Religiosity over facebook. - Page 3

On January 16 2011 17:33 stormtemplar wrote:



Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical.

I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.

But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it?

Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.

Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated.

The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha

Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.

And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.

The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.

That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind.

This is what I want to avoid.

Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.

To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.

All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come.

The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness.

oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p