|
Court OKs under God in Pledge of Allegiance (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Yes. It does. Government should serve blindly regardless of the faith of its citizens. Otherwise we will regress to the stone-age societies of the middle east like you see in the Islamic world. |
No, those societies follow a specific religion, which dictates a set of moral values based on what they believe God commands them to do.
The mere mentioning or belief of a generic God (which is seperate from religion), has no bearing on the decisions of the state, which allows it to function as you claim it should. |
|
|
| idoru |
| The State is also responsible for representing those who are both Agnostic and Atheist. While in the minority, they are still just as equally a part of this country as those who believe in "a god". Why, then, should they feel less important? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
There are elements in the US that would be very happy imposing the same strict interpretations of the Bible that the Islamic countries do of the Qu'ran.
These elements must be stopped at any cost if the start to wield any sort of power, and its best not to even give them the opportunity, or legal victories like this to make them think they have a chance.
Unless Canada wants right wing religious extremists like the Tea Party and friends waging a war of terror across the border, which would almost certainly cross over then I would hope Canadians support the removal of such devices as this legal victory for them.
This is one step towards religious tyranny. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
The State is also responsible for representing those who are both Agnostic and Atheist. While in the minority, they are still just as equally a part of this country as those who believe in "a god". Why, then, should they feel less important? |
By mentioning a generic God, the government IS representing the agnostic view (as agnostics believe in a generic God, and are exactly the viewpoint Iīm arguing from). To remove the God concept from the books COMPLETELY would be to represent ONLY the atheist view, leaving every group with faith without representation. Itīs a catch-22. And I think that the mention of a generic God, simply asking for itīs protection and help, without reference to any commands or religion based on that God should be an acceptable compromise. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
There are elements in the US that would be very happy imposing the same strict interpretations of the Bible that the Islamic countries do of the Qu'ran.
These elements must be stopped at any cost if the start to wield any sort of power, and its best not to even give them the opportunity, or legal victories like this to make them think they have a chance.
Unless Canada wants right wing religious extremists like the Tea Party and friends waging a war of terror across the border, which would almost certainly cross over then I would hope Canadians support the removal of such devices as this legal victory for them.
This is one step towards religious tyranny. |
Great, which is why the mention of a generic God, without reference to moral command or religious belief is such a perfect compromise to me. Itīs truly the perfect way to sit on the fence. And middle-of-the-road policy is perfect for keeping extremists on every side at bay. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
By mentioning a generic God, the government IS representing the agnostic view (as agnostics believe in a generic God, and are exactly the viewpoint Iīm arguing from). To remove the God concept from the books COMPLETELY would be to represent ONLY the atheist view, leaving every group with faith without representation. Itīs a catch-22. And I think that the mention of a generic God, simply asking for itīs protection and help, without reference to any commands or religion based on that God should be an acceptable compromise. |
No, it wouldn't represent anything, because it was never in there in the first place and its purpose was only to be a direct counter-point to the atheistic views of Communism. It'd be reverting it to its original form and placing pride in nation and a more communal focus on the success of our nation.
Why be under god? Why not be under ourselves, our own destiny as this country moves to make together. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
By mentioning a generic God, the government IS representing the agnostic view (as agnostics believe in a generic God, and are exactly the viewpoint Iīm arguing from). To remove the God concept from the books COMPLETELY would be to represent ONLY the atheist view, leaving every group with faith without representation. Itīs a catch-22. And I think that the mention of a generic God, simply asking for itīs protection and help, without reference to any commands or religion based on that God should be an acceptable compromise. |
Bull. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
No, it wouldn't represent anything, because it was never in there in the first place and its purpose was only to be a direct counter-point to the atheistic views of Communism. It'd be reverting it to its original form and placing pride in nation and a more communal focus on the success of our nation.
Why be under god? Why not be under ourselves, our own destiny as this country moves to make together. |
Good point, actually. In my arguments I was mainly defending the use of "In God we Trust", and interpreting it as a trust in Itīs protection. I can see how wanting to be a nation to be "under God" could be offensive to an atheist, and will concede that point.
As for why not "trust ourselves", I would say that history is filled with examples of why humans, in general, arenīt to be trusted, and strongly believe that a generic higher power would make a much more "trustworthy" reference. To look at history, I see many instances where evil people have tried to conquer the world, only to be stopped by a righteous counter-force. While I donīt personally subscribe to any one religion or religious moral code, I do believe in a higher power that guides events (not a personal God then, but rather, one that directs through subtle means, maybe emotion? I donīt know). When I see how something like the Holocaust was finally brought to an end, when it would have been easy for nations to ignore the problem and be defeated one-by-one, or the collapse of tyrannical communism in Russia, I find it hard to believe that there is NOT a subtle force that helps to hold the balance in this world. Not a God intent on each individual event in the world, but rather, one interested in the bigger picture and grand scheme of things, who either directs, or set in place some sort of universal mechanism that helps keep the whole thing working.
Now, it may be foolish to ask for the protection of an uncaring God, sure. But I see no harm in it. And certainly no offense. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
Bull. |
How so? To leave God out from the beginning would be entirely acceptable, for sure, and was the correct course of action. But now that itīs THERE, itīs nearly impossible to REMOVE the reference without implying the loss of representation of anyone who believes in a God.
Like social assistance, the biggest mistake was putting it there in the first place, which makes it incredibly hard to remove without offending a very large segment of the population, who will feel that their representation is being wiped off the books. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Now, it may be foolish to ask for the protection of an uncaring God, sure. But I see no harm in it. And certainly no offense. |
No harm? Inaction in the belief that a all powerful omnipotent being will take care of your issues? That can't be harmful? What about the children and even adults that die because they do not seek medical attention, believing that some sort of higher power will save them? For the adults, thats their decision, if they are stupid enough to make it and do not become a burden on society because of it then so be it, but children... Children do not have the power to make those decisions. A parent putting their trust in "God" is the same as inaction and a cold contempt for their child's wellbeing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
(as agnostics believe in a generic God, and are exactly the viewpoint Iīm arguing from) |
im not so sure this is accurate. |
|
|
|
|
