Yet Darrell Luzzo, senior vice president of Junior Achievement, defends the industry's antipiracy program by saying it's not meant to cover all aspects of copyright law. Rather, the idea is to encourage student debate. ''We are learning ways to enhance classroom discussions."
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education. I guess that's the price you pay for progress though. I hear they're moving onto aversion ther
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education.
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Regardless of constitutionality, I find it very sad that this whole issue over the Pledge of Allegiance has gotten more news coverage than (insert any one of a billion more important issues here).
Me too. We should just change it back to the way it used to be, before they decided we need more God in our lives back in the 50s, and get on with other things.
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God.
They can't? Name one jurisdiction where they don't.
There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Since it's at the Supreme Court and they're unlikely to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, yes it is. Ceremonial deism, such as "In God We Trust" on our money, oaths taken on the Bible, and chaplains opening congressional sessions with
You forget that this country was mostly established by Christians. Christians don't just assert the existence of God, they believe it. To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).
Actually, many of the founding fathers were not Christians according to the definition used by many American protestants today. Most of the founding fathers even wrote on the dangers of religious fundamentalism.
The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).
To an atheist, it's clearly unconstitutional to have the state push people to make a clearly untrue statement (that God exists).
Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists". Unfortunately we have a surplus of Christian nutcases who are incapable of accepting the plain text of the First Amendment.
Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma.
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christian
Deism is the notion that a god created the universe but has had NO EFFECT on it since then, and has left things to run on their own according to the laws of nature that he wisely set up to need no tweaking. It is incompatable with the believe that miracles have occured, and is thus incompatable with Christianity. A deist will not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, for example, or in the parting of the red sea by Moses. As for those founding fathers that were deists, yes they got there FROM Christianit
Deism is the notion that a god created the universe but has had NO EFFECT on it since then, and has left things to run on their own according to the laws of nature that he wisely set up to need no tweaking.
Thanks for your post. I must admit that I have only heard and read of "Deism" incidently and never actually looked up the definition. I always thought Deists believe that God designed the universe and that all "miracles" are a result of natural processes (as originally designed by God) which are scien
I will defer to your opinion that Deism is incompatible (though derived from) Christianity.
A clarification: I never said Deism is derived from Christianity. I said that in the case of the founding fathers, that THEY got there through that path. That's not the same thing as saying that Deism itself is derived from Christianity. I have no idea where it got started or why. (Although I can guess as to why - it was starting to become plausable to believe that the universe behaves in a predictable way - a
A clarification: I never said Deism is derived from Christianity. I said that in the case of the founding fathers, that THEY got there through that path.
Ah, so all you were saying is that the Deists were originally Christian or that they began with Christianity but did not necessarily take anything from it? Interesting... maybe i'll check out deism.com.
And thus, when something hard to explain is observed, the proper reaction should be to study it and try to figure out the reason behind it, rather than
With your examples are you simply arguing that governments change? I do not disagree. e.g. the modern German government is certainly not based on Nazism, though it once was.
The problem is with the implication that if a believes (or once believed) in X, and then goes on at some point in the future to do Y, that this means Y is founded on X. No, it doesn't mean that. If you want to open that can of worms, I could claim that slavery in the US was based on Christianity. And If I did that I'd be just as in
based purely on the fact that many of the people involved were Christian.
I agree. Just because you are Christian does not mean that everything you do is based upon your Christian values... though if what you do is in accordance with your Christian values, then perhaps they were a basis for it. Regarding Germany, I didn't mean to imply that modern Germany is based upon Nazi values, simply because it once was.
Secular things altered the religion more so than the other way around.
founders being Christian and implementing law and practices in keeping with Christianity
If they were in keeping with Christianity, then how come it took Christians so many years to finally get around to enacting a government like that? The US constitution, in its accepted form with the 10 bill of rights amendments, was finally ratified and became the law of the land in 1791. So, what were all those Christians busy doing in the one-thousand-seven-hundred-ninety-one years since the alleged birth of Chris
You make an excellent argument, and I am reconsidering my position.
Part of my problem is how I define "Christianity" -- i.e. I define it based upon my interpretation of the Bible. e.g. it was the people (Jews) who demanded a king, to the chagrin of God.
However, Christianity is not simply what I call it, but what others have called it throughout history. Hence, as you point out, monarchies and hierarchies were the norm for "Christianity" ever since the Catholic church began.
An interesting irony is that the USA, with its explicitly secular government, contains a more religious population than countries like the UK, which has an official State Church. There's a group called "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State", which contains a strange mixture of both the ardently faithful believers, and the ardently stubborn nonbelievers such as me. The idea is that coming from these two totally different directions, there is still a c
Actually, that's a good reason for a believer to be in favor of keeping them seperate too - you don't have a guarantee that your particular religion will be the one the government tries to promote in the future - it could be promoting an opposing one.
I agree and support the separation of church and state, basically for the reasons you present.
My current dilemma in this situation is in balancing between government and non-government. e.g. Is everything public under the heading of "government"?
Is prayer in school okay as long as no one is required to participate? I tend to think it should be allowed, but that is probably a slippery slope.
It depends on how it's "delivered". Should a student be allowed to pray in a classroom? Sure (unless she's doing it loudly so that it disrupts others nearby - but in that case it's not a matter of relgious freedom, but of a kid being quiet in class when she's supposed to be quiet in class.) Should a kid be allowed to read from a bible in class? Sure (again
I told her I was not Christian, and so only knew a little bit about the story, and I thought the question was really unfair. I knew the book we'd read for the class, but that wasn't enough to answer the question.
I agree; that was unfair. That brings to mind several interrelated issues.
When studying certain art or history which makes parallels or statements about a particular religion, where should the line be drawn? e.g. would it have been wrong for the teacher to present certain books of the Bible as
It's almost impossible to teach history without also teaching the history of religion. After all, the Protestant Reformation is one of the most signifigant historical movements in Western Europe.
Unfortunately it's *also* almost impossible for a teacher with strong religious beliefs to teach the history of religion (to children) without also promoting one religion over another. I know that our school system deliberately avoided the subject for this reason. Once in college, things got very different, and
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christians by modern definition.
I would say yes, many of them would not be considered Christians today. Thomas Jefferson, for example, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Though he would no
Excellent point. Thanks for correcting me. So would it be fair to say that the founding principles derive from the Christian philosophy?
I think you are right -- most people who consider themselves Christians require Jesus to be their savior, which is obviously not universally the case for the Founding Fathers. I wonder if they believed in the Christian resurrection or life after death?
No more so than the Socratic/Platonic philosophy, the Lockean philosophy, the Cartesean philosophy, the philosophy of Voltaire...
I'm not deeply familiar with all of those philosophers, but from what I do know, their works are much more detailed than the Bible (the best source for Christianity I can think of). I have no doubt much US philosophy came from them, as well as other contemporaries.
Actually, I thought at least some of them were Christian (Descartes?, Voltaire?, Locke?)? So I wouldn't be surpri
To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).
That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them. That's the whole point of any religion. If it were a fact and not a belief then it would be a science and not a religion, and you woulndn't need faith to believe it.
If someone tells you that something is a fact, then surely it's reasonable to say that "to them, it is a fact"? That might mean "they believe that it is a fact", but they themselves may consider it a fact rather than a belief.
The religious consider it a fact rather than a belief? I'm not following you there. Belief in something with no proof whatsoever requires faith. Faith is the foundation of religion.
You seem to be splitting hairs over my definition of the word 'believe', but that wasn't my point...
"That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them."
Not at all. It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that cannot be proven. A fact does not only become a fact when it is proven. A fact has always been a fact, no matter who doesn't know it.
Not at all. It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that cannot be proven. A fact does not only become a fact when it is proven. A fact has always been a fact, no matter who doesn't know it.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition would disagree [reference.com] with you:
fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt) n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known
Not at all. It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that cannot be proven. A fact does not only become a fact when it is proven. A fact has always been a fact, no matter who doesn't know it.
At best its a hypothesis that god exists. A conjecture at least, but not a fact as there is not even circumstantial evidence to allow anyone to entertain that god exists...as a fact.
A distance star is a fact to many, to a reasonable degree of certainty, as it has evidence that it exists which in plain view. D
Bull----, I know this guy who's hot-rod was built by Jesus.
The purpose of faiths is to keep the public happy. This is where the communists made a mistake and the one you are making. Once you remove faith from people then you remove hope.
I think you probably just stepped in it here on accident, but the purpose of faiths are not to control the public, they are to challenge the individual to find his/her own. The churches may have agendas, the government may have agendas, priests, nuns and devil worshipers
I agree with you here on this my complaint was with the god is a fact statement from the parent joker.
Using the fact of a sequence of words and then saying that because those sequence of words exists as a fact then the sematic content as it would be interpreted by an english language reader for those words as also being a fact is sophistry.
The next time he misses a credit card payment then he needs to simply conjure up a fact of it being paid. I'm sure the card company will accept that fact exists like
Well, they do say, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
God exist. We can take this as fact.
God is actually the Devil seen in the Bible, who actually managed to overthrow God in that big battle they had once, but felt it would be smarter to pretend he lost anyway.
Since you cannot disprove this except by using the Bible (which is history, and history is written by the victors - in this case the Devil), you have stepped into a quagmire.
It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that can
But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?... Oh dear," says God,
"I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic....
Christians often defend the pledge in a knee-jerk reaction against its atheist detractors. If we look more closely, we might see in pledge a threat to our own religious freedom.
When did it become OK to teach our children to swear oaths to man-made idols?
Weren't Christians persecuted in Rome for refusal to take part in similar rituals?
And Christians would do well to remember that among western cultures, those nations with state-endorsed religion have the highest percentage of atheists today. That's not a coincidence. Non-believers like me don't want religious belief to become a requirement for government participation, while believers with the ability to think clearly recognize that it's bad to let government get involved with religion as it will dilute it and secularize it. BOTH groups have good incentive to keep religion and governm
You forget that this country was mostly established by Christians.
And you forget that those Christians had just left an awful Christian government and were absolutely adamant that religion would play no role in the law of their new nation. Yes, it was Christians -- smart ones who understood the limits of their beliefs -- who originally demanded the seperation of church and state. As a non-Christian I have great respect for the founding fathers having such insight. Too bad so few Christians seem to reme
But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
You're right, pledging allegiance to an object (flag) sure seems like the establishment of a religion to me. Those crazy flag idolaters.
Oh, you're talking about the phrase "under God"!? Yeah, it's pretty clear that that does establish a religion... hmmm... but which religion does it establish? What are the rules of
Oh, you're talking about the phrase "under God"!? Yeah, it's pretty clear that that does establish a religion... hmmm... but which religion does it establish?
Christianity. The only religion that refers to its diety as "God" in english (not to be confused with "A god" or "the god" or "god" (no capital G)).
What are the rules of this religion?
They're documented in the bible. Well, the parts of it that modern Christianity adheres to anyway.
Christianity. The only religion that refers to its diety as "God" in english (not to be confused with "A god" or "the god" or "god" (no capital G)).
Really? Are you sure? 'Cause I've seen adherents of many other religions use the capital 'G' to denote an entity other than the Christian "God" (as defined by the Bible). In general, capital 'G' denotes a monotheistic singularity (or in the most general case, a highest god), similar to a proper name but not requiring that it always denotes the same idea ("i
To be a god it has to be a thinking entity. People who worship liberty generally don't believe that it's actually a cognisant being - just a human-invented concept that should be upheld.
To be a god it has to be a thinking entity. People who worship liberty generally don't believe that it's actually a cognisant being - just a human-invented concept that should be upheld.
That's an interesting qualification. Of course, then we must define what it means to "think". "Spirit" is another somewhat similar word which may or may not have sentient implications.
I think the definition of "god" could be stretched to include any higher power -- e.g. a "universal consciousness" which does not require
The notion that a 'god' can be something unthinking is something I've only ever heard from people who are trying to use the "Why, everyone believes in a god, even you, sir..." kind of idiotic rhetoric. The idea is that by stretching the definition to including pretty much anything somoene might hold in high esteem, they manage to make it so everyone has a "god", because everyone has *something* they hold in esteem. Thus they end up saying such idiotic things as "Money is your God", or "Science is your God
I agree with you: I think it is certainly possible for someone not to believe in any "god". But as I indicated previously and as you illustrate, the definition is blurred for many people. Many Christians speak of other "gods" (e.g. you mentioned money which they call "Mammon"). Some of these gods are "false gods" that they do not believe even exist.
Hence, due to the subjective nature of most "gods", what is a "god" is largely subjective.
I think it's important to make a distinction between a definitional drift that occurs because someone uses a word a new way, versus the kind that occurs because someone's ignorant predjudices surrounding that word become a part of the definition. This happens mostly out of their ignorance of the fact that it's even possible for people not fitting their predjudice to be a part of the group the word refers to. It's especially problematic when the ones with the predjudice make up the majority of the populati
As far as I can tell, you are not advocating against definition drift or variation, but merely against ignorant prejudice. I agree with you that unwarranted prejudice is wrong and should be avoided, though I'm not sure how "god" has any such prejudicial connotations?
Or are you simply referring to the fact that some people take offense at some uses of the word "god"?
As an aside, it's interesting to note that the drift also occurs in the reverse direction. e.g. Some people believe that the word "Christian
Or are you simply referring to the fact that some people take offense at some uses of the word "god"?
I take offense at attempts to deliberately engage in false equivocation fallacies, and the different definitions people use for "God" is one of those areas where this often happens. (Aside: A false equivocation fallacy is when someone uses a word that has different meanings in different contexts, and tries to come to a conclusion using that word in context X, and then apply that conclusion to something e
Example 1: Atheists don't believe in Love, because they don't believe in God, and God is Love. (Yes, I have actually heard that one. I'm not making it up.)
Example 2: Atheists don't believe the sun exists, because some cultures worshipped the sun as a god, and atheists say they don't believe in any gods existing. Therefore atheism is illogical because it makes you disbelieve in really obvious things like the Sun. (Yes, I've heard that one too.)
LOL! That's funny. I'm sorry you've had to put up with such si
>But regardless, is "under God" all that is required to establish a national religion?
No, it does not... but that's not what the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"under God" is respecting [reference.com] an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for cong
"under God" is respecting an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for congress to pass such a law.
I've read elsewhere and I started reading caselaw [findlaw.com] which seems to suggest that "respecting" is actually more vauge than you might suspect (perhaps because of the second definition?) -- especially because of the previous proposals. In addition, I think the page also mentions that until the last century, the prevailing interpretation was generally less strict.
Bringing in possible precident from earlier drafts of Amendments is interesting but not conclusive- I've been on the opposite side of this argument in Second Amendment debates, where contemporary proposals [ucla.edu] are squarely on the side of an individual rights interpretation. The counterargument others made against me there applies here as well- the framers made their final edits to the Bill of Rights reasons they felt were good at the time, therefore the existence of more favorable-to-your-position language in e
therefore the existence of more favorable-to-your-position language in early versions shouldn't be construed as the 'real' meaning of the amendment- if they'd really wanted the earlier phrasing they'd have kept it.
I agree. Of course, we are relegated the job of interpreting their phrasing. The caselaw I linked to suggested that the current phrasing is actually more vague than the earlier ones. Perhaps this was intentional in order to achieve the necessary support for it (which is not to say that it shoul
Please explain how liberty and justice for all provides "a frame of reference relating individuals to...the universe."
Ok. Respect for liberty derives from Justice, so I'll focus on Justice.
While there is the argument that Justice is man made, that would mean that Justice is whatever man deems it to be -- perhaps by majority? Most people would agree that Justice is not determined by majority vote. So how is it determined?
Perhaps there is a perfect Justice that exists independently from man -- it is a
Even as an atheist, the "under god" part isn't really the big problem for me - it's egotistical and presumptuous, but not anywhere near as much as the rest of the thing - It's a pledge of national allegience - that is PRECISELY the sort of thing that MUST REMAIN VOLUNTARY if it is to have any real deep meaning at all. We don't need mandatory patriotism. It's empty-hearted and evil.
Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education. I guess that's the price you pay for progress though. I hear they're moving onto aversion ther
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:0, Troll)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Informative)
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Regardless of constitutionality, I find it very sad that this whole issue over the Pledge of Allegiance has gotten more news coverage than (insert any one of a billion more important issues here).
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:1, Troll)
Me too. We should just change it back to the way it used to be, before they decided we need more God in our lives back in the 50s, and get on with other things.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:4, Informative)
Commie. [religioustolerance.org]
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
They can't? Name one jurisdiction where they don't.
There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Since it's at the Supreme Court and they're unlikely to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, yes it is. Ceremonial deism, such as "In God We Trust" on our money, oaths taken on the Bible, and chaplains opening congressional sessions with
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma. [ffrf.org]
The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
To an atheist, it's clearly unconstitutional to have the state push people to make a clearly untrue statement (that God exists).
Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists". Unfortunately we have a surplus of Christian nutcases who are incapable of accepting the plain text of the First Amendment.
What is Christianity? (Score:3, Insightful)
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christian
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
Thanks for your post. I must admit that I have only heard and read of "Deism" incidently and never actually looked up the definition. I always thought Deists believe that God designed the universe and that all "miracles" are a result of natural processes (as originally designed by God) which are scien
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
I will defer to your opinion that Deism is incompatible (though derived from) Christianity.
A clarification: I never said Deism is derived from Christianity. I said that in the case of the founding fathers, that THEY got there through that path. That's not the same thing as saying that Deism itself is derived from Christianity. I have no idea where it got started or why. (Although I can guess as to why - it was starting to become plausable to believe that the universe behaves in a predictable way - a
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
Ah, so all you were saying is that the Deists were originally Christian or that they began with Christianity but did not necessarily take anything from it? Interesting... maybe i'll check out deism.com.
And thus, when something hard to explain is observed, the proper reaction should be to study it and try to figure out the reason behind it, rather than
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
With your examples are you simply arguing that governments change? I do not disagree. e.g. the modern German government is certainly not based on Nazism, though it once was.
The problem is with the implication that if a believes (or once believed) in X, and then goes on at some point in the future to do Y, that this means Y is founded on X. No, it doesn't mean that. If you want to open that can of worms, I could claim that slavery in the US was based on Christianity. And If I did that I'd be just as in
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
I agree. Just because you are Christian does not mean that everything you do is based upon your Christian values... though if what you do is in accordance with your Christian values, then perhaps they were a basis for it. Regarding Germany, I didn't mean to imply that modern Germany is based upon Nazi values, simply because it once was.
In certain respects, I would
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
founders being Christian and implementing law and practices in keeping with Christianity
If they were in keeping with Christianity, then how come it took Christians so many years to finally get around to enacting a government like that? The US constitution, in its accepted form with the 10 bill of rights amendments, was finally ratified and became the law of the land in 1791. So, what were all those Christians busy doing in the one-thousand-seven-hundred-ninety-one years since the alleged birth of Chris
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
Part of my problem is how I define "Christianity" -- i.e. I define it based upon my interpretation of the Bible. e.g. it was the people (Jews) who demanded a king, to the chagrin of God.
However, Christianity is not simply what I call it, but what others have called it throughout history. Hence, as you point out, monarchies and hierarchies were the norm for "Christianity" ever since the Catholic church began.
You're right, I think it woul
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
An interesting irony is that the USA, with its explicitly secular government, contains a more religious population than countries like the UK, which has an official State Church. There's a group called "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State", which contains a strange mixture of both the ardently faithful believers, and the ardently stubborn nonbelievers such as me. The idea is that coming from these two totally different directions, there is still a c
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
I agree and support the separation of church and state, basically for the reasons you present.
My current dilemma in this situation is in balancing between government and non-government.
e.g. Is everything public under the heading of "government"?
Is prayer in s
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
Is prayer in school okay as long as no one is required to participate? I tend to think it should be allowed, but that is probably a slippery slope.
It depends on how it's "delivered". Should a student be allowed to pray in a classroom? Sure (unless she's doing it loudly so that it disrupts others nearby - but in that case it's not a matter of relgious freedom, but of a kid being quiet in class when she's supposed to be quiet in class.) Should a kid be allowed to read from a bible in class? Sure (again
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
I agree; that was unfair. That brings to mind several interrelated issues.
When studying certain art or history which makes parallels or statements about a particular religion, where should the line be drawn? e.g. would it have been wrong for the teacher to present certain books of the Bible as
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
Unfortunately it's *also* almost impossible for a teacher with strong religious beliefs to teach the history of religion (to children) without also promoting one religion over another. I know that our school system deliberately avoided the subject for this reason. Once in college, things got very different, and
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:2)
I would say yes, many of them would not be considered Christians today. Thomas Jefferson, for example, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Though he would no
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
I think you are right -- most people who consider themselves Christians require Jesus to be their savior, which is obviously not universally the case for the Founding Fathers. I wonder if they believed in the Christian resurrection or life after death?
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
No more so than the Socratic/Platonic philosophy, the Lockean philosophy, the Cartesean philosophy, the philosophy of Voltaire...
Jesus of Nazareth was just one of the philosophers with whom the Founding Fathers were familiar, and who influenced their views.
Re:What is Christianity? (Score:1)
I'm not deeply familiar with all of those philosophers, but from what I do know, their works are much more detailed than the Bible (the best source for Christianity I can think of). I have no doubt much US philosophy came from them, as well as other contemporaries.
Actually, I thought at least some of them were Christian (Descartes?, Voltaire?, Locke?)? So I wouldn't be surpri
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them. That's the whole point of any religion. If it were a fact and not a belief then it would be a science and not a religion, and you woulndn't need faith to believe it.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
The religious consider it a fact rather than a belief? I'm not following you there. Belief in something with no proof whatsoever requires faith. Faith is the foundation of religion.
You seem to be splitting hairs over my definition of the word 'believe', but that wasn't my point...
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all. It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that cannot be proven. A fact does not only become a fact when it is proven. A fact has always been a fact, no matter who doesn't know it.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition would disagree [reference.com] with you:
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
2c is in the past tense. Read the example. It does not override the other definitions.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Interesting)
At best its a hypothesis that god exists. A conjecture at least, but not a fact as there is not even circumstantial evidence to allow anyone to entertain that god exists...as a fact.
A distance star is a fact to many, to a reasonable degree of certainty, as it has evidence that it exists which in plain view. D
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:1)
The purpose of faiths is to keep the public happy. This is where the communists made a mistake and the one you are making. Once you remove faith from people then you remove hope.
I think you probably just stepped in it here on accident, but the purpose of faiths are not to control the public, they are to challenge the individual to find his/her own. The churches may have agendas, the government may have agendas, priests, nuns and devil worshipers
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Using the fact of a sequence of words and then saying that because those sequence of words exists as a fact then the sematic content as it would be interpreted by an english language reader for those words as also being a fact is sophistry.
The next time he misses a credit card payment then he needs to simply conjure up a fact of it being paid. I'm sure the card company will accept that fact exists like
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
God exist. We can take this as fact.
God is actually the Devil seen in the Bible, who actually managed to overthrow God in that big battle they had once, but felt it would be smarter to pretend he lost anyway.
Since you cannot disprove this except by using the Bible (which is history, and history is written by the victors - in this case the Devil), you have stepped into a quagmire.
It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that can
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Idolatry? (Score:1)
Christians often defend the pledge in a knee-jerk reaction against its atheist detractors. If we look more closely, we might see in pledge a threat to our own religious freedom.
When did it become OK to teach our children to swear oaths to man-made idols?
Weren't Christians persecuted in Rome for refusal to take part in similar rituals?
Re:Idolatry? (Score:2)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
And you forget that those Christians had just left an awful Christian government and were absolutely adamant that religion would play no role in the law of their new nation. Yes, it was Christians -- smart ones who understood the limits of their beliefs -- who originally demanded the seperation of church and state. As a non-Christian I have great respect for the founding fathers having such insight. Too bad so few Christians seem to reme
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:1)
You're right, pledging allegiance to an object (flag) sure seems like the establishment of a religion to me. Those crazy flag idolaters.
Oh, you're talking about the phrase "under God"!? Yeah, it's pretty clear that that does establish a religion... hmmm... but which religion does it establish? What are the rules of
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Christianity. The only religion that refers to its diety as "God" in english (not to be confused with "A god" or "the god" or "god" (no capital G)).
What are the rules of this religion?
They're documented in the bible. Well, the parts of it that modern Christianity adheres to anyway.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
I stand corrected. I didn't realize the meaning of that phrase.
God (Score:1)
Really? Are you sure? 'Cause I've seen adherents of many other religions use the capital 'G' to denote an entity other than the Christian "God" (as defined by the Bible). In general, capital 'G' denotes a monotheistic singularity (or in the most general case, a highest god), similar to a proper name but not requiring that it always denotes the same idea ("i
Re:God (Score:2)
Re:God (Score:1)
That's an interesting qualification. Of course, then we must define what it means to "think". "Spirit" is another somewhat similar word which may or may not have sentient implications.
I think the definition of "god" could be stretched to include any higher power -- e.g. a "universal consciousness" which does not require
Re:God (Score:2)
Re:God (Score:1)
Hence, due to the subjective nature of most "gods", what is a "god" is largely subjective.
Re:God (Score:2)
Re:God (Score:1)
Or are you simply referring to the fact that some people take offense at some uses of the word "god"?
As an aside, it's interesting to note that the drift also occurs in the reverse direction. e.g. Some people believe that the word "Christian
Re:God (Score:2)
Or are you simply referring to the fact that some people take offense at some uses of the word "god"?
I take offense at attempts to deliberately engage in false equivocation fallacies, and the different definitions people use for "God" is one of those areas where this often happens. (Aside: A false equivocation fallacy is when someone uses a word that has different meanings in different contexts, and tries to come to a conclusion using that word in context X, and then apply that conclusion to something e
Re:God (Score:1)
LOL! That's funny. I'm sorry you've had to put up with such si
Re:God (Score:2)
No, it does not... but that's not what the First Amendment states:
"under God" is respecting [reference.com] an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for cong
Re:God (Score:1)
"under God" is respecting an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for congress to pass such a law.
I've read elsewhere and I started reading caselaw [findlaw.com] which seems to suggest that "respecting" is actually more vauge than you might suspect (perhaps because of the second definition?) -- especially because of the previous proposals. In addition, I think the page also mentions that until the last century, the prevailing interpretation was generally less strict.
Not
Re:God (Score:2)
Re:God (Score:1)
I agree. Of course, we are relegated the job of interpreting their phrasing. The caselaw I linked to suggested that the current phrasing is actually more vague than the earlier ones. Perhaps this was intentional in order to achieve the necessary support for it (which is not to say that it shoul
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:1)
Ok. Respect for liberty derives from Justice, so I'll focus on Justice.
While there is the argument that Justice is man made, that would mean that Justice is whatever man deems it to be -- perhaps by majority? Most people would agree that Justice is not determined by majority vote. So how is it determined?
Perhaps there is a perfect Justice that exists independently from man -- it is a
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God.
Of course, it might be better if we Christians read and meditated upon scripture ourselves rather than relegate that to (fallible) people.