Subject:
|
Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:49:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2221 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 of our country becoming a theocracy; obviously, it is expressly forbidden
by the Constitution.
| |
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.
|
Jesus selling tampons should, in theory, be acceptable. Hopefully, the GP would
be so offended by such an insensitive ad campaign that it would result in poor
sales and the market would determine “acceptable” and unacceptable” use.
| |
| |
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.
|
But that would be to deny the history of this country, which was founded by
religious people, Dave! There are many historical religious references that are
completely benign, until some jerk like Newdow trumps up bogus persecution
charges. Honestly, do we really need to go and find every single religious
reference and wipe it out??? Change city names? “Los Angeles”, “St. Paul”,
“San Francisco”??? It’s just crazy. The effect, however, comes off as a direct
attack on Christians. And they are fighting back.
| |
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.
|
Simply because one is not forced by the government to ever say it I would think.
| |
| |
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.
|
But it comes from the people with the understanding that ultimately it came from
the Creator-- that our rights are inalienable, even if a government of the
people, for the people, and by the people try and take them away.
| |
| |
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)...
|
Many countries have naturally protected borders, resources, etc, and have not
achieved what we have. Blind luck is hardly the reason. Freedom is the reason.
We have excelled because we have embraced freedom. Period. My only point is
that it was religious people, for the most part, who figured that one out.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
| (...) And slave-owners, and people who unleashed biological warfare upon the indigenous population and ignored every treaty with them besides. Why don't we commemorate these cornerstones of our history as well? (...) Newdow may or may not be a jerk, (...) (18 years ago, 19-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
