Hypocolius
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 538
schplurg said:
Mine's a Guinness.
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
- Thread starter Wolverine
- Start date
Mine's a Guinness.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
The legislative agenda seems to contain a lot of silly resolutions like this, most of which slide by unknown to the public and are quickly forgotten. You might get the impression that most days on the hill are slow. Things seem to speed up late at night when there's something such as the Patriot Bill to ram through.Wolverine said:
Wolverine
Centered and One
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Hoo-boy. Here we go again...
You know, I really don't have much of an opinion regarding "In God We Trust" on our money. And I tend to see the phrase "Under God," in the pledge as a move towards inclusiveness, rather than exclusion, but I gotta go with you on this one, Wolverine. A national day of fasting and prayer?
I'm sitting here wondering where it ends. "Jesus wants you to drive a Ford." (Seriously! I worked at a Christian radio station, and this one was nearly aired! Or at least something real close.) God will bless you if you do X, and will condemn everyone who does Y; on whose authority? This reminds me of the time Pat Robertson declared on national TV that God had told him that he would be the next president. (Note: That Robertson is NOT president is not only cause for rejoicing, but proof positive that Robertson is a false prophet, and should not be listened to by ANYONE.)
Someone who doesn't believe in God is not going to follow this edict. People who believe in God are already doing it and don't need this edict. This is nothing more than posturing for the Moral Myrmidons hanging out in Jerry Falwell's camp. On all fronts, it's a failure and an insult.
You know, I really don't have much of an opinion regarding "In God We Trust" on our money. And I tend to see the phrase "Under God," in the pledge as a move towards inclusiveness, rather than exclusion, but I gotta go with you on this one, Wolverine. A national day of fasting and prayer?
I'm sitting here wondering where it ends. "Jesus wants you to drive a Ford." (Seriously! I worked at a Christian radio station, and this one was nearly aired! Or at least something real close.) God will bless you if you do X, and will condemn everyone who does Y; on whose authority? This reminds me of the time Pat Robertson declared on national TV that God had told him that he would be the next president. (Note: That Robertson is NOT president is not only cause for rejoicing, but proof positive that Robertson is a false prophet, and should not be listened to by ANYONE.)
Someone who doesn't believe in God is not going to follow this edict. People who believe in God are already doing it and don't need this edict. This is nothing more than posturing for the Moral Myrmidons hanging out in Jerry Falwell's camp. On all fronts, it's a failure and an insult.
Wolverine
Centered and One
Re: Hoo-boy. Here we go again...
Realizing we're in agreement
-- I view the insertion of "Under God" in the POA as the result of successful lobbying by religious groups to promote their agenda and shove god belief down the throats of others. In terms of inclusiveness, I thought "one nation, indivisible" conveyed that sentiment perfectly.
Roadtoad said:
Realizing we're in agreement
-- I view the insertion of "Under God" in the POA as the result of successful lobbying by religious groups to promote their agenda and shove god belief down the throats of others. In terms of inclusiveness, I thought "one nation, indivisible" conveyed that sentiment perfectly.Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Re: Re: Hoo-boy. Here we go again...
Possibly. I have to keep in mind, "under God" was added just about the time Madeleine Murray O'Hare won her case in the Supreme Court regarding prayer in school. (No, I won't insult you with the same hackneyed line about algebra and school prayer...)
Bear in mind, that as a Christian, (albeit, one who's struggling with said faith, and it's collision course with common and uncommon sense), I'm actually in agreement with the ban on school prayer; it's a bad idea. If you want your kids praying at the start of the day, get off your lazy ass and do it with them first thing in the morning before they get on the bus. It's not the job of the school to be teaching your kids your beliefs, it's yours alone.
Another point regarding this school prayer nonsense (sorry, this got me fired up...): I've known too many teachers who, over the years, in spite of the ban, have made their religious beliefs known. Unfortunately, their ACTIONS had put the lie to their stated beliefs. (Trust me, I could tell stories...!) Frankly, they do irreparable damage not only to their own credibility, but to the credibility of the school system, to the concept of public schools, and to the kids themselves.
No, I don't want prayer in public schools; it's based upon a fallacious concept, one that this would somehow create better citizens or more compassionate people. It does not. It does not teach virtue, and at its best, it can only confirm good ones. That is something you learn at home or on your own. Trying to make our public school system pick up where parents and extended families have chosen to fail is a disaster. (In my not-so-humble opinion, that's the real cause of the Columbine massacre.)
Jamming religion down a child's throat is every bit as bad as denying a child any and all contact with people who possess religious belief. (The latter, obviously, is not going to happen here, at least not any time soon.) Forcing people to accept a God they choose to reject does not save them, it damns you.
Wolverine said:
Realizing we're in agreement
Possibly. I have to keep in mind, "under God" was added just about the time Madeleine Murray O'Hare won her case in the Supreme Court regarding prayer in school. (No, I won't insult you with the same hackneyed line about algebra and school prayer...)
Bear in mind, that as a Christian, (albeit, one who's struggling with said faith, and it's collision course with common and uncommon sense), I'm actually in agreement with the ban on school prayer; it's a bad idea. If you want your kids praying at the start of the day, get off your lazy ass and do it with them first thing in the morning before they get on the bus. It's not the job of the school to be teaching your kids your beliefs, it's yours alone.
Another point regarding this school prayer nonsense (sorry, this got me fired up...): I've known too many teachers who, over the years, in spite of the ban, have made their religious beliefs known. Unfortunately, their ACTIONS had put the lie to their stated beliefs. (Trust me, I could tell stories...!) Frankly, they do irreparable damage not only to their own credibility, but to the credibility of the school system, to the concept of public schools, and to the kids themselves.
No, I don't want prayer in public schools; it's based upon a fallacious concept, one that this would somehow create better citizens or more compassionate people. It does not. It does not teach virtue, and at its best, it can only confirm good ones. That is something you learn at home or on your own. Trying to make our public school system pick up where parents and extended families have chosen to fail is a disaster. (In my not-so-humble opinion, that's the real cause of the Columbine massacre.)
Jamming religion down a child's throat is every bit as bad as denying a child any and all contact with people who possess religious belief. (The latter, obviously, is not going to happen here, at least not any time soon.) Forcing people to accept a God they choose to reject does not save them, it damns you.
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Re: Hoo-boy. Here we go again...
I strongly disagree. How could adding a phrase that excludes ~ 10% of the population be considered inclusive? How about if we said "One nation, of white people" instead? Wouldn't that be an inclusive attempt to unite all the white Americans?Roadtoad said:
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Re: Re: Hoo-boy. Here we go again...
No, that would DEFINITELY be exclusionary. And, even as a White American, I'd move against that one, because it cuts out significan portions of the population, all of whom are equally, if not more, American than I am.
Besides, I suspect Wolverine may have covered this one.
arcticpenguin said:
No, that would DEFINITELY be exclusionary. And, even as a White American, I'd move against that one, because it cuts out significan portions of the population, all of whom are equally, if not more, American than I am.
Besides, I suspect Wolverine may have covered this one.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
subgenius said:
I love those quotes from the Romans and Greeks. They were every bit as advanced in political technology as the the politicians of today.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
a_unique_person said:
And we ignore them far too often because they were badly dressed, usually at our own peril.
I've found myself thumbing through Plato and others, including Machiavelli's The Prince. (That latter one is easy to read; takes less than a day. It's absorbing it all that takes the time.) Why is it that now, when George starts talking about God and Religion, I start getting nervous?
(Why do I get the feeling Ashcroft would do better selling Slurpees at a 7/11?)