atheists going too far?

[peggy]

I don't think it is important to acknowledge a universal god and I'm not pushing it on you or anyone else. Just asking questions to spark discussion and maybe challange a few mis-conceptions.

My entire interest in this discussion has to do with the supposed "separation of church and state", which I believe is mis-understood by more and more folks these days. I really don't care what words are displayed on our money as long as it spends, and I don't understand why anyone else would either.

It's been brought out in various discussions on this site over the years that our founders were not Christians per se, but rather that they were predominately Deists, which of course still requires a belief in creation and a creator. Their vision of individual rights were based upon certain inalienable rights granted by a creator and which therefore could not be taken away by man. They were right to construct a system of government that would not allow a theocracy but they never intended to remove what they considered to be each individuals responsibility to that creator. I think the original intent of our form of representative democracy within a republican governmental structure would leave the founders dumbfounded at the lengths we've come to take god out of the public square.

If people don't believe in god or feel that their preferred religion is not represented fully within that system of governance, then I say, So What? No one is forcing you to believe a certain way or worship against your will.

But the government has no business being in the god business. Religion is a faith belief, not rooted in fact what so ever. Our government does not acknowledge aliens either, although plenty of people, including scientist, believe them to exist. Again, not the realm of the government.
I think people now days understand separation of church and state better than before. The fact that it was OK to put 'In god we trust' on money shows that. It wasn't OK because we aren't a theocracy, as it turns out, and plenty of US citizens, who are also 'we' don't agree with that. For too long it's been separation of church and state, except of course for Christians. Christian holidays were celebrated, nativities erected, prayers said, and the 'Christmas story' told all across the nation, in all schools and public (gov) buildings. But now that people are really thinking about it, they are pointing out that separation means ALL religion, so of course it's an issue now. You say the government is driving god out of the government, but I say he/she should never been in there in the first place. Other religions, or non religions, were never represented and now we are just realizing no religion should be.
The government isn't trying to, nor could they ever, force people to not be guided by their particular faith in their daily lives. That's a straw man argument. If you want to wear funny underwear and pray before you eat lunch, that's your decision. And that's a government worker's decision as well. But that worker can't lead everyone in prayer or require them to wear the funny underwear, or not.
In god we trust doesn't belong on our money any more than 'there is no god' belongs on our money. Again, it's the whole 'christian exception' that people are questioning, and is what has caused the uproar. No one expects 'in Allah we trust' to go on the money, do they?

[Alan]

Peggy, I think that you're missing the point again. Our government recognizes that there are certain inalienable rights that are not dependant upon the good nature of men. Those rights are bestowed from a higher source than mere, tempremental humans. Without that important caveat, there could be no rights not dependant upon the fickle blessings of mankind. The concept of a creator, or god if you will, is an important aspect of our governmental structure. It belongs there.

[peggy]

Peggy, I think that you're missing the point again. Our government recognizes that there are certain inalienable rights that are not dependant upon the good nature of men. Those rights are bestowed from a higher source than mere, tempremental humans. Without that important caveat, there could be no rights not dependant upon the fickle blessings of mankind. The concept of a creator, or god if you will, is an important aspect of our governmental structure. It belongs there.

Not really Alan, cause this set of inalienable rights that were bestowed on you by your 'creator' doesn't apply to me because there is no creator. See, you have to acknowledge, and believe in, your religion in order to follow these rules of rights you say we are born with. But again, we don't all believe in a creator. And I am as much a citizen of this country as you.
As a point of fact, the government doesn't rely on this notion of 'inalienable rights', even if the founders wrote it down somewhere, because we rely on the rule of law. Written laws, written by men, not gods, and they pretty much cover everything. They don't really leave anything to chance or inalienability. They don't rely on some shared notion of rightness. Our government most definitely does not rely on the concept of a creator in any of it's aspects or rulings. There are rules about murder, theft, etc... that clearly spell out what is expected of us in this society. Now other societies expect other things. Usually the major ones are the same, like murder and theft, but the treatment of women, for instance, is quite different in many parts of the world. So, even if we say we have inalienable rights, it really means nothing without the weight of society and laws behind it, so in effect it is us who decides what our rights are. Saying it doesn't make it so. It might be a nice little notion to think about but so are space aliens.
And really, what is an inalienable right? What does that mean to you? How exactly is the acknowledgment of a creator an important aspect of our governmental structure. I think everyone should have the basic dignity of shelter, food and basic health care, but plenty of folks on your side of the isle don't agree. And lots of folks throughout the world don't agree.
The only rights that matter, that mean anything and in fact ARE rights are the ones we the government bestow upon ourselves.
See, I think what trips you and a lot of others up is this idea that if the founding father wrote it down, or believed it, it must be so. Well, they also thought women were second class citizens, blacks were only worth, what was it, 3/5th of a white man, and a lot of other very very wrong ideas. So most of them believed in a god. So what. They also believed blood letting cured most anything, but we still fund medical research. We don't let their modern-for-1776 beliefs dictate how to order 21st century lives.
This is an interesting discussion Alan, but I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. I am an American citizen, and until there is an equal amount of money that says 'there is no god' I am not being represented.

[kfander]

Whether someone believes that something exists has little or nothing to do with the fact of whether it exists or not. I can refuse to believe that I have to pay taxes, for example, and may even be able to make arguments as to why I don't have to pay taxes, but the tax man is still going to come for me. In other words, you are free to believe - or not to believe- whatever you wish, but neither your beliefs or mine will change the reality, whatever that might be.

[Alan]

See, I think what trips you and a lot of others up is this idea that if the founding father wrote it down, or believed it, it must be so. Well, they also thought women were second class citizens, blacks were only worth, what was it, 3/5th of a white man, and a lot of other very very wrong ideas. So most of them believed in a god. So what. They also believed blood letting cured most anything, but we still fund medical research. We don't let their modern-for-1776 beliefs dictate how to order 21st century lives.
This is an interesting discussion Alan, but I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. I am an American citizen, and until there is an equal amount of money that says 'there is no god' I am not being represented.

You're going off in different areas that have no bearing on the discussion. I'll admit that early in our history women weren't treated as well as they should have been, and blacks were only counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes in the Senate, although that was widely seen at the time as a not-so-subtle means of force against the slave states to encourage them to change their ways. But you're still missing the significant point, that certain rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights that you have the luxury of taking for granted, could be taken away with the stroke of a pen without benefit of a government which was expressly set up with those rights reserved to a higher power.

I'm sorry you don't feel as if you're being represented. Perhaps you simply choose to believe that and don't realize just how significantly you are being represented.

[peggy]

You're going off in different areas that have no bearing on the discussion. I'll admit that early in our history women weren't treated as well as they should have been, and blacks were only counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes in the Senate, although that was widely seen at the time as a not-so-subtle means of force against the slave states to encourage them to change their ways. But you're still missing the significant point, that certain rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights that you have the luxury of taking for granted, could be taken away with the stroke of a pen without benefit of a government which was expressly set up with those rights reserved to a higher power.

I'm sorry you don't feel as if you're being represented. Perhaps you simply choose to believe that and don't realize just how significantly you are being represented.

Yes those rights can be taken away, just as they were given, to us by us. Not inalienable, which means can not be taken away or transferred. God, or a higher power has absolutely nothing to do with that. How does a creator have anything to do with that? The founding fathers didn't leave it up to god. They left it up to us, the people, through our representatives that we elect.
You keep trying to start the discussion just shy of the goal post, where we have to first acknowledge and believe in your god in order to discuss the constitution or the governments position/role in all this. This isn't a theocracy. We don't start with god then go from there. There is no accepted knowledge of a creator.
OK, so they used the word 'inalienable'. It that the sticking point? I mean, it's only a word. They used that word, but covered their butts with laws and expectations. They also said all men were created equal, but they didn't really believe that either.
Take away the laws of men, take away this government with it's particular set of laws and rights/expectations, and your 'inalienable' rights go right out the window. Nothing to do with god, or any creator, other than us. We are the creator. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and no creator can be credited for this country. We need to stop putting our trust in god and start putting our trust in ourselves.
This is why, in a long way around, that the government cannot/should not talk about god, or Allah, or Buddha, or any religious deity, and why we should never vote for a guy who thinks praying is a way to solve the country's problems.


Well, I think we've both gotten of tract here. I'm off to the lake for the 4th. You have a good holiday as well.

[Alan]

Yep, I think we've both run our course at this point, even though the desire to point out that you made my case several times in your last post is strong, I'm pretty sure it would be a wasted effort to continue.

It's raining here in S/W Ohio on this 4th of July morning, although it looks like the afternoon will be mostly sunny. Once it is, I'll be outside prepping my motorcycle trailer and motorhome for a short trip (a week or so) to North Carolina & Tennessee later in the week. We'll be riding the Blue Ridge Parkway from around Asheville NC down to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, finishing up the motorcycle rides with another pass on the Tail Of The Dragon (318 curves in 11 miles) at Deals Gap NC.

Happy Independence Day to all!

[loosechickens]

We've covered that ground ourselves, several times, Alan.....have a great time!!!!1

[loosechickens]

very interesting opinion piece I saw today, from CNN, on America as a "Christian nation", the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, separation of church and state, etc. Some food for thought here:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/0...iref=obnetwork

[Mangano's Gold]

You're going off in different areas that have no bearing on the discussion. I'll admit that early in our history women weren't treated as well as they should have been, and blacks were only counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes in the Senate, although that was widely seen at the time as a not-so-subtle means of force against the slave states to encourage them to change their ways..

Also slightly off-topic, but do you think that the landless peasant* should have an equal say in government, via voting, as the landowners?

* The early 21st century version of the 'landless peasant' is the paycheck-to-paycheck worker who owns no assets and has little chance of ever accumulating assets.