Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I think the real problem is people thinking that this world belongs to them and them alone. I sympathise with this guy to a certian extent. I know he feels like the religious people are imposing this on him, and that this probably represents more than just a few words to him. This represents, to him, an imposition on his right to NOT be christian (which is certianally his right, as it is totally wrong to impose religion on people). Yep, I sympathise with him. His perception of imposition is fine, but then he seeks to impose his beliefs, doesn't that make him hypocritical?
filtherton, you put fourth that this is a case of minor inconveniences. I say that this may be only minor on the surface, but it would cause serious ripples that would efffect the relationship between church and government for years to come. This ultimately boils down to one thing: which side gets to impose their beliefs? Imposing of a lack of a belief system is just as bad as imposing of a belief system. If he loses, we all get to say "under God" and all the crazy christian bible beaters win. If he wins, we don't get to say "under God" - or "in God we trust, or "God save this honorable court" - and the evil unbelievers get to remove God from our lives. Either way, we have one group thinkiong that some great injustice has taken place and that they are losing their grip on America. I guess people just need a cause to fight for. After all, if we aren't fighting for something it isn't important.
This isn't important. We live in a world where both groups - christians, and not christians - are supposed to live together and get along. Cases like this serve to drive those groups apart. They are made over trivial differences, but have the ability to drive a wedge between these groups. Hmm...Maybe this isn't about a few words. Maybe this represents the fundamental fear, ignoreance, and hatred for "the other side". Maybe Newdow is a Christiaphobe.
Or maybe, just maybe, we should work to come together, not diverge.
|
I think your first statement is very ironic. In fact, i think your entire post is the height of irony. Imposing a lack of a belief system is not what is going on here. Do you honestly think that this man wants to impose some sort of "antibelief" on america? What this guy seems to want is to not have to pretend he's a monotheist to pledge allegiance to his country. You trivialize his position when you nonchalantly claim that no one is forcing his daughter to say under god, but in doing so you admit that the phrase "under god" is essentially meaningless in terms of what the pledge actually represents. "Under god" in the pledge is filler. Not only is it filler, it is also filler that manages to, at the very least, alienate a minority of the populace.
I never put this as a minor inconvenience, i only pointed out your nonchalant attitude toward it.
Can we agree that there is a difference between attempting to impose one's beliefs and writing references to one's god into ceremonial pledges of allegiance to one's country? One is the very definition of politics, and the other can only be described as the action of a worshipper insecure in his savior's love. Need you be reminded that if one truly has a close personal relationship with jesus christ, one need not trumpet it from the rooftops. In fact, i heard christ frowns upon such public displays of piety.
Tell me how having "under god" in the pledge isn't exclusionary for every person who is not a member of a monotheist religion. Then try to imagine yourself as a member of a minority religion reciting a pledge to a god you don't believe in a country where all religions are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the government.
Even if newdow is a christiaphobe, how is that relevant? As i said before, i know plenty of christians who would love to see "under god" removed from the pledge. It would be the height of arrogance for you to claim them as christiaphobes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Nice article willravel. I must say that I agree with you for once, I'd like to shake your hand. The part of the article I liked the best was the last paragraph... As you said, Filtherton, I would just have to point to the paragraph I just posted. That by systematically removing the mention of God from our public lives and in the name of political correctness excluding every notion of religion, esp. christianity we are, in effect, promoting a religion, Secular Humanisim.
|
Yeah, i mean, if we allow the word religion to apply to anyone with a unique perspective, then we'd have an infinite number of religions. And then the word religion is completely fucking meaningless and everyone would be a tax exempt religious organization. Woohoo, let's make all words mean the same thing, that way writing will be really easy.
Even if that were relevant, the absence of the mention of god from the pledge doesn't amount to an endorsement of any religion any more than my lack of an opinion on gas powered lawnmowers amounts to an endorsement of push lawnmowers(is that a clumsy analogy?). By not mentioning god in the pledge, we exclude no one. By mentioning god we exclude everyone who isn't a monotheist. Is that clear?