Pledge of Allegiance

[rancar]

<font color=blue>I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find it interesting that someone would go to so much trouble to attack something they don't even believe exists.</font color=blue>

I never thought on it this way. And what's ironic about it is the way this guy talks on the news he makes references to God on dollar bills, federal buildings, etc , pretty much acknowledging God's existence. He just doesn't want to hear it and see in in printed form. What kind of aethiest is this?

 

[Chuck52]

Ranchman,

Sorry about the juvenile response. I was irritated by yet another juvenile thread that was recently begun. My response to your post was intended to say that even though the individual who started all this may indeed be a jerk, the central issue of separation of church and state is significant in itself beyond the limitations of that particular case. By "invited to respond", I meant that the original posting of this thread on this discussion group was in effect an invitation to discuss the issue.

Because you refer to a "minority few", I can see that you acknowledge that some who believe as I do about the separation of church and state might act on such beliefs out of conviction.

Chuck

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Think about this one for a while. The thing that amazes me most about atheists is that for some one who does not believe, they sure do spend a lot of time "talking about" and "being offended" by GOD. What's wrong with this picture??

 

[cowboydoc]

I think agnostic is a better term. If these "atheists" really were offended then they should be offended by Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. I guess the answer then is to outlaw anything in public that you can't prove with a scientific study. Oh but wait there is scientific evidence for the Bible. Probably as good of science for the Bible as there is for some of the junk science that say we came from monkeys. No proof we came from monkeys just theories. And yes theories on the Bible as well. I really don't understand why we are supposed to be so tolerant of topics such as gay rights and other controversial topics but the 10% of the US that doesn't believe in God can dictate what the other 90% of us believe in. Funny I thought this was a democracy.

 

[RanchMan]

Chuck52 -

I understand - that stuff happens sometimes. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

I do agree with you that some times some people do take action because of personal conviction, however, a lot of the time (not always, but more often than not) I think these convictions are due to fanaticism and arrogance (i.e. needing to "protect" the rest of us "morons" from ourselves.) In other words, just because someone believes strongly in something (i.e. has conviction), it doesn't necessarily justify taking action.

While I agree that the separation of Church & State is significant (and one in which I believe in too), I don't believe that this particular case was one of someone's personal conviction, but instead about someone who wanted to say to the world "Look at Me and what I did!!!"

There are plenty of things I don't like and think should be changed, but I don't act upon them. It doesn't mean that I'm apathetic or believe that since I am in the minority opinion, I should be railroaded into lemming mentality, just that I acknowledge that (1) those issues really don't affect me or other's lives significantly and (2) it isn't an issue where I can "prove" my point easily with logic and facts. While I may strongly disagree, I respect someone else's right to decent. The problem I see is that some people just enjoy causing problems for the rest of us.

I have worked with people from many different religions and traveled to other countries in the past. I have found some of their customs and religious beliefs "interesting" and others quite offensive. They weren't trying to force their beliefs/customs upon me, they were "just doing what they do."

Sure, I talked with them about it at times, even let them know I may believe differently, but although I had feelings different from theirs, I respected their customs and didn't force feed my beliefs down their throat, and they did the same for me. I "let" them do their thing, and they "let" me do mine.

I guess I get frustrated with those I see as extremists who can't seem to follow this "live and let live" mentality. I believe the fellow who filed the lawsuit epitomizes a lack of tolerance and respect for others, not the other way around. /w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

I heard yesterday that the judge who wrote the majority opinion on the case in question had issued a stay of his own ruling on his own motion to do so. Essentially the judicial version of "Whoops!"

Amazingly, this judge was a Nixon appointee. I heard one clever remark about him suffering from the Stockholm syndrome from being surrounded by all of those San Francisco liberals for so long.

This ruling stands a very, very, very good chance of being overturned on appeal even if the stay is lifted based on the history of that particular court's rulings being upheld on appeal. On appeal, that court has had all but one of it's rulings that were appealed overturned in a higher court. The numbers were something like 28 of 29, or something like that.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>Funny I thought this was a democracy.</font color=blue>

I think what we have is a republic. That's where there's a democratic priniple but they don't allow the majority to just run over everything. They do it with laws.

Funny how that works, rule of law.

 

[Chuck52]

Cowboydoc,

I'm not offended by references to god. It is not that trivial. My principal concern is that religious beliefs will drive political and legal issues. To me, that is the real meaning of separation of church and state. Reading some of the posts in this thread, it certainly seems to me that many religious folks do not distinguish between their religious beliefs and how they expect laws to be made and enforced. I do not trust someone like John Ashcroft, for instance, to be able to distinguish between his religious beliefs and convictions and the laws he is supposed to uphold. If, as you say, the democratic process should be upheld, then the majority opinion in some states that terminally ill people have a right to seek a painless death should be honored, shouldn't it? Ashcroft doesn't agree. And we have clearly seen how religion, or at least the declaration of religious beliefs, can affect elections. There have been several references to GW's much emphasized faith and how good it is to have a "moral" leader in the White House. Fortunately, his faith is apparently one of those nice generic, more-or-less non-threatening types. He's not out there marching with the Kansas preacher who shows up around here periodically waving signs condemning all homosexuals to everlasting perdition. If he thought that, on balance, he might get more votes, I wouldn't be surprised to find him marching along. Anyway, as has been said, everlasting vigilance is the price of freedom. We just don't agree on what we must be vigilant against.

Chuck

 

[Ozarker]

The "Rule of Law" doesn't mean they can make laws to run over people's basic rights. That would be a Democracy.

Rule of Law means that a base was laid down, the Constitution, that constrained future laws and legislators. Their power to make laws was limited by the Law of the Land, the Constitution. All decisions and all laws make by our leaders must fit within the confines of the Law of the Land or they are ruled to be unconstitutional, and therefor void.

 

[Chuck52]

MossRoad,

I tried to send you a private note defining my rather childish comment, but according to the control panel it didn't go out. Believe me, you aren't missing much. I gotta learn some control.

Chuck