Something to bash on

[[wcip]Angel]

Talk about being offended...

Sorry about that.

Pedophilia /= rape. Pedophiles /= molesters. They aren't "pedos", there are people. It's so great that in two sentances they can become monsters and no one thinks twice. "Predators" is another term used a bit too losely too. It's hard to call someone a predator when the young people are giving out personal information and encouraging and inviting others to come, all with the explicit understanding that sexual activity is the goal.

1. Pedophilia isn't rape? How can a child give consent to something he/she has no knowledge/understanding of?

2. Although not evident from my previous post, I also try to keep a more nuanced view than "pedophiles = monsters". AFAIK, they are no more to blame for their compulsions than a teenage frat boy failing to look away from an inviting cleavage one hot summer day.

Obviously, in discussions on pedophilia, a distinction must be made between those who practice their sexuality and those who don't. I seem to remember a very good episode of NYPD Blue centering around this theme. A man came into the precinct and accused another man for being a pedofile. He had masqueraded as a little boy and lured the accused (with whom he had communicated online) to reveal his intentions by sending him pictures (supposedly of himself) which he had lying on his computer. As it turned out, the man who reported the pedofile did not send a picture of himself but rather one from his porn-collection.. it turned out he was a pedofile himself, but was deeply ashamed of who he was and what he felt and said he would never touch a child. When talking about pedophiles, I'm always referring to those people who lack such self-control and moral conviction as to not *act* like monsters.

3. What do you mean by "encourage" and "invite"? I must be reading you wrong, because I don't think you're saying children encourage pedophiles to have sex with them...

[kandrathe]

You are right. We should take the Liberty Counsel, and Mr. Staver's opinions out of the conversation. It was just a handy link to the same argument I was making, and he was the lawyer who argued and won the "Ten Commandments" decision in front of the US Supreme Court about a year ago. So, for those on the forum not familiar with where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from.

Below is the text of the letter sent to Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Church when we was sitting as President of the United States. At the time, they were being persecuted because they did not belong to the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. Jefferson responded to reassure them that he also believed in religious liberty.

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of
the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God
has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of
those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson

Thomas Jefferson's final edited reply was;

Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Later in 1808 when writing to a Virginia Baptist group he further clarified;

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

But, again, I would argue that Jefferson's intent was that the Federal government should have no role in promoting or discouraging religion within the states. During the early colonial period, before there was a federal constitution, some states had established themselves with a state religion similiar to what was common practice in Europe. Religious minorities within the states, including the Danbury Baptists, wanted an end to repression on account of their religious beliefs.

The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.

If I attend a legislative session, at any level of government, and the session is opened with a prayer (and don't give me any crap about 'non-denominational' -- anyone who thinks that the way a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Taoist, even a Jew or a Muslim would pray isn't substantially different from how a Christian from any sect would pray is either ignorant or in denial), then isn't my freedom of religion being negated. Aren't I, in effect, being told that anything other than a Christian is not respected here and will not get a fair hearing.

Other than it being tradition, I would concur. I would suspect that any legislator who would attempt to change it would be commiting political suicide, and if they prefer not to hear the prayer would attend the session late as most legislators already do.

Now about a 5000 pound carving of the Ten Commandments that might be sitting outside the court house, or a plaque on the wall... As the minority, you are suffering the tyranny of the majority and your only protections lie within judicial decisions which must be made on careful consideration of law and precedence. The establishment clause is a protection for those who do not want the goverment dictating religious activites, but the question of whether that applies to a prohibition of anything religious in a civic forum remains a bit vague.

Next up? The final verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner";

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Anyway my point is that I think it is more productive as we make new decisions to do that in sensitivity to the diversity the nation embodies. To go back and revise all the sculpture, monuments, money, national anthem is not productive even though it might offend your senses, I would hope you could see them in their historical context.

[Occhidiangela]

The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.

I think this bears repeating. For emphasis.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.

Say rather 'these Christian minorities". Throughout our history, right up to the present attitudes expressed about 'rag-heads', the protection received by any group that isn't based on the Christian view has been minimal to non-existent. Ask the Jews and Mormons for their opinion of equal protection for religions in the USA.

As to ". . . excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.", that's a red herring and smells of three day old fish. Nowhere did I say or imply that. There are houses of worship everywhere I go, many with sign boards proclaiming their opinions. I have no objection to that, for they are on private property. Many people display the ichthus on their automobiles. Again, no objection on my part. People place a mezuzah, a crucifix, or other symbol of their religion either outside their home or visible from the outside. Again, no problem. Note that these are all private displays of belief, and whether I agree with the belief or not, I fully support the right of the people to both hold it and to proclaim it. My objection is with a display of religious belief enacted and supported by the state, especially in a publicly owned place. To extend that as you have is to ascribe to me opinions that I find repugnant and offensive.

Next up? The final verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner";

Again, I have no problem with this. Unlike most idiotic modern day PC fools (the vast bulk of the world, it seems) I realize that with time comes understanding and change. Francis Scott Key was a product of his times, a time when the average European and American had scant knowledge of any religion other than Christianity, dismissing all others as 'heathen'. And scarcely a concept of atheism or agnosticism (it was only around the turn of the eighteenth century that the concept of a universe without a creator started to be considered).

Anyway my point is that I think it is more productive as we make new decisions to do that in sensitivity to the diversity the nation embodies. To go back and revise all the sculpture, monuments, money, national anthem is not productive even though it might offend your senses, I would hope you could see them in their historical context.

If they were indeed in a historic context, I would agree with you. But consider money. The bills have been redesigned within the past few years, well within the time that this issue has been known. And the new bills still have "In God We Trust" on them. As to sculpture and monuments, you'll have to be more specific. The plaques with the ten commandments that adorn many of the public building, especially judicial buildings, are no more difficult to remove than a painting would be, and thus your concern is moot (doubly so, I'd say since often the building itself is of no historical significance either because it is too modern or because it has no outstanding features).

What offends my senses is not what was done in the 1800s but what has been done this past half of a century:

The pledge of allegiance changed from a civic statement to include religion in 1954.

While in use for a century beforehand, In God We Trust didn't become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The display of the ten commandments in courthouses seems to be a recent phenomenon (BTW, I used that link strictly because it has a fair summary of the time-line and not for any opinions expressed there).

So, while your point of historical context is valid in a few cases, most of the observed cases are not old enough to have any historical context.

--Pete

[LemmingofGlory]

The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.

I think this bears repeating. For emphasis.

Why? It's blatantly wrong, because it's a strawman. There is no movement "to excoriate all religiosity from the public's view." That would involve far more than, e.g., removing religious monuments from court rotundas. It would involve censoring religious television channels. It would involve taking religious books off of shelves in libraries. That's not what's being asked for, and frankly, that kind of douchery is what the fundamentalists do.

What is desired is for the government to show no favoritism to any faith (or lackthereof). Putting "Under God" in the pledge is just as undesirible as putting "Free Of Gods" in the pledge. Tacking the Ten Commandments everywhere is just as tacky as stenciling "There Is No Afterlife, So Don't Kill Folks!" on the walls of government buildings. I don't think the government should be doing stuff like this. But more than that, I don't want it to, because listening to the government tell you about religion is like getting therapy from Michael Jackson.

-Lemmy

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Say rather 'these Christian minorities". Throughout our history, right up to the present attitudes expressed about 'rag-heads', the protection received by any group that isn't based on the Christian view has been minimal to non-existent. Ask the Jews and Mormons for their opinion of equal protection for religions in the USA.

Probably better here than in some places in the world, but your point is taken. There is a repugnant class of so called Christian who acts more like the repressive 1st century Roman, rather than like Christ would have instructed them. Some religious groups, like the suicide cults, need government intervention since they are a danger to thier own members. Unfortunatly, even the fringes of Christian sects are treated badly.

As to ". . . excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.", that's a red herring and smells of three day old fish. Nowhere did I say or imply that. ... To extend that as you have is to ascribe to me opinions that I find repugnant and offensive.

Sorry, I painted you a broad brush that included all the PC people who are attempting to excoriate. I was not thinking you were one of them.

If they were indeed in a historic context, I would agree with you. But consider money. The bills have been redesigned within the past few years, well within the time that this issue has been known. And the new bills still have "In God We Trust" on them. As to sculpture and monuments, you'll have to be more specific.

I have to agree with you on the money, but again it would probably have caused alot of political turmoil for whomever proposed it be different.

The plaques with the ten commandments that adorn many of the public building, especially judicial buildings, are no more difficult to remove than a painting would be, and thus your concern is moot (doubly so, I'd say since often the building itself is of no historical significance either because it is too modern or because it has no outstanding features).

Yes, if they are the only coda of "law" displayed ornamentally, and easy to remove I would agee.

What offends my senses is not what was done in the 1800s but what has been done this past half of a century:

• The pledge of allegiance changed from a civic statement to include religion in 1954. <>
  
• While in use for a century beforehand, "In God We Trust" didn't become the official motto of the USA until 1956. <>
  
• The 'display of the ten commandments' in courthouses seems to be a recent phenomenon (BTW, I used that link strictly because it has a fair summary of the time-line and not for any opinions expressed there).<>
  [st]So, while your point of historical context is valid in a few cases, most of the observed cases are not old enough to have any historical context.
  --Pete

I guess much like slavery, and emancipation, prohibition, and it's repeal, during the 1950's some kind of political back lash happened, that when the time is right that pendulum will swing back more toward reasonableness. However, with a Supreme Court and Circuit Court judges having been selected by the more bible thumping party, the chances of that happening anytime soon are small.

[kandrathe]

... There is no movement "to excoriate all religiosity from the public's view." That would involve far more than, e.g., removing religious monuments from court rotundas. It would involve censoring religious television channels. It would involve taking religious books off of shelves in libraries. ...

So then you didn't remember back in 2000 when the FCC put out a ruling in which they were going to put limits on religious broadcasting, resulting in Congress passing the "Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act". I haven't heard of any banning of specifically religious books, at least not in America, yet. I would rather that libraries (even high school ones) not ban any books. I remember in high school I was pretty amazed to find 'Mein Kampf' on the shelf in my school, and guess what? No one became a Nazi.

[eppie]

You don't know that, you assert it without a shred of evidence. You know that some priests (how about you give me a number?) have indeed done so. Now, back up your assertion with statistics drawn from known pehophiles elsewhere, and we can have a conversation on the topic. What is disturbing is the "tip of the iceberg" problem. How many pedophiles out there, that we don't know about, are exploiting children for their kicks?

"The religious people" are not all priests, indeed, priests make up a miniscule percentage of Christians. As for another of your canards, a pedophile priest will burn in hell alongside a pedophile from the laity, according to doctrine.

Thanks for playing, but I think that delicious vino locale might be clouding your thinking. It did the same to me for three years! :lol: Brain cells well burned.

Occhi

Come on Occhi, you know what I meant. That there is absolutely no proof, and not even a suspicion, that pedophilia would be more comon under certain groups of people, the same as homophilia. Certain groups try to deny it, of course...but that does not mean it isn't there.

And more important......the fact that in Holland these people are stirring up society with saying they want to start a political party does not mean there are more pedophiles in Holland.....just to make things clear here.

Angel' date='Jun 2 2006, 12:19 PM' post='111104']
I see you point, but do you really see this as a viable threat? That people will side with paedophiles in opposition to the extreme right movement?

In the spirit of having to choose between two evils, I'd rather side with a genodical maglomaniac like Adolph Hitler than rally behind child molesters, and I'm more inclined to believe that Dutch liberals will lean more to the right to distance themselves as much as (in)humanly possible from these psychopaths rather than support them.

But hey, I could be wrong.

edit: typo

First, of course this is not a threat..it is not going to happen. Second, these people that want to start this party are no child molesters...if they had ever molested a child they would be in prison for a long time.

Stop thinking that In Holland people are crazy.

[kandrathe]

Stop thinking that In Holland people are crazy.

Eppie! But Holland is filled with, um, er, crazy people. :D
My Proof

[LemmingofGlory]

Good one. :lol: When you have children, some day in the far future, it is well to remember that children in the early developmental stage benefit from structure and consistency. As they grow, the structure can flex, but a sense of security is very handy in considering a great number of things in absolutes. Where that is based from, and how it is taught to them by you and your future wife, the source of "right from wrong" themes, is up to you. As they flesh out their reasoning skills, they can learn how gray the world really is. How quickly they can arrive at this stage is again up to you, and what you endorse. Likewise, what you expose them to, and what they are exposed to beyond your immediate control.

Be prepared to do a lot of explaining, and if you find yourself in the situation I have frequently been in -- I don't really know -- hit the Encyclopedia, the Bible, the Dictionary, or a well grounded web page, to back up your explanation.

Whatever you do, don't trust what they are taught in school. The curricula in public schools has been used as source of indoctrination for some time now, perhaps forever, and may well be at odds with where you are coming from.

Best of luck when that happens. To sum up, the right from wrong comes from what you teach them, and what you endorse.

(MEAT) The Ten Commandments give people knowledge of right and wrong. Let's post it on walls for the sake of people whose parents aren't teaching them.
(Lemmy) Won't help. People who can read already have that knowledge despite bad parents, even if they don't act as if they do.
(MEAT) What about teaching communications in schools? That's what really made me stop and think.
(Lemmy) That's a damn fine idea.
(Occhi) Lecture, lecture. Parents give knowledge of right and wrong.

*pats Occhi on the head and gives him a Coffeebone™*

-Lemmy

[Quark]

I have to agree with you on the money, but again it would probably have caused alot of political turmoil for whomever proposed it be different.

Part of being a minority (in my case, atheist) is knowing when to pick your fights. The money thing annoys me, but I know it to be an uphill battle I'm better off not touching.

Since someone decided to fight the Ten Commandments being posted at a court, I'm willing to support them. I show my chagrin at the change to the Pledge by repeating the Pledge but staying silent while everyone else says "under God" - or, at least, I did while I was still in school and actively saying the Pledge.

[Quark]

First off: sorry for the huge, huge derail I seem to have started. I'm just not one to post and say "I agree!" to what has mostly already been said about the original topic.

One thing that annoyed me in college was one of my friend's religious stance. He would say he was agnostic, then later in the same day he would say he's angry at god. That's a difference that can't be reconciled ... if you're angry at god you believe in him. He hasn't grown up in many ways (and if Pesmerga's reading this he knows who and what I'm talking about :D), but at least he has given up his "agnostic" stance.

There is just something in people that either makes them say "yes", "maybe", or "no." Once you know where you stand, you should try to take the best path for that stance.

I believe it is easier to be religious. That doesn't make it any more right or wrong, but I believe it leaves a bigger vulnerability towards weaker-willed people then the alternatives. These are the people who will follow the stronger willed, no matter the reasoning. This leads to people distorting religions towards their own purpose ... if the lemmings are to be led, why not lead them the easy way?

[Occhidiangela]

It's blatantly wrong, because it's a strawman. There is no movement "to excoriate all religiosity from the public's view."
-Lemmy

Fine strawman your own self, Lemmy.

Welcome to the war of ideas. Start the current phase, call it phase eleventy-seven, with the French Revolution. See you when you catch up. The fact that two (heck three or four or nine) sides are fighting to spread their agenda, rather than your presumed one, seems to have escaped you. The Constitution's flexibility and ability to capture the growth of ideas and social themes is continually tested, I'll again refer to Prohibition and the Court's "unconstitutional" death penalty pronouncement of 1972 as examples of "it is a work in progress, forever." There is not correct answer to this exam, but a hell of a lot of partial credit.

I suspect that you would, under your line of reasoning, suggest to me that the American military should cease and desist in paying for Chaplins, as that would violate "separation of Church and state." I disagree with Jefferson's wall, unless it is built with gates. That image segue's into my core irritation of late, the bloody border. I'll stop here, rather than rant about the Pope's endorsing an invasion of my land for his political aim of further Catholicising America. Being that the Constitution was written by a group who were by and large anti-Papist, and the ban against formal State religion was aimed explicitly at the Papacy and the C of E, it is germane to the topic, correctly addresses the motivation of the establishment clause, and ends my participation in this discussion.

As to the "lecture," thanks for the coffee bone, it appears the food for thought provided wasn't to your taste. By the way, it's a "no touchee!" zone, on the patting my head, oh furriest of Mods: my hair on top is getting thin enough as it is! :blink: No extra friction desired. ;)

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

While in use for a century beforehand, In God We Trust didn't become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The display of the ten commandments in courthouses seems to be a recent phenomenon (BTW, I used that link strictly because it has a fair summary of the time-line and not for any opinions expressed there).
--Pete

In God We Trust on the coin of the realm is, for my money, explicitly non-scriptural and non-doctrinal under Christian tenets. Digression: I don't know Talmudic doctrine well enough to know how it addresses the shekel, but it appears that the Muslims endorse it. ) The banknotes I have from Qatar don't seem to include the standard reference to Allah found all over the Islamic world, but the Saudi banknotes do. Mixed bag.

There are a variety of passages in Christian foundational doctrine referring to rejection of the worship of Mammon, caution against too close a tie to "the World" or those things material, and of course "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar" line Luke 20, 24 & 25:.

Summation: "No true Christian" ;) of any denomination should be a proponent of God's name on the coinage.

The only context in which I find "In God We Trust" appropriate is among merchants, the old saw "In God we trust, all others pay cash":lol:providing a metaphor for how little credit customers will be extended.

Your remark on the Mormon's being singled out for unequal treatment, vis a vis polygamy, is indeed interesting. As it stands now, it is lawful under the Constitution, since that restriction was approved by Constitutional referendum and Congressional action under the conditions set for Utah's statehood. Given the talents and financial assets of the Mormon Church, it is not unthinkable to see that decades old precedent soon challenged under the Establishment Clause, or a basis like "equal protection under the law" (Fourteenth Amendment) similar to the line that homosexual marriage proponents have used. 'Twould be an interesting argument to follow, at the least. If it passes, my options for polygamy would only be curtailed by Mrs Occhi, and the dreaded Spousal Frying Pan of Bashing. :lol:

Me, I'll settle for a few more Mormon neighbors. They are good family people, generally friendly, tend not to drink and drive, and also tend to keep their homes/yards tidy. Absent a few doorway visits inquiring into my "having heard the word of God lately" (my current pre-loaded reply is "Yes, and He told me to beware of Mormon's bearing books"), the local adherents are generally willing to live and let live.

EDIT: I have to nit the CSM, since this

The First Amendment's establishment clause bars the government from taking actions that promote or endorse religion or a particular religious faith .

is false by their adding language not in the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is all the Constitution "says." The rest has been a matter of court fights and precedent, (which the CSM duly covered) which Prohibition shows us is most certainly NOT written in stone (or hardened clay?), unlike the 15 Commandments of Mosaic Law. (Reference: Mel Brooks' documentary film, History of the World Part I and Moses' slight fumble as he descended from the Mount.:))

*starts tapdancing and singing "The Inquisition, the Inquisition . . ." *

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Part of being a minority (in my case, atheist) is knowing when to pick your fights. The money thing annoys me, but I know it to be an uphill battle I'm better off not touching.

Since someone decided to fight the Ten Commandments being posted at a court, I'm willing to support them. I show my chagrin at the change to the Pledge by repeating the Pledge but staying silent while everyone else says "under God" - or, at least, I did while I was still in school and actively saying the Pledge.

I actually would like the Pledge of Allegiance to be a patriotic thing, rather than intermingle the two allegiances. I would in favor of changing the pledge to "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all."

Maybe this way it could be used again in public schools to promote better citizenship.

[Occhidiangela]

I actually would like the Pledge of Allegiance to be a patriotic thing, rather than intermingle the two allegiances. I would in favor of changing the pledge to "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all."

Maybe this way it could be used again in public schools to promote better citizenship.

And when the kids bring a Mexican flag to school?

Occhi

[kandrathe]

As for the derail... I know I am a little tired of discussing Pedophiles.

I believe it is easier to be religious. That doesn't make it any more right or wrong, but I believe it leaves a bigger vulnerability towards weaker-willed people then the alternatives. These are the people who will follow the stronger willed, no matter the reasoning. This leads to people distorting religions towards their own purpose ... if the lemmings are to be led, why not lead them the easy way?

Back when I was in college I used this very same argument, that is "Religion is a crutch for the weak minded, or weak willed and powerful userous 'Preachers' manipulated them for their money and as power base for their own selfish gain." Now I think that only sometimes it is that way, and the discerning tend to recognize the sham or sometimes it is exposed as the fraud it is (like with Jim and Tammy Baker). As long as there are snakes in this world, there will be snake-oil salesmen. All people are fallable, and power corrupts. I've run into those lemmings too who have no basis in their belief, and no firm ground on which to stand. Sometimes they are Christian, sometimes they are Republicans, or Democrats, and lots of them are "something else"ists. My study of Tao and Buddhism have taught me that the path is longer for some, but I should still encourage those on the journey to walk it. The quests of our species seems to be enlightenment and immortality, and most any appeal to these base desires will attract adherents. The difficulty is in choosing your path.

I spoke about the hypocrisy in my post above, but I know I'm not the only person who has had bad experiences with close minded so-called Christians. I resent trying to have discussions with people who spout bible verses at me (out of context) to justify their usually selfish position but have little clue about the big picture of humanity and their role in the cosmos, how to live by the principles of the book they are thumping, or put actions behind their holier than thou positions. For a person to claim to understand the positions of Christianity, they need to look at the life examples of Christianities major architects. The distortions you fear will ring hollow to the discerning and eventually will fail. Sometimes those distortions are horrible and take along time, such as with Slavery, or the Inquisition. These types of wrong-headed ideas would have a hard time taking root in the doctrines of the modern age, due to values humanity has begun to believe in as strongly (or stronger), such as democracy, equality, liberty, and human rights.

Now you can substitute Islam, or Judaism, or many other philosophies into my prior statements above and it applies as well. Good ideas are frequently perverted by the self-serving and power hungry. The testament of any cause worthy of supporting is not just in what ideas are advocated, but more importantly what actions they are willing to perform to see their ideas acted upon. Christ would be happy to see people feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, curing the sick, giving hope to the hopeless and preached a philosophy of love and cooperation. Other religious doctrines are not as nice. My acid test on doctines are to measure the outcomes of the actions proscribed based on how they improve and uplift peoples lives, protect the planet, promote freedom, justice and equality.

The hardest part for agnostics is not the believing in the good works or the goodness aspects, but rather they get hung up in the details of creation myths or the mystery and metaphysics of how a God could exist. I did hear a pretty good answer recently, "If God were easily explained he wouldn't be much of a god." The crux of faith is getting to "Yes", and unfortunately (probably by design) there will never be any certainty of it. There is no scientific explanation since there is nothing observable, and speculation is fun but fruitless. People just need to study up and decide for themselves. But it is one thing to get to "Yes", and quite another to live "Yes".

I would offer that real Christians humbly perform good works as they can with little or no recompense in continual service to God and are pretty uninterested in what other people think about what they are doing. Evangelism is one of those "good works" which can be annoying to some people, but there are also all those other things people really appreciate as well. If we judge these people, it should be on their good deeds rather than the philosophy that brought them to performing the deeds.

In the United States it is easiest to claim to be a Christian, but then not really follow through with it. This is the bulk of Christianity in America, and maybe 20% of those claiming to be Christians really walk the talk while most of the others dabble in it. That is the hypocrisy you and I see, and how so many get suckered in by snake-oil salesmen.

[LemmingofGlory]

Welcome to the war of ideas. Start the current phase, call it phase eleventy-seven, with the French Revolution. See you when you catch up. The fact that two (heck three or four or nine) sides are fighting to spread their agenda, rather than your presumed one, seems to have escaped you.

The fact of the matter is, kandrathe's post did the same thing as my post: it presents only two sides (in his case, what I viewed as characterising the opposing view by its extreme). But you emphasized him, and you're lecturing me. (Again? Jesus!) It's great that you can see flaws in comments you don't agree with, but it escapes me as to why don't you try picking them out in those that you do. When I agree with a position, I like to see the person arguing it do with as few faux pas as possible (read: I'll ream them if they say something that makes us look dumb).

And by the way, I was well aware of what I was doing. But the question is, does it really detract from my point, or are you just using this as an opportunity to condescend? In all honesty, it bothers me when I find myself having to choose between being perfectly factual and saying something that's true as far as I know (largely because I hate disclaimering; it can get windy). So if you really want to have a cow, go ahead and pinch a meatloaf because I didn't say "As far as I know, there is no movement to ( ... ) and if there is, I'll join with you in bitching them out. But the stance that I take, and that I've seen others take, is as follows ..."

I suspect that you would, under your line of reasoning, suggest to me that the American military should cease and desist in paying for Chaplins, as that would violate "separation of Church and state." I disagree with Jefferson's wall, unless it is built with gates. (...) Being that the Constitution was written by a group who were by and large anti-Papist, and the ban against formal State religion was aimed explicitly at the Papacy and the C of E, it is germane to the topic, correctly addresses the motivation of the establishment clause, and ends my participation in this discussion.

I don't know enough about military chaplins to have an opinion. But the debate about the history of what the founding fathers intended and what was really going on back in the day is something that, quite frankly, baffles the hell out of me. Why?

If our system of laws is based on reading something stuff dead people wrote in an attempt to try and interpret what it means, then we're doing no better than Christian denominations when it comes to interpreting the Bible and trying to find common ground. (Think "Evangelical Christian vs most-other-types-of-Christians" here.) Having to go back and interpret means those old farts weren't specific enough! When it comes to "separation of church and state," to me the question shouldn't be "What did the founding fathers really mean? What was the intent of that clause?" but "Is the notion of 'separation of church and state' a good idea?"

It seems that everyone's already made up their minds on whether SoC&A good/bad, and they're simply left debating whether it's constitutional. But whether something is supported by the constitution and whether it's a good idea are, obviously, quite different. So why don't we start talking about what is a good idea, why it's a good idea, and what we can do to get that good idea codified in law? That, to me, is a much more interesting conversation. But if folks prefer reading books of deadmen in hopes of reading their minds (necrobibliopsychomancy?)... well, have at it.

As to the "lecture," thanks for the coffee bone, it appears the food for thought provided wasn't to your taste. By the way, it's a "no touchee!" zone, on the patting my head, oh furriest of Mods: my hair on top is getting thin enough as it is! :blink: No extra friction desired. ;)

Well, I was eating my breakfast coffee (tar?) and talking about communication in public schools (with a side of 10 commandments) when all of a sudden this entree of "When you grow up..." showed up, and I was sputtered, "How does this fit into my balanced breakfast" And then faceless drone in the IHOP uniform nodded reaperishly and pointed at the Wafflehouse sign. I just wasn't sure where anything fit in at that point, so it was kinda hard to carry the conversation. But luckily, I have a topuee for your "no touchee" zone. It's made from quail feathers that I found in a French drain.

-Lemmy

[Drasca]

Bad puns ahoy, if I didn't know you liked them (making and reading), I would've resisted (maybe).

By the way, it's a "no touchee!" zone, (snip) my hair on top is getting thin enough as it is!

Really? I thought that zone's been declared 'no toupee'!

[Crusader]

Eppie! But Holland is filled with, um, er, crazy people. :D
My Proof

True. But it's a GOOD crazy! :P

*wonders where and how this topic could be turned into a "US seperation of government and church" Discussion*

Get yer own thread! this is mine about the Idiocy of MY country! Shoo, shoo! :angry::P