U.s. Founding fathers

[MMI]

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society.

I found that to be a very interesting comment. I had never considered that the Bible's only purpose was to show believers how to find their way through the evils of this world without becoming corrupted, and that it had no real intention of eradicating evil at all. I supposed it had a much broader purpose.

All God's laws must now be looked at in this way. Reading Exodus or Deuteronomy, you will find no reference to how society should be governed or how nations should interact; He clearly foresaw that He could leave those tasks to the likes of Marx and Machiavelli. Instead, God chose to point the way for an individual to save his soul, without necessarily even contributing to the society he lives in.

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

[steelish]

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

This is where the idea of separation of church and state comes in. Governments and other political agenda groups have no place in God's plans and should not be involved in churches...but that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government. As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship. That was the only daily required ritual in school while I was growing up.

[Thorne]

that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.

I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.

As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship.

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.

[steelish]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.

lol. "Under God" can mean anything to anyone. To a Native American it might be Nature itself, to another, it might be Jehovah to yet another it might be Buddah. It makes no difference so long as your faith promotes goodness and generosity to your fellow man.

[Thorne]

lol. "Under God" can mean anything to anyone. To a Native American it might be Nature itself, to another, it might be Jehovah to yet another it might be Buddah.

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

It makes no difference so long as your faith promotes goodness and generosity to your fellow man.

And that can be done without forcing said faith down the throats of everyone else in the country. Faith is a personal experience, not a community requirement. And while I can see plenty of good and generous people of faith around, I have seen damned few religions which are good and generous to anyone other than their own kind. And religions tend to use people's faiths to turn them against those who are different.

[steelish]

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

If those leprechauns are what creates your sense of humanity and decency, then go for it.

And that can be done without forcing said faith down the throats of everyone else in the country. Faith is a personal experience, not a community requirement. And while I can see plenty of good and generous people of faith around, I have seen damned few religions which are good and generous to anyone other than their own kind. And religions tend to use people's faiths to turn them against those who are different.

I agree. I do not follow any organized religion. I do, however, believe there is a greater force at work; whether it is nature itself or God. That being said, I do not find the Pledge of Allegiance to be offensive. Simply saying it does not make me a bad person. Nor does it make the person standing next to me a bad person.

[Thorne]

If those leprechauns are what creates your sense of humanity and decency, then go for it.

No, what creates my sense of humanity and decency is my inborn sense of humanity and decency. I believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I allowed myself to behave inhumanely towards others then, in all honesty, I would have to admit that it was all right for them to behave inhumanely towards me. The idea that morality comes from some super-faerie has been thoroughly falsified.

I do, however, believe there is a greater force at work; whether it is nature itself or God.

That is faith, a personal thing, and everyone is entitled to have their beliefs. That does not necessarily mean that what you believe in is true for anyone but you.

That being said, I do not find the Pledge of Allegiance to be offensive. Simply saying it does not make me a bad person. Nor does it make the person standing next to me a bad person.

I'm not implying that it does. And I don't find it offensive either. I just find the idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth to be rather silly.

[DuncanONeil]

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

Only if you say it!

[DuncanONeil]

Quote Originally Posted by steelish View Post
that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.


I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.

I think you are talking apples and oranges here!

[Thorne]

I think you are talking apples and oranges here!

I am indeed. Keep the apples out of the orange basket. And vice versa.

[DuncanONeil]

I am indeed. Keep the apples out of the orange basket. And vice versa.

"Religion certainly has no place in government." In this I disagree.

"Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities." But for this I agree.

But then I make a distinction between these two concepts!

[Thorne]

"Religion certainly has no place in government." In this I disagree.

"Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities." But for this I agree.

But then I make a distinction between these two concepts!

I sure would like some kind of explanation for that. If you mean that churches have a right to be represented in the law, then I will agree with you. But if you mean that religions have a right to force their moralities into the law then I must respectfully disagree! I can't bring myself to trust the morality of any group of people who proclaim their moral basis comes from an invisible being or an ancient collection of fireside stories.

[DuncanONeil]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus".

"God" is less exclusive than any of the other names you mention.

[MMI]

As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring?

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

[steelish]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure if you were referring to something in the US. That answered the question.

[Thorne]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

At least they don't tell you who to worship. I assume they wouldn't be against the worship of Satan?