U.s. Founding fathers

[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.

[steelish]

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.

The Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States of America...NOT a piece of cloth. The "piece of cloth" is symbolic of the U.S.

[Thorne]

The Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States of America...NOT a piece of cloth. The "piece of cloth" is symbolic of the U.S.

Actually it's to both. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...."

And I agree, it is a symbol. An effigy. It's not a holy relic, it's a piece of cloth. It can have many meanings to many different people. To a soldier in battle it may be a sign of pride and courage. To a frightened tourist overseas it can be a sign of safety and acceptance. To an enemy soldier it is a sign of evil and hatred. But regardless, it is still just a piece of cloth, and I do not owe it any allegiance. To the nation, yes. To the leaders, perhaps, if they have earned it. (Not so much, lately.) But to the flag? Sorry, no.

[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]

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.

Well this is a given!

But if you mean that religions have a right to force their moralities into the law then I must respectfully disagree!

No this is not what I meant. In fact this is what I infered led to the second course.

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.

Perhaps a better way to explain it is that without the codification of some religion way too many people would be little more than spoiled brats, well brats at least. People that are moral from their own compass are way to far and few between. Many of those "fireside stories" are expressions of humanities collective wisdom.

[Thorne]

People that are moral from their own compass are way to far and few between.

I disagree. It's only that those without a moral compass make the headlines more often. Most people are willing, and able, to maintain a moral center regarding their fellow human beings, even without religion.

Many of those "fireside stories" are expressions of humanities collective wisdom.

Only such wisdom which was collected before about 100AD (give or take), at least as regards the Bible. A few extra years for other books. But you have to realize, too, that much of that "collected wisdom" was taken from relatively small areas of the world, not from a collective humanity. It's more the collected stories of an individual culture, and a culture that is historically obsolete.

[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.