 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Want to get God out of US Inauguration?
|
|
|
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 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 |
|
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 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. |
