Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But it is true that at one point, slavery was legal in the united states, and that the Supreme Court ruled in support of it. He is pointing out that well beyond merely "In God We Trust", there have been bills passed to allow the President to set forth a symbolic declaration that is religious in nature, and that the supporting reasoning for this bill was also religious in nature. It is probably not legally significant, but it happened and it is what it is. Goldie tend to greet it with a shrug, for me it is impetus to push back on these things when I see them, to take stuff like this into account in the voting booth, and to explain why these are bad ideas that are contrary to our American ideals when I get the chance.
-NoCapo
He seems to me to be endorsing what was in the Constitution. I can't see anything in his post where he stated his opposition to what was in the law. Perhaps you could point out to me which sentence in his post stated such a disagreement.
That has already been determined by the U.S. Government...and it is set law.
I may not prefer it to be that way...but it is.
Check this out: Year of the Bible, Public Law 97-280
As you can see, it declares, in the text of the basis for the Law, that The Bible Is:
* The Word of God...and has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people.
And That:
* The deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation.
*Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States.
*Many of our great national leaders—among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson—paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”.
*The history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies.
*Renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people.
They then LEGISLATED INTO LAW:
The recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
It would take a fight on Constitutional grounds to strike all Laws like this that set precedent for how the Bible is viewed.
Until then...The Bible is declared the WORD OF GOD...and it is stated AS LAW that we, NEED TO STUDY AND APPLY THE TEACHINGS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
There is nothing the US government can do to determine the Bible is “the” word of god. I wasn’t even addressing that anyway. I was giving an opinion concerning the divinity of the Bible and the influence of religion per the post I addressed.
He seems to me to be endorsing what was in the Constitution. I can't see anything in his post where he stated his opposition to what was in the law. Perhaps you could point out to me which sentence in his post stated such a disagreement.
Second sentence:
I may not prefer it to be that way...but it is.
I argue a lot with Goldie, I think most of his arguments are specious and purile, and I find his lack of backbone when it comes to religious freedom irritating, but he isn't endorsing, just stating how things currently are.
He isn't wrong, religion has its hooks way deeper into government and public life than it ought. And that isn't a new development, but it isn't relegated to the history books either. It is a current and ongoing struggle to create space for the nonreligious, or even those who are religious but not in the "correct" way in our society. And I think it will continue to be a struggle long after I am gone...
Perhaps people should start looking at the reasons WHY people become religious fundamentalists in the first place. What are the conditions which lead a country to go down that path?
The really sad thing about it is that the religious skeptics are just as responsible, if not more so, as anyone else for causing that to happen. So they sound really stupid when they complain about things which they are directly responsible for.
Perhaps people should start looking at the reasons WHY people become religious fundamentalists in the first place. What are the conditions which lead a country to go down that path?
That's an interesting question. I don't know that I have the answer. I suspect that it is fairly complex, as it would need to explain the Protestant reformation, the counter reformation, The puritans, the Great Awakening, Prohibition, the rise of Fundamentalism (not generic religious conservative, but the specific brand of doctrine rooted in the teachings of John Darby), and that is just in Christianity. Whatever explanation you find would also need to apply to the religious schisms in Islam, the backlash against Sufism and other forms of Islamic mysticism, and the rise of Wahabbism.
My gut feel is that it will be rooted in a combination of the politics of the day, group identity, and dehumanization of those not in the group, but I've never done an exhaustive study of that. I also suspect that fundamentalism is essentially cyclical, that is a periodic kneejerk reaction when things drift too far away from what that particular group is comfortable with. Is this something you think you have ahandle on, or are you just thowing it out as a topic of discussion.
The really sad thing about it is that the religious skeptics are just as responsible, if not more so, as anyone else for causing that to happen. So they sound really stupid when they complain about things which they are directly responsible for.[/quote]
Could you elaborate on your thoughts on this? I fail to see how not believing something somehow forces other people to become militant and repressive... Not saying you don't have a point, but you will have to actually make it rather than just assert something, because right now I don't follow you...
He seems to me to be endorsing what was in the Constitution. I can't see anything in his post where he stated his opposition to what was in the law. Perhaps you could point out to me which sentence in his post stated such a disagreement.
Your power of perception is lacking.
I just stated what the law was relative to "The Bible being The Word of God"...in response to a post. I did not state my feelings on it.
I actually do not care much for arbitrary, subjective, often hypocritical & contradictory, and ever-changing laws, regulations, and ordinances...and I have stated that on this forum many times.
They are whatever they are at any given time. Sometimes I will like it, sometimes I won't...like everyone else.
There is nothing the US government can do to determine the Bible is “the” word of god. I wasn’t even addressing that anyway. I was giving an opinion concerning the divinity of the Bible and the influence of religion per the post I addressed.
I was just noting what the U.S. law was relative to whether it was or wasn't. For informations sake.
No other elective concept has greater influence than religion. That's just the way it is...like it or not.
I argue a lot with Goldie, I think most of his arguments are specious and purile, and I find his lack of backbone when it comes to religious freedom irritating, but he isn't endorsing, just stating how things currently are.
He isn't wrong, religion has its hooks way deeper into government and public life than it ought. And that isn't a new development, but it isn't relegated to the history books either. It is a current and ongoing struggle to create space for the nonreligious, or even those who are religious but not in the "correct" way in our society. And I think it will continue to be a struggle long after I am gone...
Your power of perception is lacking.
I just stated what the law was relative to "The Bible being The Word of God"...in response to a post. I did not state my feelings on it.
I actually do not care much for arbitrary, subjective, often hypocritical & contradictory, and ever-changing laws, regulations, and ordinances...and I have stated that on this forum many times.
They are whatever they are at any given time. Sometimes I will like it, sometimes I won't...like everyone else.
Well isn't that odd, because someone else just said you did.
Others look forward to that too! You and Shirina can share a flat!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
