Reply With Quote
Money!
Sincerely, God.
[QUOTE] I don't think it's unusual or out of line for Christians to fight back when the status quo is disturbed. The fact that the displaying of the Commandments is upheld in many instances is proof that their feelings are not without merit. We are under attack by haters of Christianity and I think it's only natural to fight back. We're winning battles in the courts that we shouldn't even have to fight!
Attack- Christian groups are often denied the usage of Public Schools for after hour activities while other groups are given access to the Schools.
We're winning this battle in the Courts but why is it that certain people and groups feel the need to stifle the assembly of Christians?
Attack-Fighting to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Attack-Fighting to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency
Why should we forfeit these things without a fight? Christianity and pacifism are not synonymous. We did not initiate these fights but we will engage. We are irrefutably in a battle.
1 Timothy 6: 12 12 Fight the good fight of faith. 2 Timothy 4:7-8 "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 08-30-2006 at 10:01 PM.
Money!
Sincerely, God.
What a great set-up GON!!!
Under God" wasn't even IN the Pledge of Allegience until 1954. If I were an athiest, I could just as easily say that was an attack on my beliefs.Why should we forfeit these things without a fight?
"Under God" and "In God We Trust" aren't going to bring more people to church or care for the suffering. Regardless of their function or relevance, all this debate serves to do is reinforce the stereotype of the pushy "evangelism-by-force" Christian.
Since the Civil War, some groups have made efforts to rewrite the Preamble of the Cons ution to read similar to the following:
Congress has considered this kind of revision several times. Now, say Congress approved this in 1950 for whatever reason. Move the clock forward to today, and the ACLU is lobbying to remove this new language and return to the original Preamble. Which side of the fence would you be on? Would you agree, or would you dismiss the ACLU as an extremist organization? I mean, they're just words, what's the big deal?We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to cons ute a Christian government, to form a more perfect union, ... do ordain and establish this Cons ution for the United States of America.
[QUOTE]Only 52 years? Is that supposed to pass as sound reasoning for it's removal without being contested?
Explain how the voluntary reciting of the Pledge is an attack on the beliefs of atheists.
If reciting the pledge is voluntary how is that an endorsement of religion?
The Pledge doesn't promote any particular god, does it?
That would mean that it's not a proselytizing tool for religion. Thanks for jumping to my side of the aisle, I appreciate your support. (arguing both sides of the issue in the same post is somewhat unusual but not totally unheard of Brother Spur."Under God" and "In God We Trust" aren't going to bring more people to church or care for the suffering.)
Earlier in the post you stated that it's not an evangelism tool and now you're labeling it "evangelism by force". Which is it?Regardless of their function or relevance, all this debate serves to do is reinforce the stereotype of the pushy "evangelism-by-force" Christian.
Voluntarily reciting the Pledge and "In God We Trust" are in no way evangelism tools. Now if the currency were labeled "In Jesus Christ We Trust" you would have a point. But it isn't and you don't
You are aware that hypotheticals are not considered a legitimate form of advancing an arguement, yes? Can you cite something that actually happened to support your argument?Since the Civil War, some groups have made efforts to rewrite the Preamble of the Cons ution to read similar to the following:
Congress has considered this kind of revision several times. Now, say Congress approved this in 1950 for whatever reason. Move the clock forward to today, and the ACLU is lobbying to remove this new language and return to the original Preamble. Which side of the fence would you be on? Would you agree, or would you dismiss the ACLU as an extremist organization? I mean, they're just words, what's the big deal?
You might take that notion up with Socrates, who seemed to think that one perfectly legitimate way to counter an argument is to test whether you get an acceptable or logical result under changed facts that are less-than-favorable to the argument's proponent. His methods have become a paragon for teaching. I guess I could see where one would dismiss that technique as an illegitmate form of argument, though.
[QUOTE]That's one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard Spurminator. Never in my life have I heard of someone use "Under God" from the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on our currency in their attempts to evangelize someone. Never! They are totally immaterial when it comes to evangelizing.
Have you or any other Christians attempted to use them? Geez, I hope not.
Because fiction is always more subtantial than fact.You might take that notion up with Socrates, who seemed to think that one perfectly legitimate way to counter an argument is to test whether you get an acceptable or logical result under changed facts that are less-than-favorable to the argument's proponent. His methods have become a paragon for teaching. I guess I could see where one would dismiss that technique as an illegitmate form of argument, though.
EDITED for being totally irrelevant.Because fiction is always more subtantial than fact.
Why contest it? Just because?Only 52 years? Is that supposed to pass as sound reasoning for it's removal without being contested?
You're naive if you think it's voluntary. Kids are expected to stand and say the Pledge and not be disruptive. It's not like being in class is voluntary, like, for example, a football game.Explain how the voluntary reciting of the Pledge is an attack on the beliefs of atheists.
If reciting the pledge is voluntary how is that an endorsement of religion?
And if it's truly voluntary, at some point kids will stop doing it because it's not a particularly cool thing to do. So now you have God's name attached to a mockery. Frankly, I'd prefer it wasn't cheapened by its inclusion in a trite oath of submission to a man-made piece of colorful cloth and the man-made government it represents. I pledge MY allegiance to God. My country, while important to me, is a distant second.
The Pledge doesn't promote any particular god, does it?
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]That would mean that it's not a proselytizing tool for religion. Thanks for jumping to my side of the aisle, I appreciate your support. (arguing both sides of the issue in the same post is somewhat unusual but not totally unheard of Brother Spur. )You missed the point.That's one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard Spurminator. Never in my life have I heard of someone use "Under God" from the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on our currency in their attempts to evangelize someone. Never! They are totally immaterial when it comes to evangelizing.
Have you or any other Christians attempted to use them? Geez, I hope not.
Whether it is and whether it's seen as such are separate. As Christians, we believe we are called to add to the flock. Thus, we should fight only if it helps that cause.
Fighting over things that do not serve that purpose hinders our efforts.
How would that be different?Now if the currency were labeled "In Jesus Christ We Trust" you would have a point. But it isn't and you don't
The phrase "In God We Trust" clearly implies a Deity of some sort. Many people do not believe such a Deity exists. Whether it's Yahweh, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the term "God" implies a religious belief system. Its ambiguity towards any specific "god" does not make it less of an endorsement of a certain kind of religion.
Sure it is. All you have to say is "No, I would not fight for such an amendment" and my point would be largely diffused. Your refusal to do so would only strengthen my point that you feel unfairly attacked by questions over things that probably should not have been ins uted in the first place.You are aware that hypotheticals are not considered a legitimate form of advancing an arguement, yes?
Last edited by Spurminator; 08-31-2006 at 10:46 AM.
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]You are aware that hypotheticals [U]are not considered a legitimate form of advancing an arguement, yes? Can you cite something that actually happened to support your argument?
Who doesn't consider hypotheticals as a way of advancing in argument? Most of the propositions in philosophy are based on hypotheticals. It's a good way of determining whether a position is as consistent as it is made out to be.
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]Are these other groups religious groups? Or are you referring to the chess club, drama club, young Republicans, etc.? In this cir stance, it may be the case that the Christian groups are comparable to the "other" groups to which you refer.Attack- Christian groups are often denied the usage of Public Schools for after hour activities while other groups are given access to the Schools.
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-31-2006 at 11:25 AM.
I'd tell you that if Christian groups are denied usage after school hours for activities that are permissible for other groups, then the people who are denying access are in violation of the law of the land. In a 1990 case (Board of Education of the Westside Community School v. Mergens) the Supreme Court held, quite explicitly, that such a prohibition, based on nothing other than the organization's affiliation with a religion, would evidence state hostility -- not neutrality -- to religion. As such, it was uncons utional for the state (through a public school district) to deny access. Thus, if public school districts are denying access solely because the groups are religious, they've violated the Free Exercise Clause and should be ordered to stop.
All things being equal, there is no battle to win on that issue, though. The issue has already been decided. Assuming the facts are wholly neutral, the effort strikes me as being more about educating public school districts concerning the effect of Mergens than it is about establishing a principle that access is not an establishment.
What I don't understand about any of the situations that you detail, joch, is that they are largely issues that have already been resolved. As noted above, Mergens seems to address your first concern. I've noted elsewhere in this thread that there is language in the Supreme Court's opinion in Newdow that strongly suggests that it has already decided that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not an uncons utional establishment of religion. I think that precedent strongly supports the notion -- for much the same reason -- that "In God We Trust" isn't in any real danger if challenged.
You can fight back, but metaphorically, you're fighting an army that uses rubber bands by firing bazookas. These are really non-issues.
Those issues have always been seen as different than public endorsement of overtly Christian iconography and practice. The same would be true, I think, if a community used overtly Jewish or overtly Islamic symbols or speech.
The whole point brings me to another observation, though: to the extent that these are issues, they are so in the same way that you are steadfast in your belief that Christians must fight for public prayer or Ten Commandments displays or nativity scenes. Your arguments seem to contend that precedent on those matters should be rethought and that none cons utes an establishment of religion. The converse of that, of course, is that the notion that public facilities should be made available to religious groups, that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on currency, and that any public display of religious symbols should be deemed an impermissible establishment. If it's alright for those who take a narrow view of the Establishment Clause to argue for the rethinking of precedent, surely you'll have to concede that it's alright for those who think the Establishment Clause should be more comprehensive to make the same arguments.
[QUOTE]I agree, that's the only aspect that needs to be cleared up regarding this issue. There are still school boards and principles that deny access because it's their personal preference to discriminate against Christian groups. They however, are in the minority. In light of the fact that this issue has been settled by the Courts, in most cir stances the School boards would acquiesce rather than face litigation. Others deny access out of fear of litigation, that's where the education comes into play.
Once again I agree with your premise. My arguements are more suitable to those who still feel they should be removed on the grounds that they serve as evangelical tools or are an endorsement of religion. My friend Spurminator falls into that category.What I don't understand about any of the situations that you detail, joch, is that they are largely issues that have already been resolved. As noted above, Mergens seems to address your first concern. I've noted elsewhere in this thread that there is language in the Supreme Court's opinion in Newdow that strongly suggests that it has already decided that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not an uncons utional establishment of religion. I think that precedent strongly supports the notion -- for much the same reason -- that "In God We Trust" isn't in any real danger if challenged.
You can fight back, but metaphorically, you're fighting an army that uses rubber bands by firing bazookas. These are really non-issues.
Those issues have always been seen as different than public endorsement of overtly Christian iconography and practice. The same would be true, I think, if a community used overtly Jewish or overtly Islamic symbols or speech.
I agree that the Federal Government may not create a State Run Religion. I'm not so sure that I agree that a personal endorsement by a public official in a public capacity is in violation of the portions of the Cons ution that deals with this issue.The whole point brings me to another observation, though: to the extent that these are issues, they are so in the same way that you are steadfast in your belief that Christians must fight for public prayer or Ten Commandments displays or nativity scenes. Your arguments seem to contend that precedent on those matters should be rethought and that none cons utes an establishment of religion. The converse of that, of course, is that the notion that public facilities should be made available to religious groups, that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on currency, and that any public display of religious symbols should be deemed an impermissible establishment. If it's alright for those who take a narrow view of the Establishment Clause to argue for the rethinking of precedent, surely you'll have to concede that it's alright for those who think the Establishment Clause should be more comprehensive to make the same arguments.
Overall your points are well taken. Thanks for the clarification.
BTW, I was too hasty with the dismissal of hypothetical arguement. I often resort to them myself in discussion.
Your sense of perception is unlimitless.
Here's just one more example of how the misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause has created a monster that suppresses freedom of religious expression. These Clauses were intended to advance religious freedom, not supress it!
One, and only one, complaint over a five year period causes the local Postmaster to tremble in fear and results in the accomadation of some anti-God activist (not your average athiest).
Totally unacceptable!
Crimes of Biblical Proportions
Monday, September 11, 2006
By Scott Norvell
Following complaints from a local atheist, a post office in California removed a poster carrying the words "God Bless America" from public view so it wouldn't violate the separation of church and state, reports the Santa Maria Times.
The phrase on the poster in the Lompoc post office, which also pictured an American flag, so offended local resident Matt Hughes that he demanded it be removed.
"They posted a religious expression, in this case, a prayer, and it's not the business of our government to be promoting religion," Hughes said. "That's the business of our churches." <Not! That's a right protected by the Cons ution!>
The postmaster <aka the wimp> to whom he complained moved the poster to a back room out of public view. It had been hanging on a wall above the customer service counter since shortly after 9/11/01.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213404,00.html
And your sense of spiteful sarcasm is overflowing.
eehhhh.
Well as Penn Gillette said...that is true...seperation of church and state is a lie. There should complete and utter seperation of church and state and that doesn't happen.
So you're right Katherine Harris....it is a lie.
If you live in Lompoc, you know there is such a thing as .
Penn Gillette? Yeah, there's a guy we should all be listening too when it comes to politics . . .
The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. -Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists-
Thomas Jefferson > Penn Gillette
Preaching to the chior.
Of course. But it would be helpful if you would post something that Jefferson actually wrote in support of that proposition.
Here (from the Library of Congress website) is the full text of the letter that President Jefferson actually sent to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802:
I've scanned the do ent and, frankly, don't see any references to one-way streets or to ensuring that Christian principles will stay in government. Indeed, what Jefferson wrote is pretty much consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence -- government may not take a position on religious issues, but cannot interfere with the individual right to practice religion as one sees fit.
I was curious, though, about two things -- first did President Jefferson include language like you intimate was part of his correspondence to the Danbury Baptist Association in an earlier draft of his letter? The answer appears to me to be "no." Again, from the Library of Congress:
The other question that occurred to me (and which I had never previously considered) was whether President Jefferson might have given a separate address to the DBA on January 1, 1802 and might have tried to memorialize his remarks in the famous letter. That appears to be impossible as historical evidence suggests that President Jefferson was in Washington for the New Year and, to my way of thinking, likely could not have made it to and from Connecticut in such a short period of time.
In other words, Jefferson never said that.
If you disagree with something, deny it ever existed. That's quite the educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion that runs contrary to your own.
Well done FWD.
Uh, I think if one can prove it never existed (especially when the burden of proof isn't even on him) then it is pretty much the MOST educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions