is a reminder that the government has formally
declared me to be an outsider, based upon my lack of belief.
By the way, Newdow’s argument against the “under God” phrase in the pledge was
far stronger, because Congress and Eisenhower explicitly endorsed the phrase as
an oath of fealty to the Christian God. How that passes Constitutional muster,
I have no idea.
| |
I like the phrase “In God We Trust”, because it is direct notice to the
government that it is not the ultimate arbiter of Truth or law. There is a
higher law and power to which even the government is accountable. IGWT never
actually defines this power, but simply asserts that governments answer to a
high authority.
|
But that, too, is an explicit endorsement of religion and is therefore
unconstitutional. Sure, the Declaration of Independence refers to a creator,
but that’s not a document of US law, so it’s irrelevant in this case. The US
Constitution asserts--correctly--that its authority comes solely from the
people, without mentioning God or any other higher power.
| |
I happen to like the idea of “secularing the nature and use” of the term
“God”. God is as much an idea and a concept as much as he is an old man with
a long, white beard;-) I firmly believe that the concept of “God” and the
concept of “freedom” are inexorably linked. And this IMO explains the
success of our system above all others.
|
Well, I’m sure you’d recognize that to be a statement of faith. Many factors
have contributed to the success of our system, such as naturally protected
borders, abundant resources, cultural and ethnic diversity, blind luck, etc.
etc. etc. If we want to throw a personal (though not national) belief in God
onto that same pile, sure, why not? But it’s a mistake to identify it as the
sole or primary cause for our success (such as it is)...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
| (...) I would question your characterization of two of our governmental branches being under control of fundamentalists. They may be under conservative control, but that doesn't mean that they will kowtow to the fundamental right. I am not in favor (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
| (...) But your interesting angle only answers the question, because it is not the intention of Christians to turn the US into a theocracy, Dave! Look, this nation was founded by people who sought religious freedom, to be free to worship their God in (...) (18 years ago, 13-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
