🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:33:43 -0500, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:28:48 GMT, Hagbard Celine
><All_Powerful@Illuminati.org> wrote:
>>
>>I think religious people should actually support the 9th courts
>>opinion.
>
>Why support moronic opinions? Why acquiesce to the anti-God crowd?

That's made clear in the next paragraph.  If the argument is valid,
it's not moronic, and the point was that I believe the pro-God crowd
should support this ruling, too.  I think you should acquiesce to the
anti-God crowd on any and every topic if you consider their position
and find that it's correct.
>>
>>If we allow the government to make statements not only about the
>>existence of God, but also about the nature of our relationship with
>>Him, we're giving up part of our religious freedom.
>
>How so? How in the world would the phrase "under God" in our Pledge
>affect any of your religious freedoms?

I'm being forced through taxation to pay for government officials to
consider, debate, enact, publish, and defend a statement about God as
part of a pledge to the flag and republic.

To allow the government to make a statement that "God exists and He is
this way" endorses one religious point of view over others. 

In addition, aren't conservatives supposed to be for less government?

Creating a proclamation about God is not a necessary nor proper
function of government.

>>
>>Some might say I'm reading too much into the pledge, but I consider
>>statements about God to be quite important.
>
>They are.

I believe it was a conservative thinker who said "Words mean things." 

 If the statement about God isn't important, then why not remove it
without debate?  

>>
>>The statement that we are a "nation under God" seems to imply that our
>>nation enjoys a special relationship with the creator not shared by
>>other nations.  I would hope that most Christians would find that
>>quite offensive.  As I understand Christianity, God does not make
>>distinctions among us based on political boundaries.  
>
>You are reading way more into the "one nation under God" statement. It
>is merely an acknowledgement that we believe our Nation is guided by
>God. (Supreme Being)

If "one nation under God" statement does mean as you say that our
nation is guided by God, then it's certainly a statement of religious
theology. You are saying that God has a certain property: the property
of guiding our nation.  I believe our government shouldn't make such
decisions but they should be left outside the realm of government.  It
is not the business of government to tell me what to believe about
God.

Even if this is not what it means, at very least  we have a difference
of opinion about what the phrase "one nation under God" means. The
fact that we do have a difference of opinion over this phrase goes to
show why the government shoudn't be involved in making decisions about
our respective faiths.

I believe the 1st amendment is supposed to prevent the government from
having to decide on respecting one particular belief about religion
and God over another.  The government remains neutral with respect to
religion and thus preventing any one religion from suppressing others
through government action.

You're lucky in that the government seems to have chosen to respect
the religion you believe in today.  You and other religious people
should consider the consequences if one day those in power don't agree
with your religious belief any longer.  To protect your own religious
liberty is why religious people should support this ruling.

>>
>>>I will say that 2000 years of history and belief is both hard and foolish to
>>>deny.  
>
>Exactly.

Other religions are older.  If age is the deciding factor in religion
I suspect we'd all be animists.
>
>There is one Supreme Being. 2000 years ago, a son of God was preaching
>on this planet, thus christianity was born. However, all religions
>believe in a Supreme Being.

Some believe in multiple Supreme Beings.  If Atheism is a religion as
some would argue, at least one believes there is no supreme beings at
all.

I think Buddism doesn't hold there isn't a supreme being, but I'm not
certain on that.

> Logic and common sense demands that there
>be a Supreme Being. The extreme complexities of life and the Universe
>demand it.

Again, some religions believe as a matter of faith that pure reason
alone can prove the existence of God, but others don't agree with that
position, and believe in God through faith alone.
>
>This entire "under God" controversy has occurred due to the moron's
>attempt to force his atheist religion on the rest of our Nation. 

No, he's attempting to be left in peace without the government
imposing their version of religion upon him.

>It is
>absurd that we should relinquish our beliefs for the moron and the 2
>liberal bozos on the 9th court, just because he doesn't want his
>moronic daughter to be "exposed" to God. No one is forcing any atheist
>to say the Pledge, but this moron is trying to force us to alter the
>Pledge to suit his own fricking view on religion.

It is absurd to abandon your beliefs due to a court decision.  But I
don't recall that being the courts ruling that you have to change what
you think and believe.  

As I understand it, the courts position is that government shouldn't
pay government employees to lead children in a pledge that makes a
statment about a religious matter.