BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?

Subject: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 12:50 PM

Quick's the word and sharp's the action - join Mike Newdow of Let's Get God Out Of The Pledge fame in Newdow v. Roberts this week...

Info on suit here

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 12:59 PM

Good idea!

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 01:02 PM

Good luck. I hope it works - but I'll be suprised if it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 01:35 PM

Well, if everybody who agrees, joins, who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:07 PM

As a nonbeliever, I only have three words to say: "Get over it!"

It was Mr. Obama's innauguration, not Mr. Newdow's. Had Mr. Obama been a nonbeliever instead of a Christian, I'm sure Chief Justice Roberts would have omitted all religious references if asked to do so. I interpret the inclusion of "So help me, God" in the oath Mr. Obama took to be a statement of his own personal belief, not a statement of governmental policy.

There's a point at which one person's desire to be free from religion can infringe upon another person's freedom of speech. When that happens, I'm always on the side of free speech. If someone's exercise of free speech happens to include what I consider a bunch of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, I'm quite capable of ignoring it.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:11 PM

Hear, hear!!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:21 PM

Impeach Obama!....He swore to God!....Bad Obama!

Michael Newdow is a selfish Noodge. It's good the President isn't Muslim, else Mr. N. might be "carrying 'is 'ead underneath
'is harm."

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM

"Want to get God out of US Inauguration?"

Impossible. You cannot remove the infinite from any one particular part of itself as it is omnipresent by definition.

You can pretend to do it, though...by forcing other people not to utter certain words in a ceremony. ;-) So if you want to try that, go right ahead, but I think you will find that it's unconstitutional to deny others free speech in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:27 PM

Much ado about nothing. I'm with bee-dubya-ell and vote for free speed. The addition of religion is voluntary, not mandatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:27 PM

Here's an internet rumor so bad it's laughable. It seems the first swearing-in was screwedup on purpose so that the real Muslem Iman could do it later. Check out the bad photoshopped picture at the bottom.

Truth or Fiction.com

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:34 PM

Boy, the sheer gall of some people is enough to take your breath away... (I'm referring to the photoshopped hoax of the Imam lurking behind Obama as he takes the 2nd oath of office).

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

Terrible idea. The next thing you know, some of you will be clamoring to take "In God We Trust" off our currency!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:45 PM

*wry grin*...Can you imagine how devastating that would be, Doug? To have to buy a roll of toilet paper with a dollar bill that was not extolling the supremacy of some Supreme being?

The presidential oath IS voluntary...the guy can say that HE holds his religious views to be his most serious belief, and that HE swears by them to do his duties faithfully.

The stuff printed on money says that we, as a country, have such beliefs...and we clearly do NOT...nor are we required to by the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:47 PM

Oh, heck, Doug...the very same few individuals who are so emotionally hung up on this issue as to keep on beating their dead hobby horse here on a regular basis already have complained about that too on various threads. ;-) You must've missed it when they did.

I think a far worthier cause would be to get that damned Road Runner off TV once and for all. I'm absolutely sick of him beating the poor Coyote all the time in a completely unfair and unrealistic fashion. It's awful. It's offensive. It's sadistic. He should be banned from the airwaves. Better yet, he should get caught by the Coyote, cooked, and eaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

Lawsuits aren't some sort of survey (most of which have no bearing on anything anyway). If the suit isn't legally valid it doesn't matter if you have 100K people signing on. If the people who sign on don't have standing -- and simply wanting God removed from the Oath of Office doesn't do it -- your "support" is invalid.

Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

Judge Roberts made such a big deal out of it with his tone, inflection, accent and delivery...he screwed the whole oath up.

Whatever brownie points he thought he was getting from the 'religulous', he failed.


Speaking of Religulous the movie by Bill Mahre, I can not buy it in any stores in my community. Not in Target, Best Buy, Wall Mart, K Mart etc.

. I'll have to try Blockbuster or Red Box. Buying the thing on Amazon is a last resort.

The religious right cultural revolution is far from over.
Just like China's cultural revolution, it does no good for anybody or the economy at large.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 04:01 PM

Well, my MiL is 'probably' one of those peole who WILL believe the photoshopped pic. Geeze.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 04:07 PM

Here's an idea for the money, Bill, that would satisfy everyone's pet peeves...

Have the mint print and mint bills and coins of TWO separate varieties...godly and atheist. ;-) A godly coin or bill would be the same as the ones you have now: "In God We Trust"

An atheist coin or bill would have instead on it: "There is no God"

Then print and mint both varieties in equal amounts.

People who are offended by either variety could refuse to accept it, but could insist on the other. Those who had some of the unacceptable variety could go to the bank and get it exchanged for an equal amount of the other money.

And those of us who basically don't give a damn could freely use both types and not worry about it! ;-) I'd be in that third category, and I bet I'd have a lot of company there.

No, really, the Road Runner thing is soooo much more important! Get a grip, people...

p.s. I have just carefully studied a Canadian 20 dollar bill here. There's not a word about God on it anywhere, but it does have this slogan, a quote from Gabrielle Roy: "Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?" The slogan is next to some Native American sculpture.

How about that, eh? ;-) Want to move to Canada now?

Next I studied our Canadian coins. The word God doesn't show up there either.......but wait....an engraving of Queen Elizabeth is on the back of each coin...and...and...around the rim it says "D. G. Regina"

UH-OH!!!!!!!!!!! That is short form for a phrase in Latin that means "Queen by the grace of God"...

And it is at this point that BillD, Riginslinger, Mrrzy, and Wesley and their ilk run screaming from the room.

Just when you thought it was SAFE to visit Canada...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 04:41 PM

If you'll notice Little Hawk they already HAVE taken Speedy Gonzales and Peppy LaPew off the air. I'm sure the Road Runner cartoons will be next.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:44 PM

DougR, you said,

Terrible idea. The next thing you know, some of you will be clamoring to take "In God We Trust" off our currency!

What's this "first thing you know" stuff? I've been pushing for that for at least forty years!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:48 PM

Rapaire said;

and simply wanting God removed from the Oath of Office doesn't do it

You can't remove God from the oath of office, because it's not there in the first place. Those four words are extraneous to what is prescribed by the Constitution.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:59 PM

I don't care much about Speedy Gonzales one way or the other, Wesley, but I miss Pepe Le Pew terribly! Did they decide the characters were offensive to Hispanics and French people?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:18 PM

Maybe the folks who started this thread should go directly to the source. Put together a public petition to God, post it in public places everywhere, and directly ASK "him" to get out of the US inauguration.

If nothing changes after that, you will know that God has refused your request. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:21 PM

"Want to get God out of US Inauguration?"

Did He show up?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 07:19 PM

Well, yeah. I know it's not in there. The Constitution says you can "swear (or affirm)". Swearing is usually done by a religious creature, affirming says that you'll do it the same sort of way but leaves religion out.

When I was sworn into the Army I didn't have to involve God. I was sworn in to testify in Court and it didn't involve God. This makes me think that God isn't in the Courts or the Army, but in either case there were penalties for not keeping my given word.

And really, that's all we have: a promise to do you best and to keep your word.

Heck, I'd do it with a handshake or just because it's the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 08:59 PM

"...get God out...."

Dream on. In 4 years, when President Obama is inaugurated for his second term, nothing will have changed in this regard.   Nor should it. It's up to Obama.

But please, if you're going to make your push on this, make it now. Don't wait with the incredibly brilliant campaign along these lines until the next election (even the one in 2010). Since the only thing you will do with this wonderful idea is to strengthen the ""Religious Right". Obviously the stellar intellects behind this classic maneuver have learned nothing from 2004--when throwing red meat like this to the fundamentalists turned them out in droves--and very likely made the difference in a very close election--putting Bush in again.

Obama will not thank you for this pointless distraction from his agenda--but Sarah and Huckabee will.

Of course the big picture never enters the minds of true believers--whether fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist atheists.

But thanks for proving my assertion on another thread right--there are in fact unthinking rabid atheists on Mudcat.

There is however one way in which President Obama could make lemonade out of Mr. Newdow's lemons.

If I were President Obama, and Newdow's push started to gain a higher profile,   I'd emphasize everywhere I went that the US was in fact founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that I personally had a strong Christian faith. Supporters of Newdow are a laughably tiny minority in the US--though obviously not on Mudcat.

That way President Obama can pull a Sister Souljah, and reaffirm his moderate credentials. The more moderates, including moderate Republicans, he can get on his side, the more likely he can get a good bit of his agenda through Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 12:28 AM

I think you just hit the nail on the head, Ron. A rabid atheists' campaign to get "God" taken out of the Oath of Office would simply be handing a very valuable PR gift to the Republican Party and the religious Right. Sarah Palin would be ecstatic.

We agree, by God! Break out the champagne. ;-) Like you say, "the big picture never enters the minds of true believers".

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:19 AM

'..."the big picture never enters the minds of true believers"...'



                         Boy, ain't that the truth!

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:23 AM

"...Judeo-Christian principles."    If he does this he may of course mention the original sin of the US founding---slavery. Though nobody would be advised to burn a copy of the Constitution, which William Lloyd Garrison did--on the 4th of July, I believe.   And of course thanks to the 13th and following Amendments, that would not be necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:43 AM

What makes you think the US Constitution totally outlawed slavery?

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:06 AM

So, in between the croyants playing their aren't-we-silly-to-want-to-avoid-their-superstitions-being-taken-seriously tape, is anyone joining? Sent it to any organizations?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:13 AM

Something that might help is if you elect an athiest for president. But I can't imagine that happening any time soon. But then again if you told me four years ago that we would have an African-American president I would have thought you were nuts.

If you can find an athiest that has a platform I can agree with I'd vote for him. But I doubt the rest of America would get behind him - or her. We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:25 AM

I think Obama is an antheist, but he'll not be able to come out anytime soon!

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:27 AM

That's interesting. Why do you think he's an athiest?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:48 AM

Yes, Wesley, there may be those who are athier than he. I doubt he's the athiest.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:50 AM

As opposed to an antheist?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 01:10 PM

Does that mean he worships ants?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 01:47 PM

Well, ants are very hardworking, right? They make a good role model for the industrious.

There are plenty of people who are in truth atheists, although nobody knows they are...I wouldn't be surprised if you have already had some presidents who were atheists. They just didn't say so, that's all.

And whose business is it anyway? A person's beliefs in that respect are strictly his own private business, seems to me. That's the attitude the general public takes toward politics in Canada...Canadians in general don't wish to hear a politician going on and on about either his religious faith...or his lack of same. If a politician here were to do either the one or the other and make a public issue of his faith or his atheism, it would only lose him votes...because most people here would find it inappropriate to bring that sort of stuff into politics AT ALL.

I know of no Canadian politician of any note, present or past, who has either campaigned AS an atheist...or AS a person of faith. They simply don't raise the issue at all, because if they did it would make people uncomfortable and they would lose a lot of votes.

Religion is not something you bring into politics in Canada. You are religious on your own private time if you wish to be, and no one cares. Same goes for militant atheism...you do it on your own private time if you want to, and no one cares. Why? Because it's your own private business, that's why.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM

Great! What would it take to get politicians to do that in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 02:07 PM

A Major Miracle!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 02:09 PM

God knows!   ;-) (if you'll excuse the expression)

I think you would have to somehow remake the psychology of a couple hundred million Americans before you could do that in the USA.

As long as your politicians think that raising divisive religious issues will get them votes, they'll do it. Ours would do it too...if they thought it would get them a lot of votes. But it wouldn't. ;-) Politicians are the same everywhere in that respect. If they think a dirty tactic will get them votes, they'll use it. They will always wave the red flag at the public bull in hopes of getting it to charge in the direction they desire.

Canadian politicians do that too, in their own way, it's just that they don't play the "religion" card when they do it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 03:55 PM

Hmmm, where did my answer go?

It was, because he grew up without religion, and he's smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 04:06 PM

Mrrzy - I might go along with your first assumption but not the second. Lot's of smart people "have religion". Our banjo player has his doctorate in theology from Harvard. He reads Greek and Latin. AND he can play a 5 string banjo. He can't tell a joke however. He can't even remember them.

Your first assumption doesn't hold water either come to think of it. Lots of people grow up with religion and reject it. Some grow up without it and embrace it later. Your past does not dictate your future. So unless you've had a personal conversation with Obama you're assuming facts not in evidence { to borrow a line from Perry Mason }.

But I'm still hoping we can - someday - separate religion from politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 04:19 PM

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

No, I don't want God out of the US Inauguration. I don't even want it out of the US Presidential Inauguration.

The Latin root for inauguration is "augury"; soothsaying. It goes deeper yet in that augury comes from reading the entrails of birds (Bald Eagles?) and if that doesn't put the stamp of hocus pocus on the proceedings what is it going to hurt to ask God's help on the whole thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 04:29 PM

Gee, it looks like when I get to heaven there's not going to be many Mudcatters to argue with. What a disappointment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 04:44 PM

Dougr, as Mark Twain said, "It's Heaven for climate, Hell for company!"

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 06:07 PM

"...what is it going to hurt to ask God's help on the whole thing?"

The very structure of the question assumes there is a God to be asked for help....that is what is under scrutiny. There are people who are not concerned with DISproving God: they just don't wish other folks assumptions to intrude on their lives.

*I* grew up with religion...as a Methodist. As I learned how to ask questions about truth and belief, it became obvious to me that belief was just that...belief. There's a reason we have a separate word for concepts and ideas that are not proveable, obvious facts. There is also a reason why a modern society should not demand that certain notions and beliefs be required in public ceremonies and rituals.
Obama...or anyone else...can invoke HIS highest principle to declare his sincerity: I don't mind. And if I understand it correctly, Christians believe that God can 'hear' prayer without it being invoked out loud over a PA system. Thus, a moment of silence so that everyone can silently pray, meditate, contemplate...or just wait... ought to be enough.
   I have a Jewish friend who belongs to a non-religious organization, which just happens to have some dedicated Christians leading it. He tries to be out of the room before they begin each meeting with a public prayer "in JESUS name".

I am sure that, if the country were 97% atheist, Christians would at least appreciate being able to attend church, pray quietly, and not be pressured to 'stop' believing.
One-more-time: "Freedom OF religion must necessarily included freedom FROM religion for those who wish it."

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM

Wait a minute! Obama's inauguration doesn't belong to him. put him there.
It's ours. I think Newdow is right. We don't need religion in the inauguration. (Think of the reaction if JFK had had a priest at his.)

Get religion out of the public square. Otherwise, there will be further battles.

Yes Bill D. We don't have to outlaw religion. Just get it out of public offices.

BTW "In god we trust" was put in money comparatively recently by a lobbying minister.
It was not always there.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 07:16 PM

I grew up entirely without religion, Mrrzy. Does that make me smart? ;-)

I developed quite a bit of interest in spiritual matters later on and I think about them all the time...but I still do not belong to any specific religion and I doubt that I ever will. I happen to think that Spirit is non-denominational, and therefore friendly and unprejudiced toward all people quite regardless of their beliefs...but that's just my own personal slant on the matter. It's not a statement of doctrine, in other words.

I have no doctrines, I'm just interested, that's all.

It should neither be required...or not required...for somone to invoke God in a state ceremony. It should be entirely up to them whether or not they do it. In Canada, for instance, you can either "swear" or "affirm" when making an oath. If you swear, then you make mention of God in the oath. If you affirm, then you don't make any mention of God. In either case you are giving your solemn word to adhere to the oath, and you're giving it in whichever way personally suits you.

People who demand that other people conform to their own chosen preference in such matters are trespassing on other people's freedom of will and their freedom of speech.

You can't make other people be like you. And a good thing.

Freedom of religion in a society means two things to me:

1. You are free to openly practice the religion of your choice.
2. You are free to openly subscribe to no religion at all...in other words, to be an atheist or an agnostic.

People who want to ban other people's demonstrations of their religious faith in public are just as intrusive and intolerant as the religious people who want to force everyone else to join their religion. In either case, they need to learn to mind their own business.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 07:21 PM

Let me correct that first sentence to state it in a less ambiguous manner:

It should neither be required...nor forbidden...for somone to invoke God in a state ceremony.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 07:44 PM

"I grew up entirely without religion, Mrrzy. Does that make me smart? ;-)"


                Did something happen later? :~)

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:34 PM

If the word 'God' is removed from the pledge and/or the currency, I don't think it will matter to God. I think that invoking God is a good way to keep ourselves and our works in perspective, so I don't object to it, just to the cynicism of the self-satisfied who use it in order to bask in its glow and condemn their opponents as in the campaign of the 'unfrocked' Elizabeth Dole who got what she deserved (upon which I, of course, remarked, there IS a God!)

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:03 PM

Of COURSE it wouldn't matter to God. ;-) That's not the point.

How is it hurting you when such a statement is on a coin? How is it hurting anyone? Why do you wish to enforce your own particular form of belief on the nation as a whole and change something like that, when no harm is being done to anyone by it?

Just because it's not your way? That doesn't strike me as a very compelling reason to "fix what ain't broke".

Both religious people AND atheists of the more aggressive sort "bask in the glow" of their own righteous opinions. They do it all the time. They delight in it. Their problem is not their choice of belief, but the chauvinism with which they foist it upon others.

Rig - You ask what happened later? Many, many things happened later. I'd have to tell you about my whole life. I would if I had the time...and if I had the desire to convert you to anything...but I don't. I'm not interested in converting anyone. Let them choose for themselves what to believe in, because it's their life, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:59 PM

At the very least a plea to "God" is an acknowledgement that we human beings are less than perfect. "God" acknowledges or becomes a symbol of our very finest and highest ideals. Here is Truth and Justice, fair play and the end of racism and other divisive and pernicious evils that plague us. God is a title, not a name. To some, Allah is god. To others Yahweh or Jesus is god. The Great Spirit I can relate to. Some reverence Buddha or Krishna or still others only acknowledge their OWN highest and best inclinations. The point is that God or god, if you prefer points to that which is higher than our current state of affairs. We ought never to stop aspiring to improve.

If you are a non-believer, fine. But don't put the nix on those who do. By and large, they only want what is better for all. Those who don't, blaspheme when the say god or God and atheists who lie about their evil intentions are just as false and wrong as false religionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 10:04 PM

"How is it hurting you when such a statement is on a coin? How is it hurting anyone? "

Several thoughts come to mind...

First, it is not correct. "WE" refers to the populace of the country taken as a whole, I'd surmise, and there are many, many "we's" who do NOT 'trust in God'.

Second, by BEING on money where it gets seen by everyone as soon as they are old enough to read, it creates a real, if subtle, pressure on the impressionable to 'accept' the idea, whether they had thought much about it or not (and this is no doubt the point)....and this IS very, very close to violating that part of the Constitution about ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Indeed, it does not establish any 'particular' religion, but it sure seems to me and many others to state directly **that** religious belief is expected!

Third, it 'hurts' by simply being a controversial statement. Why put a message that IS so divisive in a place where it invites debate? As was said, it was NOT always there, just as "under God" was not always in the Pledge of Allegience (another travesty). Both these insertions were lobbied for and pushed into execution BY those who intended to have permanent proselytizing staring at everyone who might doubt, or to make them feel awkward (like when reciting the 'pledge').

'Hurt' is not always directly measurable...like racial remarks or being ostracized by one's peers, it can nibble away at relationships or appear as discomfort among friends. There are no bruises in some 'hurts', but they can last longer than real injuries.

Patriotism does not NEED metaphysical support...and it can easily sabotage it if demanded in disputed ways. We were patriotic before 'special interests' got those words stuffed into so many places.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 10:17 PM

"God is a title, not a name." ?????

God is a concept..it is a linguistic reference to an idea, and to suggest that we NEED a 'name' in that format to focus our 'higher ideals' is to weaken our concept of 'self'!

What about slogans like "To thine own self be true."? Why not put that on coins? Let's not pretend that "God" on coins and in the pledge is not a direct reference to a religious attitude. It is intended to evoke metaphysical/religious imagery.

Flowery disclaimers won't alter why it was done.

Let those who wish to follow religious ideals do so much like the Amish or Quakers/Friends do...with little fanfare and no preaching AT those who feel differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 02:57 AM

I like "To thine own self, be true." I could live with that as a motto on our coinage. Sure, you'd have disputes and debates about WHAT truth is and what is true. It too, could just be an ideal that can never really be pinned down. And if someone did not believe in YOUR truth or "absolute truth" or the truth of the situation, then he might feel that you are making him feel like a second class citizen, just for not believing in "Truth". But I like it!

What you don't know about the Amish might fill books.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:08 AM

"...is anyone joining?"


                      Yes, absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 10:10 AM

The 'religious right' model of their faith in action is
"If you do not believe exactly as I do, you are wrong and therefore I shall attack you financially, politically, physically or socially."

Since Ike added the word God to currency, the history, financial and science revisionists have made God the central justification for their financial juggernaut that has now sunk under its own excess cargo of greed. The financial free for all (for the rich) was all sanctioned under God. The National Prayer Breakfast found that steering corrupt financial decsisions into law went down much smoother when it was ordered and sanctioned by God.

It seems we have a vengeful God indeed, for the God invented by men of greed and power serves only them.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 10:55 AM

Not being a US citizen, I am reluctant to muscle in on this debate.

However...

If God exists, then he is omnipotent and it is impossible to remove him from anything.

If God doesn't exist, empty words never hurt anybody.

the only thing I do know is that over here in The UK, we were taught that although the founding fathers were religious, the constitution is supposed to be secular. Am I right or wasn't I listening properly at school? (the latter has tended to be correct in other areas....)

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:32 AM

Yep...you are right, Ian. (The founding fathers were 'mostly' religious, but not quite as some would like to think.)

The Constitution is supposed to be neutral... both allowing, but not prescribing any religion. 'Freedom'

Unfortunately, certain branches of the various Christian denominations have built-in exhortations to evangelize and 'sell' their principles, and they 'reason' that 'freedom of religion' allows them to so so....and they seem to reason that if they can get a majority vote on some principle...such as words on coins ... the minority can just accept it.

It's a difficult mindset to combat.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:41 AM

I have never tried to rationalise mental health issues...

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:47 AM

Ian-

You are making some big assumptions about God, (much as many people make a lot of assumptions about evolution).

If a Muslim were interpreting the coin, he or she might not recognized it as any reference to Allah. If a Hindu were to try to make sense of it, he or she might wonder "which"? A Christian might invoke the "3-in-1" concept and a Jew of course, depending on background, might accept it as is or really resent the connection between an ineffable Being and something allied to materiality which can be dropped in filth, mishandled, or used for illegal/ immoral actions, in other words, a debasement.

It is intersting that people bring their own conceptions to the table, such as God is all powerful, eternal, omnipresent. In the final episode of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", God ("THE LORD") turned out to be a ______________. I'm not gonna give it away, but it has four paws and drinks milk.

I looked up the phrase "In God We Trust" on wikipedia which had an interesting article about it. My favorite part is of course that "In God We Trust" may come from a SONG, the Star Spangled Banner of course, which ends: "And this be our motto- In God Is Our Trust."

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:57 AM

Two quotes, by different posters:

If God doesn't exist, empty words never hurt anybody.

That's circular reasoning. If the words are really empty, they don't hurt; But words about things which don't exist or aren't true can still hurt or cause harm, and therefore are not empty.

---------

To thine own self be true."

Remember that "true" may have several referents. In this phrase, "true" is intended to mean "loyal": "I'll be true to you, Mary Jane!" or maybe, "I have been true to thee, Cynara! In my fashion."

"True" may mean that a statement comports with actuality: "It is true that Mt. Everest's summit is higher than Mt. McKinley's summit."

"True" may refer to straightness: "He drew a true line from A to B."

And a number of other meanings. Are they too numerous to sit here and type out? True!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:59 AM

No dear, that's two separate things.

Very, very few people grow up without religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: John P
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:04 PM

I don't really care about the inauguration. I do care about the coins, the pledge, etc. When I see my government officially promoting a religion that I'm not part of, I feel like they want me to be a second class citizen.

The Ten Commandments on courthouse walls is a particularly noxious example of this. If I ever had to stand trial, I would hope to be tried in a Christian courthouse. I would make sure the fact that I'm not a Christian made it into the court record. Then I'd appeal on the concept that I didn't get a fair trial because I'm not a Christian but was being tried in Christian courthouse by a Christian judge, and Christianity is obviously an official stance of the court.

I am also amused by all the Christians who seem to think they are being persecuted whenever they're told they can't bring their religion into our public life. Given the number of laws we have that are based on religion, that seems rather absurd. Laws against homosexuality, nudity, bigamy, prostitution, and the fact that most liquor stores are closed on Sunday are just a few examples.

To my mind, if a congressperson expresses religion as a reason to vote for or against any bill, they ought to be guilty of an ethics violation. I'd call it treason, given that they are trying to overthrow the Constitution, but I know most folks won't get that.

As for all the folks that want to write anti-homosexual beliefs into the Constitution, I'm left wondering why we don't have laws requiring us love our enemies, turn the other cheek, eat nothing but kosher food, and refrain from wearing clothes made from more than one type of cloth.

John P

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Megan L
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:07 PM

Aye its a strange world everybodies fur free speach as long as ye agree wie them

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM

Fascinated and very pleased that somebody says I made a circular argument when I said if God does not exist, nobody can be offended.

Even more happy to have Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy quoted, as Douglas Adams had, to what I read, very similar views on religion to what I have.

Religion is a circular argument by definition!

It is at best a set of ancient translations which manipulative people use on shallow people to reinforce their bigotry.

It is at worst an excuse for wiping out peer competition. Wars are no different to lions killing the cubs of their competitor lions. It is an instinct, and religion is used as an excuse to prove we are not above other species after all. (See what I mean about agreeing to circular arguments?)

Just one small thought, as this is about USA inaugurations. It was confirmed above that the USA is about freedom of religion rather than prescribing one. Here in The UK, our head of state is also head of the Church of England. Hence we are supposedly a Christian rather than secular country. Yet correct me if I am wrong, religion plays less influence on our law making than most secular countries...

Mind you, did you see the bigots froth at the mouth with self righteous zeal when Prince Charles said that when he is King, he will be the defender of faith, rather than defender of The faith. Then went on to marry a Catholic for good measure.

Now that's style!

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 01:33 PM

I grew up without religion, Mrzzy, and so did most of my cousins, as far as I know. All I believed in when I was a kid was science, Darwin's theory of evolution, recorded facts, stuff like that...you know, the prevailing dominating ethos of our particular cultural age in the western world.


I think that "To Thine Own Self Be True" would be a great motto to put on coins, Bill. ;-) I'm all for it. Was it during the Eisenhower era that the present motto "In God We Trust" got put on the coins?

Looking at some older American coins on the Net, I see "Liberty", "E Pluribus Unum", but not "In God We Trust".

Slag, by the way, is quite correct in what he says that "At the very least a plea to "God" is an acknowledgement that we human beings are less than perfect. "God" acknowledges or becomes a symbol of our very finest and highest ideals. Here is Truth and Justice, fair play and the end of racism and other divisive and pernicious evils that plague us. God is a title, not a name. To some, Allah is god. To others Yahweh or Jesus is god. The Great Spirit I can relate to. Some reverence Buddha or Krishna or still others only acknowledge their OWN highest and best inclinations. The point is that God or god, if you prefer points to that which is higher than our current state of affairs. We ought never to stop aspiring to improve."

That is exactly why human beings have conceived of a "God" or "gods" ever since civilization began. They were setting up the concept of an ideal of perfection toward which people could strive and from which they could derive inspiration. An ideal of perfection is always resting in the back of the human mind, and it is what causes us to constantly strive to improve things. We are always reaching for what may be unattainable, but is still well worth reaching for.

Some have named that ideal of perfection in a personalized way and called it "God" or "Allah" or "Jehovah" or "Jesus" or "Odin" or many other names. Others have not personalized it so much but have given it a de-personalized name like "the Tao", "the Way", or "The Great Spirit", or "enlightenment", or "Oneness".

In all cases, what is being named is people's mental concept of perfection...of the highest ideal that they can conceive of.

You can deny "God", Bill, because you happen to be offended by organized religion... ;-) But you cannot deny the ideal of perfection itself. We all instinctively seek it. Religions have symbolized that search in various unique ways, according to cultural viewpoint.

Science also seeks to perfect things, because the search for perfection is universal.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 02:00 PM

Bill, it wasn't the Eisenhower administration that began the practice of putting "In God We Trust" on American coins. It was Lincoln's administration in the Civil War era. I looked it up at this site:

The history of "In God We Trust" on U.S.A coins


"In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin."

So, the initiative for this motto began during the Civil War years. In the approximately 150 years following that there have been various American coins minted with that motto and others minted without it. It's an interesting story. Go to the site and read the whole thing if you feel like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM

Little Hawk, I would agree with the two statements that you made about the rights of those who believe and do not believe.

The problem here in the States is that the Christian religion has shut out any other avenue of expression in the public square or in government. For this reason, I think it is hurtful that
this expression takes place at an inauguration for a president that presides over the people of the US.

From what I can ascertain, there are many in European countries who place little emphasis on religion and take the public pronouncements with a grain of salt. For some, it's the crazy uncle in the attic. So maybe when your royalty makes statements of "faith", they are not taken seriously by everyone to the degree that those non-believers are not shut out of the political process. I don't pretend, however, to know this.

Here in the States, a non-believer can't be elected to public office. This is anti-democratic and it hurtful.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

Yes, Strinsinger, you are quite right about the problem existing in the USA in that regard, and it's a serious problem. The USA is the only western democracy I know of that has this situation where you cannot get elected unless you show public demonstrations of Christian piety and invoke God.

I think, though, that efforts to promote things like removing God from the Oath of Office or removing "In God We Trust" from your money would only provoke a greater reaction and an increase in that problem. It would cause the Religious Right to be more militant, not less so. It would be akin to waving the red flag at the bull or throwing gasoline on the fire.

Therefore, I think these matters are better off ignored, frankly. The less importance and attention you give them, the less power they have.

And that is true of a lot of things, come to think of it.

That is why Lao-Tse in his Taoist teachings advised that the path of wisdom is to avoid all unnecessary conflict because in his words "by opposing an 'enemy' you give him strength". A Taoist does not seek out enemies at all, he does not provoke them, and by not seeking them he seldom has them. This does not mean that he can't deal with trouble when it arises....it just means he doesn't go around looking for it all the time.

You follow?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 04:10 PM

"A Taoist does not seek out enemies at all, he does not provoke them, and by not seeking them he seldom has them."

Every religion has that tenet in it somewhere I think. Nice on paper but short in this world's reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 04:56 PM

There is a green party senator who is starting a bill to eliminate the clause that nobody who disbelieves in God can be elected OR be considered competent to testify in a trial, from their state's constitution. Well, that's one state, with luck, IF it passes...

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 05:19 PM

Mrrzy - Where do they have a Green Party senator?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 05:30 PM

Ian-
y'wrote:
Fascinated and very pleased that somebody says I made a circular argument when I said if God does not exist, nobody can be offended.

Even more happy to have Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy quoted, as Douglas Adams had, to what I read, very similar views on religion to what I have.

I think some of the Jewish references to God, which is what I was raised with, summarize just the circularity of God. When asked who God is, the answer is: "I am that I am". Other references are: "Who Was, Who Is, Who Is To Be". (Hebrew can be admirably terse when it isn't infuriatingly terse.)

God is subversive AND recursive!

Now, for the rest of my philosophy, as you noticed, I get some from Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I also get some from Star Trek. There's a Star Trek movie where supposedly God wants to use the Enterprise to spread the good word, until Kirk, in a cute moment, says: "Uh, excuse me, but why would God need a starship?" This of course unmasks the fact that it is NOT God, but some evil alien.

One of the things we know about God, from both the OT and the NT, is that God makes things happen just from speaking them.
OT- "And God said: Let there be-"
NT- "In the Beginning was the Word"

It is all too easy too dismiss God because of all the evil aliens who have attempted the role, and most times it is a valid dismissal. But does that mean that ALL times it is a valid dismissal?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 05:31 PM

I think Arkansas. I'll look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: John P
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 06:38 PM

Robomatic said, "It is all too easy too dismiss God because of all the evil aliens who have attempted the role, and most times it is a valid dismissal. But does that mean that ALL times it is a valid dismissal?"

It's pretty easy to dismiss something for which there is a complete lack of evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 06:49 PM

Taoism is not a religion, Peace. It is a philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM

And by the way...ever noticed that people who look for trouble have absolutely no trouble finding it? ;-) That's exactly what Lao-Tse is advising against. He is making a philosophical statement about human psychology and behaviour, not a religious statement about faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM

Religion comes of being a conscious entity. When ever Man gasped "Why?" religion was born because he realized "existence" and has been trying to nail it down ever since. It is no small thing that YHWH's name means "I am, that I am", a very succinct statement of being.

We all worship something (honor as "worthy"). Whether it is an idealized being, art, sex, money, truth, nobility, or self we DO worship there.

If you don't have an object of devotion, you are not living.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 07:57 PM

Right on, Slag. ;-) I personally think that worship of money is the dominant religion out there right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 07:58 PM

Wesley S, re the prospect of an atheist president, I have seen it claimed in the UK that every member of both Houses in the US must claim to be a Christian in order to get elected. Can that be true? Is there really not a single exception? OK, not an atheist, but a Jew maybe?

Have a look at this. The sixth paragraph in particular. For me, it beggars belief. For DougR it will be welcome confirmation that all is well in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 08:12 PM

"You can deny "God", Bill, because you happen to be offended by organized religion... ;-) "

Go back up there and read my posts, LH... I'll wait.................






so...did you find any place where I 'denied' God? You can do a search in ALL my posts for 10 years or so, but I won't wait. It is important ... for me... to walk that fine line between atheism and agnosticism. It is also important, to the extent I can manage, to have others understand that I DO walk that line.
   I do not 'deny' a supreme being.... I doubt that the concept is viable. It is just not something that I can wrap my head around. *IF* there is such a being...or more than one... 'it'/'they' do not communicate with me, and I see a lot of flaws in the stories of those who claim to HAVE evidence & communication. If there were a way to place a bet, I'd bet against it...but there's no way to collect. I 'could' lose...if a voice from the sky came down in flashes of thunder and TOLD me, "**YOU LOSE!**". It's very much like reincarnation...if I'm right, I don't get to say "I told you so."

I simply object to, no, make that regret, that so much of our cultural energy is invested in what 'feels' like just superstition. The reason I do not 'object' or totally condemn religion, is that I think some of our populace is just wired to need some sort of 'ultimate answer'. I actually would be frightened if there were some sort of ruling against religion. There is no good reason to tell folks they CAN'T believe in some sort of god. There is, however, a good reason to tell them they can't impose belief, or the structure of artificial belief, on others.

...and just to be clear, I also didn't make any claims about when "In God We Trust" appeared on coins. All I said was that it hadn't always been there, just as God had not always been in the Pledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 08:39 PM

And Slag, I do agree with you that "Religion comes of being a conscious entity. When ever Man gasped "Why?" religion was born because he realized "existence" and has been trying to nail it down ever since."

That is not much of an issue. It makes perfect sense that a being, as it gains the ability to ask "why?" at all, and is VERY terrified by the world and its dangers, soon patches together some sort of 'explanation'. The early religions were about fear, death, danger, survival....and hoping that some 'behavior' could affect how they survived & prospered. Some of those ideas were pretty weird...to us... and some were more complex and coherent, (at least internally). Those prospered and became MORE complex and 'interesting'....etc.
(It is an interesting fact that Mithra/Ahura Mazda, as descendants of Zoroastrian beliefs, was an early, dominant religion in Rome, and was popular until one emperor was converted to early Christianity.) Just a matter of luck....(yes, I can hear the wheels turning as Christians assert that God intervened and 'helped' the transition) *shrug*

But after that nice, obvious beginning, you veer into poetry and slogans. I don't 'think' I 'worship' or have "an object of devotion", unless you try to stretch the meaning of the idea to the scientific method or logic.. ☺.. and I will argue about that warping of the words.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:03 PM

Thanks for the kind words and recognition of my poetic side. Poetry recognizes the limitation of words, housed in their dictionary meanings. The metaphor reveals the truth (OK, the poet's truth) by painting a picture with plashes and blobs of color an a blank canvas. It's just oil and clays and other pigments mixed in but stroke after stroke, a picture emerges. Ultimately you are the judge of just what the picture reveals and what it means to you.

Your God, Bill D, is easy to discern. It is the same one where most worship. It is the same one Satan offered Adam and Eve in the garden. "And the serpent said unto the woman, 'Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Your faith resides in your own self and your ability to understand all things. There is no room in your mind or heart for God because YOU are the judge of all things. That is the hardest and most humiliating thing to do for a man OR a woman, to lay aside that aspect of your being and accept God's point of view on faith. Few there are who who can do that.

Understand that this is not my judgement of you or anyone else and I do not hold myself as superior to anyone. I stumble and fall all over myself on a depressingly regular basis. I can't escape me. I am trapped inside this fleshy and perishing body with all its carnality and human world view. I find peace and a way only as I surrender to my Father through the priestly office of Christ. My God is a God of love and grace who has forgiven me all my short-comings. He has forgiven all the world for all time, the same.

Well, I've left poetry and now I am preaching. If that offends you or anyone else, I apologize for monologuing in a discussion forum. I will ask for a little charity on your part and conclude herewith.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:04 PM

Bill, I don't see anything in what you said in that last post that particularly bothers me. I simpy didn't use a word that suits you when I said "deny". I should have said "doubt". I think I understand your position on it. But as usual, I think we're talking straight past each other and both not really getting what the other is driving at, probably because we are aiming at rather different objectives.

In short, we have different concerns.

My concern was merely to point out that all people naturally have in them a strong desire for perfection, and that most civilizations (if not all of them) have brought forth various religious concepts as a way of symbolizing the ideal of perfection and the search to realize it. Okay?

And what I was saying was, in essence, you, BillD, can doubt the existence of "God" (as you, BillD, interpret that word "God")...but I don't think you can rationally doubt the existence of the ideal of perfection itself...since it clearly exists where all ideals do: in the human mind. And we all know what the word "perfection" means, don't we?

An ideal is a set of ideas, aimed at some kind of perfection.

An idea is a real thing that happens on the level of consciousness. We all know that from our own direct experience. It's not physically real. It's not quantifiably measurable or observable as an outward phenomenon (unless you want to observe neurons firing in the brain), but it is a real ocurrence on a mental level whenever it enters a human mind, and it profoudly affects human behaviour.   That's what religions and philosophies are about to me. They're not about rituals. They're not about power structures or formalities. They're not about hierarchies or rules. They're about ideals...ideals being the result of thinking that is directed toward some concept of perfection.

To me, that's what life is really about. It is about the search for meaning and perfection.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 12:07 AM

It must be that "giant sucking sound" Ross Perrot predicted all those years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 12:16 AM

"And we all know what the word "perfection" means, don't we?"

Well, we sort of do....but we do that by making the idea relative to the circumstances. A 'perfect' tuna sandwich has a different sense than a 'prefect world'....but we can't define either one..except subjectively.

Plato's entire system was about the 'ideal' and discovering how closely a 'real' item participated in it ideal form.

The problem is, we create words to try to explain, grasp, encompass, grok, etc., things we can't measure or poke or draw take pictures of...such as trolls, angels, Satan, God, ghosts.....then we act as if the word has somehow endowed the referent with reality and a tangible existence.

This idea that we really KNOW what we mean by some words is kinda slippery. One of the best examples of this IS that we keep, as you put it, "talking past each other". Even better is the way kids use limited, like, slang to sort of communicate in short, vague bursts of buzz words. They convey some sort of awareness of each other's 'space', but there is often so little substance....like, yaknowhatimean? No?

Poets & philosophers theologians and scientists all try to, on different levels, express some sort of 'truth'. The question is, does subject matter, as in theology, raise the ... ummmm... 'truthiness' of a concept away from just poetry and into some higher realm? This is where *I* begin to doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 02:09 AM

Fine, Bill, but I'm not talking about any other-worldly stuff here, such as spiritual realms, gods, trolls, or anything else like that. I'm talking about ideals. I am saying that all the world's religions have arisen mainly out of man's desire to have a guiding set of ideals to live by...and that those ideals in themselves are entirely valid concepts, regardless of whether or not there are gods, trolls, Angels, ghosts, Satan or anything else otherworldly out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 02:18 PM

Little Hawk, the only way to keep Americans from slumbering is to keep the issue alive.
Sweeping it under the carpet has become the American Way and doesn't serve our country.

Of course the battle will continue to rage as long as atheists and agnostics are denied their rights.

If there are reactionary forces who become upset at this issue, then so be it.

It doesn't serve anyone to keep quiet. Historically, that has never resolved anything.

Antagonism and anger will be engendered but it doesn't have to be coming from the non-believers side. All they need to do is stick to the facts and reason. Appeasing the religious opposition does nothing constructive.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 03:49 PM

Oh, I'm not suggesting appeasing anyone. I'm just suggesting not getting too emtionally addicted to one's pet peeves, that's all...

If you know what I mean. ;-) And I hope you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 04:00 PM

It is not true that you have to worship something. I don't worship anything. Admire, love, am amazed by, am awed by, sure. But not worship.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 04:48 PM

So the word "worship" troubles you? Well, that's a matter of semantics. You associate that word only with religion, I assume?

I've been observing people worshipping a great number of things all my life. If they ultimately accord it greater importance than anything else in their life...if their attention is fixed upon it...if their decisions depend upon it...if they perhaps give it more importance then it actually merits...if they have more faith in it than they really do in anything else at all...

Then they worship it.

Many people claim to worship God. But in actual practice I find that most of them worship money. It's the number one thing they have an unshakable faith in, and you can determine that easily by how they react when you offer them a VERY large amount of it. ;-) And by the extraordinary things they will do to get it.

Therefore I think it is ironically absolutely perfect for American money to have "In God We Trust" written on it, because the ruling god of this society IS money. It couldn't be a more perfect motto to express what is really going on...the pursuit of the Allmighty Dollar.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:36 AM

Actually, it's the endless destruction casued by religion that bothers me. The word "worship" is just a signal to the rational thinkers that they intend to go on doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 12:36 PM

I feel the same way about the military-industrial complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:19 PM

No, not with religion, but with submission. There is nothing that I admire to *that* extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:54 PM

Well, that may be so. ;-) I'm not necessarily speaking of you, just of humanity in general. My impression is that most people worship a considerable variety of things (money, fame, good looks, popularity, class, material wealth, their own ego...). Again, many of the people who outwardly claim to worship God do not actually submit as fully to God as one might think. When things don't go the way they wanted, for example, they'll get angry at God over it! ;-) Or when some wandering desire hits them, they are inclined to forget all about God for awhile...

I don't call that submission, I call it dabbling in something when it suits you to, and putting it aside when it doesn't.

But who, I ask you...who ever puts aside their respect for the power of $100,000 dollars placed in their hand? Nobody. Therefore, I say that they have submitted to the power of money, not to the power of God.

There's only the odd true religious zealot of believer who will go all the way for (their idea of) God...such as a Mother Teresa...or a suicide bomber. Those people are few and far between.

There are also, I think, relatively few ordinary people who will kill a complete stranger if you offer them $100,000 to do it...so evidently money also has its limits with most people. I'm glad that is the case.

Surprisingly, though, almost any young man or woman in a uniform will kill complete strangers on a battlefield if their government tells them to! This tells you how much faith most people have in their government. More than they do in God, yessir! They just assume that their government knows perfectly well what it is doing when it sends them out to kill foreigners.

I think the average person has submitted to the government far more than they have submitted to God. That's my opinion.

You may counter by saying that the government is real, and God isn't. Well, that's one way of looking at it...but being "real" doesn't also mean being right, does it?

I regard governments as FAR more dangerous than religions. When governments use religion to push their agenda, however, then it gets even nastier....and I think that is what is concerning you, isn't it?

That I can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 04:05 PM

Yes, but also, just people who prefer their beliefs to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM

And you wouldn't have a military-industrial complex without religion. You might have a personality complex, but not a military-industrial complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 07:59 PM

Oh YES you would have a military-industrial complex without religion, Rig. With ease. Stalin and Mao both had a military-industrial complex without religion. Stalin's Russia fielded more tanks in WWII than any other power in the world, and they were better ones on average too. They overwhelmed the Germans with a flood of men and highly effective equipment. That was a military-industrial complex par excellence!

(Now...I think Communism really IS a political religion all of its own type...but it isn't a belief system that includes God, life after death, an immortal soul, angels, heaven, prayer, or any of the stuff that you and Mrzzy find delusional and "unreal". Communism is based entirely on the practical material considerations of this Earthly existence, and how best to manage them, according to Communist theory.) WHY are you not a Communist, Rig? ;-) They seem to think as you do.

And Pol Pot? Well, he had a military...but he didn't really have what one could call a military-industrial complex at his disposal yet. Good thing! He still managed to kill a quarter of the people in his own country, using quite primitive methods to do it.

I told you...government is the most dangerous thing around. Governments without religion have sometimes proven even more dangerous than those with it, but there's no guarantee either way. Pol Pot managed to kill a higher proportion of his own population in 4 years than any other despot has done in recorded history. He did all of that under the proud banner of atheism.

Mrzzy - Find me someone who doesn't think that his or her own beliefs are reality. ;-)

What you must have meant to say was, "Yes, but also, just people who prefer their beliefs to my version of reality."

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 11:32 PM

"WHY are you not a Communist, Rig? ;-)"

             Why would you think that I'm not?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 11:59 PM

Well...I wouldn't necessarily object if you were. It's one among many conceivabe choices in politics, and it can have its own merits, depending on circumstances. I just assumed you that were not, that's all. ;-) People are always making assumptions like that, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 07:02 AM

Of course there are many different branches. The disaster that developed under Stalin in the Soviet Union was more like a monarchy than any concept of communal living.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:16 AM

Mrzzy - Find me someone who doesn't think that his or her own beliefs are reality. ;-)

Find me someone who thinks their beliefs, which contradict demonstrable reality, are nonetheless true and that therefore believes demonstrable reality to be false because of the contradiction, and I'll show you an American Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 11:13 AM

Or, actually, any monotheistic fundamentalist, The pagans don't have that problem, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:52 PM

When I question gross prejudice and chauvinism at one end of any scale, Mrzzy, I am not thereby defending gross prejudice and chauvinism at the other end of that scale. Let's keep that clear, okay? ;-)

You said, "Find me someone who thinks their beliefs, which contradict demonstrable reality, are nonetheless true and that therefore believes demonstrable reality to be false because of the contradiction, and I'll show you an American Christian."

Hmmm. But, Mrzzy, no one who believes something also believes demonstrable reality to be false. We all believe demonstrable reality to be true, we just do...it comes naturally...but we have different interpretations of it, and those interpretations usually arise directly out of our beliefs.

Even the Flat Earth people, for example...and there are only a tiny few of them around...have come up with "evidence" taken straight from what to them is "demonstrable reality" to "prove" their theory...and they have marvelously logical-sounding explanations to prove why the Earth isn't round. Go visit them and find out. It's really quite amusing.

The human mind is capable of interpreting "demonstrable reality" any damn way it has decided it wants to, and this has always been the case. The only thing the human mind wants is to be "right" and for others to be "wrong". It gains a sense of superiority from that presumption, and that makes it feel great.

Now, give me some specific examples of things religious people believe that fit your sentence: "Find me someone who thinks their beliefs, which contradict demonstrable reality, are nonetheless true and that therefore believes demonstrable reality to be false because of the contradiction, and I'll show you an American Christian."

And we'll take it from there...

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:00 PM

But, Mrzzy, no one who believes something also believes demonstrable reality to be false.

excuse me? What about "There is no evolution because I believe in the Bible" - when evolution has been thoroughly demonstrated to be true?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:28 PM

If the person has just made an assumption without looking at the evidence (a common thing for people to do), then, yes, they are being extremely foolish.

Some people, however, have looked at the evidence regarding evolution and are not fully convinced that it is a correct theory. They might think it's partially correct. (which would be where I stand on it) They might think it's entirely incorrect. What they think about it, in any case, would not be on the basis of contradicting any kind of demonstrable reality that they have seen, but on the basis of interpreting demonstrable realities in a different manner.

As for the person who simply goes to the Bible (or, more likely, to his pastor) to make a decision about evolution, and who never looks any further at all is not contradicting any demonstrable reality in so doing...he's just not bothering to even investigate it, that's all. He figures he doesn't need to. He is happy to remain ignorant regarding "demostrable reality" when it comes to evolution. He's not experiencing a contradiction, he's experiencing a mind that is already so made up that it doesn't need to even LOOK!

That's kind of like the mind of the average atheist regarding spiritual matters... ;-) You can't tell him anything about that, because he already KNOWS it "isn't real" and he doesn't want to hear about it! ;-)

That's why I say there is extreme prejudice and chauvinism at both ends of the scale on this, and I don't support it in either case.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:40 PM

Mrzzy said, in part:

What about "There is no evolution because I believe in the Bible" - when evolution has been thoroughly demonstrated to be true?

Two comments:

First, people (perhaps including some here) confuse "evolution" with "Darwin's theory of evolution". That there has been change in flora and fauna over time by (gradual or sporadic) change is pretty well demonstrable. I'll deal with this again later.

Darwin's theory of evolution is another matter. The theory as he posited it is not completely adopted today by those who purport to be Darwinians, and it's certainly not the only theory around.   I believe Darwin's approach to be close to what actually happens, but there were other theories before Darwin came along, and I believe some afterward, some of which depended on a god's intervention, some depended upon the will of the species to change, and so on. While Darwin's theory is the most systematic and believable (I believe), there are still those who buy the others, so "evolution" or "the theory of evolution" are not to be equated with "Darwin's theory of evolution".

The fundamentalists (or at least some of them) even deny my first paragraph, that there has been evolution. They do it in a way that I pejoratively characterize as "making God a trickster", who planted false clues in what we would read as the geological record or the paleontological record. Thus some of them determinedly cling to the idea of a creation once and for all, unchanging down to today.

I think it's important to remember the difference in language and preconceived concepts when talking about such things, to avoid talking past each other.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:49 PM

There is no question, among anybody who knows *anything* about biology, chemistry and/or physics, that evolution is a fact. That humans evolved from older forms of apes. Exactly how evolution works may not be known down to the molecular level, but there is no question that it not only happens, but explains a whole lot about things, and than people absolutely certainly evolved from old world apes. No question at all. Unless you are religious and it contradicts your dogma. Even the completely ignorant of science, if they didn't have creation myths to fall back on, would understand the fact of evolution being how people got here. It is the dogma that is so hard to overcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:57 PM

There are some thinking people that believe in both evolution AND God. It happens y'know.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:00 PM

Thinking people? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:07 PM

Rig - Don't insult. Can't you have a discussion about a difference of ideas without being rude? I'm willing to accept that you don't believe in a higher power. That's fine with me. So why can't you believe that there are thinking people out there who have considered the alternatives and have decided that they do believe in some sort of higher power?

So please be polite. It gives your arguments more weight.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:25 PM

Yes, well, that's kind of like the argument we hear from folks who want to teach Intelligent Design in biology classes:
"Shouldn't the children be exposed to another point of view?"

                Of course, it's not science, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:39 PM

And I've never suggested teaching intellegent design in schools. I'm opposed to that. So what's your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM

Yes, Rig, you should try to overcome this tendency you have to insult other people by apparently assuming they are drooling idiots if they think differently about anything than you do. It lends no weight to your own credibility whatsoever. It's the kind of attitude that in 3-D life would get a person punched in the nose.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:10 PM

There are some thinking people that believe in both evolution AND God. It happens y'know.

There should be no problem with that, Rig. Why shouldn't God have a method of doing whatever he does (if he is and does)? In that way of thinking, evolution, even as described by Darwin, could be his method. Where's the problem?

I don't happen to buy that whole scenario, but if one is a God-believer, why not? Only if one's dogma insists on a single, static creation is that ruled out, it seems to me.

Certainly if one wants to say that a god is everywhere, in and of everything, then evolution (even as described by Darwin) would be part of that "everything", and would be the god's way of doing things.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM

Hmm - again, my answer has disappeared...

What I said was, sure, thinking people will understand that evolution is a fact. I don't object to anyone thinking. What I mind is when dogma prevents that thinking, or is used as an excuse not to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 09:28 PM

"Exactly how evolution works may not be known down to the molecular level,..."

Even that is getting closer. DNA techniques are beginning to be able to trace the details.

I guess no one can force "true believers" to see even the most obvious, well proven scientific truths. There are still a few in the Flat Earth Society.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:22 PM

Teaching intelligent design in a philosophy class would be fine with me...

So, anyway, besides Riginslinger and me, who's sent in their affidavit?

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 04:25 PM

It might be too late. Here's the message I found at the website:


Thank You For Your Participation!
We have stopped routinely accepting new plaintiffs.

If you wish to submit a declaration, we will consider it if staffing and time allow, but no promises.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:03 PM

Evolution is not a fact, Mrzzy, it is a scientific theory supported by various facts and different forms of gathered evidence since Darwin first expounded it. Whether it is an entirely correct theory...or a complete explanation of the development of life on this planet...is not known at this time. We can have opinions about whether Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a complete and accurate explanation of how and why all life developed as it did on this planet...but our opinions are only that. Opinions.

You regard evolution to be "fact" for one simple reason. You have faith in that theory, you have faith in the authority figures who have put that theory in front of you since the time you were a child in school, and you have faith in the books you've read about it. (That's where most religious people get their faith from too...only a different set of authority figures and books.)

You don't have any actual experience, I assume? Ever been on a dig with Professor Leakey? Spent any time in the lab examining ancient skulls? Gone to the Galagos and studied the turtles? No?

Well, if not...then you are simply doing what the religious people mostly do...you're demonstrating an unshakable faith in the orthodoxy of your choice, handed down by the venerable authority figures you have decided are "in the know".

My guess is, they're all partly wrong. What I mean is: the religious authority figures....and the scientific ones...All partly wrong. Wait a century or two, and I bet I'll be proven correct in that guess, but you won't be there to see it, will you? If you were, you would no doubt believe in some other prevailing orthodoxy of the time...and I would still be eyeing it with some degree of skepticism, and figuring it was probably partly wrong. (which it probably will be)

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

Little HAwk, you are splitting hairs; there are enough instances in the collected data, at molecular and macro levels, and enough alignment between known biological processes and other evidence, as to give evolution in general the weight of fact. To argue it is not yet a fact because th emechanism is not fully known is like disputing the 9.8 m/sec^2 rate of acceleration of gravity because the Higgs boson has not been confirmed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 09:30 PM

Sorry, Little Hawk, it IS a fact. Scientists use the word theory differently than English speakers. It is a theory the way gravity is a theory: it has ways of being thought about, not that it isn't factual.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:28 AM

I think it was Little Hawk who said:

Evolution is not a fact, Mrzzy, it is a scientific theory supported by various facts and different forms of gathered evidence since Darwin first expounded it.

Wrong. You're using the word "evolution" when you mean "Darwin's theory of evolution". Darwin was far from the first to observe the fact of evolution, and even far from the first to propose a theory of how evolution works. Darwin's is merely the one that explains the observed facts better than the others.

"Theory" means an attempt to provide a systematic explanation of how a given process works. Thus, we have the theory of the law of torts, Darwin's (or Lamarck's, or whoever's) theory of evolution, and theories in many other fields.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:02 PM

Right, like the theory of gravity or of plate tectonics, all fully accepted facts. Why O why does Evolution get singled out? Plate tectonics contradicts the Bible too...

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:17 PM

I studied Lamarck and Spencer on evolution 50 years ago. Even then those 'theories' were shown to be inadequate and/or flawed.

During this time, Darwin's basic principles have been shown over & over to lay out how things work...even though Darwin did not have the tools to fill in all the details.

When Amos says Little Hawk is "splitting hairs", it is as close as necessary to be a 'theory' of why there is still confusion and doubt about the difference between 'fact' & 'theory'. It essentially says that a fact is a theory with so much corroborating evidence and knowledge about the details that we can CALL it a fact...like saying that water flows downhill. You could call that 'only' a theory, I guess...but it's a silly and almost useless linguistic way to talk, unless there is some special point to be made.

Today, we SEE examples of evolution at work in various systems that change on a much faster time scale than apes to humans...etc. It is as close to a fact as to make no difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

Will evolution eventually weed out those irrational believers? Tune in next week for...

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:54 PM

I think there are captive breeding populations held in various spots in Kansas and Alabama..perhaps other places. They will always be with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:07 PM

Oh yeah! Shades of "Deliverance:"