BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 09:34 PM

You have summed it up very well, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM

I don't think it's so much prohibiting someone from saying an oath as much as hoping he/she will out grow it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:15 PM

Chalk up one "believer" here who agrees with Uncle Dave's post 100%.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:29 PM

First, understand that I speak (or write) as an atheist and a believer in the separation of church and state. That said, I ask, "But what does that mean?"

It should be remembered that neither our history nor the Constitution says that no mention of religion, organized or unorganized, must come within shouting distance of government, that no public officer must utter the word "God".

One must keep in mind the historical background in which the Establishment Clause came about. In the background, the founders were painfully aware of the fact that not only England but almost all previous regimes, in almost all countries, comprised a sort of Siamese-twin relationship between government and some particular organized religion. Government's power and legitimacy was thought to be derived from and to owe huge institutional allegiance to whatever the relevant organized religion was--in England, the Church of England, and in the other countries of Europe, originally the Church of Rome and then the various Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, and on and on. And the Founders were well aware of egregious misuses of that relationship. Attendance at church was legally enforced, with criminal sanctions for non-attendance, as was payment of tithes or other exactions by the Church.

And almost never was there any question that the State and organized religion were joined at the hip, so to speak. And that's true in many countries even today.

The purpose of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was to keep the power and legitimacy of the State from being declared (explicitly or implicitly) the property of any official church, and that no church was to be so endowed with primacy or support by the State, the tax dollars of the public generally being politically devoted to the beliefs and wishes of some particular portion of the populace.

And to varying extents we have succeeded in carrying that out.

Now, we do (rightly or wrongly) have a long tradition of invocations and benedictions at State Occasions, such as we saw yesterday. I will say that Rick Warren played it cooler than I might have expected, in that he phrased his closing reference so as to refer to what has affected HIS life, as opposed to presuming to speak for either the State or everyone attending, and even then he mentioned four or five different cultures/religions' names for Jesus. Given who Warren is, that's about as far as I could expect him to go in that direction. I think that the invocations and benedictions will continue into the remotely foreseeable future, come hell or high water, sometimes less objectionable and sometimes more so.

The power of the State, under the Constitution, should not allow any official, government-sanctioned prayers, or any special privileges extended to organized religious bodies--including, say I, "In God We Trust" on US coinage and currency, or "Under God" in the pledge. Not that I have any expectation of getting rid of those usages.

BUT, a prohibition against an entering officeholder's choosing to say "So help me God" if that suits him? Awwww, come onnnnn! That's not misusing the power of the State to favor religion, either in the abstract or as to a particular religious institution.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:19 PM

It's equally true that people who swear non-religious oaths break them while in office. ;-)

That's because politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM

Yes, that's right, on both counts!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 06:19 PM

"Most of the ones who swore the oaths violated them once in office."

And it literally kills every one of them. Eventually. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 04:29 PM

But, Frank...for many people the concept of "God" is one that goes completely beyond "the Church", it goes beyond any and all churches, and it may in fact have nothing to do with any church. I'd say that is so in my case. I have a concept of God that does not derive from any church I know of, and I belong to no church or organized religion, so how does invoking God in some way have to indicate a mixing of church and state?

I do believe in the state. I don't believe in churches (for myself, I mean, I don't care if other people belong to them or not). I do believe in something that I term "God", but it isn't the property of any church or religion, they didn't copywright it, it isn't under their jurisdication as far as I'm concerned. They may talk about some hypothetical version of it that they favor, but they don't own it.

I have no wish to join church and state together, but I don't think it's even possible to separate the state or anything else from "God", because God is the infinite (and the infinite is, by definition, inclusive of everything).

Therefore, I do not object to Barack Obama invoking God, because as far as I'm concerned, when he does so he is simply invoking the greater mysteries that lie behind and within Life itself, those things that a person can be instinctively aware of, and can draw strength from, although it isn't possible for us to ever fully define what those greater mysteries are. They are something you feel inside, but you can't measure it or confine it in any way.

Historical religions have tried to formalize all that in some way and make a bunch of rules about it. They did that because most people feel safer with rules, and it secured a place of power for the rule-makers. I feel safer knowing that ultimately...there are NO rules...there is just one immense reality, and one must (hopefully) deal with it in as flexible manner as would be wise. Therefore I don't conform to any particular religion. I don't want their rules and restrictions. I want freedom to decide for myself, using my own understanding. Obama looks to me like a man who also decides for himself, using his own understanding. If he feels he is drawing some inner strength from something greater than himself while he arrives at a decision...how does that involve "church and state"? It involves his personal faith and the state...but it doesn't involve church and state as far as I'm concerned.

This is a case of people arguing about outward formalities. They say, "I don't like your formality, because it's not my formality." Well, someone else's formalities are their own business, seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 03:41 PM

It's a violation of Church and State. They should keep religion out of oaths being sworn.

Most of the ones who swore the oaths violated them once in office.

Agnostic, I wouldn't care either except for the fact that my country makes me care.
I do care about the Constitution.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 01:42 PM

I didn't see that exchange between Roberts and Obama. I haven't been watching any of that stuff in the last couple of days...just reading the newspaper accounts. (I basically never watch TV anyway, but I do look up stuff on Youtube and other such sites).

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:10 AM

Well, as a nonpracticing agnostic all I can really say is...I don't really care one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM

It was a little melodramatic the way Roberts put the question to Obama, and even more so, they way Obama responded.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 12:12 AM

Ah, yes... And then what?

Argumentative egos, I've noticed, are usually at somewhat of a loss when they get what they want, and they soon have to set about finding something new to complain about. It's what keeps the human pot boiling. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:58 PM

Nice of you to drop in. We shall overcome!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM

To return to the first post, it seems, mirabile dictu, that the atheist groups and their supporters were not successful in getting "so help me God" deleted from the inaugural.

So the same windmill will be there to tilt at in the next 4 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 02:42 PM

Getting back to those many common expressions people use (but don't actually mean)....

My Father's favorite expression when under stress was "Bloody hell!!!"

His favorite expression when astonished was "Jesus!" or "Jesus Christ!"

My father was also a total, absolute, 100% atheist. He didn't believe in God. He didn't believe in Jesus. He didn't believe in hell. ;-) If you had questioned his use of the above terms and complained about it offending your sense of logic regarding religious beliefs or non-beliefs thereof, he would have given you an annoyed look and probably have made some sarcastic comment indicating that he thought you were a stupid prat and a pest to boot.

The fact is, my Father said the various things he said like that in a completely unconscious manner, and they had nothing to do with his beliefs in God or in anything else. They had to do with the unconscious habits of speech he had acquired growing up in the culture of his time.

He did not appreciate anyone's efforts to analyze his unconscious behaviour and bring it to his attention, since he was a law unto himself.... ;-)

As most people also clearly imagine they are a law unto themselves, I suggest that you leave them alone to say whatever makes them happy, whether or not it makes any logical sense to you or bothers some knee-jerk personal hangup of yours. They'll probably like you (somewhat) better if you mind your own "goddamn" business and let them talk in whatever way they naturally choose to.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 02:13 PM

That's how I see it too, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:27 PM

The notion that any one man is more the "son" of "God" than any other is distasteful to me, and seems narrow-minded and hard-hearted.

Sorry if this offends.

"Greater things than I have done, ye shall do."

Let's go for that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: MMario
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:22 PM

The commandment is actually to not swear FALSE oaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:21 PM

That's a good point, Penny!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM

Really weird the way that people swear oaths on a book in which the most important character tells his followers not to swear oaths.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:35 PM

I do not like the intrusion of religious bias into the State. I think that if Obama is a Christian, he should keep it to himself in official State functions. Otherwise, the invocation should not be his alone but shared among all believers and non-believers alike.

America is not and has never been officially a Christian nation in spite of Rick Warren.
Even John Adams said that.

I think Irving Berlin might throw up in his grave if he knew what these politicos did with
"god bless America".

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 05:37 PM

Goatfell - Here is another meaningless thing that people say when they stub their toe:

"Son of a bitch!!!" (has no bearing whatsoever on the real matter at hand...a stubbed toe and an inanimate object)

Should we worry about this or try to get people to stop doing it because it makes no sense?

No. ;-) They're already upset. Let them say whatever the heck they want to in moments of stress, and leave them alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:37 PM

Goatfell said (again):

if atheists don't beleive in God then why mention his name or his son's name either, be more honest and just for nobody's sake or nobody help me and then that is what is being honest but then that's up to you,

Goatfell, that's essentially what you said before, and we discussed it at some little length.

Do you have anything new to say?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:02 AM

Good idea, Goatfell, I'll never say, "Oh, for Pete's sake" again.

    "...the smart thing for a society to do would be to put a sensible ceiling on quantity and improve quality instead."

                I agree 100%, Little Hawk!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: goatfell
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 05:29 AM

if atheists don't beleive in God then why mention his name or his son's name either, be more honest and just for nobody's sake or nobody help me and then that is what is being honest but then that's up to you, and God bless Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:22 PM

Rather than increasing quantity of things, the smart thing for a society to do would be to put a sensible ceiling on quantity and improve quality instead. And I mean quality of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:46 PM

It seems to me that this was one of the inane ideas that built a full head of steam with Reagan--it was part of the "supply side" insanity.
             I heard Newt Gingrich say on a talking-head show a few weeks ago "A free market economy had to keep on growing or else it will fall over"(parapharsing). And that's the mantra those people live by. It's why true supply side economists like illegal immigration, you have an every expanding market--which, of course, is why true environmentalists do not like illegal immigration.

             But when you hear one of these folks singing the praise of Ronald Reagan, it seems to me like that's usually the reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:08 PM

Any organism grows or contracts. By putting out a flower, it succeeds in continuing to grow a bit more.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 06:14 PM

"The biggest overall myth that humanity is suffering from right now is the myth that it is necessary to have an ever-expanding economy in order to have a successful society. That is the maddest, stupides, possibly the most self-destructive myth ever perpetrated yet, and it is threatening all life on the planet. Why is it being done? To make money. Period. Just for more money." Little Hawk

To make a serious segue here: I don't understand the saying at all and I hear it a lot. Where did people get the idea that bigger is always better?

This came up again just yesterday. During my volunteer stint at a local museum a couple of stalwart Chamber-of-Commerce types (literally. They belong to the Chamber) came in and we chatted about Juneau, Alaska and its future. The State of Alaska celebrates its 50th anniversary this year and the subject is much on people's minds.

Anyway, they both noted that some local residents want Juneau to stop growing and just keep it as it is.

I, of course, said truthfully that I don't like the idea of continued growth, that with our limited land mass (we occupy a narrow strip of land at the foot of mountains)the only way we can grow indefinitely is by building double-decker highways, and that's not the community I want to live in.

I said that once a community reaches its proper size I like the concept of enrichment- to come up as a community with innovative ideas and concepts, on how to assimilate the homeless among us, how to reach our endemic high school dropouts, to inspire the young who are not college bound to take up and study the subjects they *are* interested in, to create beauty, to do the thousand things that we are not giving enough attention to today.

They were nonplussed; because we had been having a productive chat they wanted to like me but they obviously feared that I was "one of those".

But why should we keep on growing? In natural terms when a plant grows to its optimum height it doesn't keep on growing - it halts and puts out a flower.

Hey, I like that analogy and will use it from now on!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 10:58 AM

Scissorbill - Logger who contested the I.W.W. - later, any non-union man.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:57 PM

I've used the 'F' word twice in one day due to falling on ice and being splashed by motorists. In one case there were kids not too far away and I cringed at myself. I DO feel a responsibility to not pollute little ears.

As for Obama, he can thank God, Moses, Christ, Allah, or little green men. it's his show.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:39 PM

What is a scissorbill?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:37 PM

I agree, if you stub your toe, you've got a problem. If you yell, "JESUS-FUCKIN'-CHRIST," and it bothers some dizzy scissorbill standing in the adjoining room, he's got a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:45 AM

Yeah, it's merely cultural conditioning, Dave. Habit. As you say. It's a momentary letting off of steam. A instinctive relief valve. It can take a great variety of forms.

People who take specific exception to one or another form of it, though, are only advertising their own emotional hangups when they do so. Some are offended by sexual terms (FUCK! COCKSUCKER! etc...), some are offended by scatological terms (SHIT!), some are offended by religious terms (GOD DAMN IT! TABERNAC! JESUS CHRIST! JESUS, JOSEPH and MARY! GOOD LORD!).

Whatever it is that pushes their buttons...it's indicative of their own emotional problem. Not society's problem. Not the other person's problem. Their problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:37 AM

Goatfell asked:
if Atheists don't believe in God then why do they pray to him or cry out to him by sayingthings like 'oh my God' or God help me(prayer).


And Little Hawk replied, in part:
It's instinctive, not conscious behaviour.

No, I don't think "instinctive" is the concept, L.H. "Not conscious", sure, but I would say it's cultural conditioning, or habit. "Instinctive" would imply that somewhere built into a human is an inherited mechanism to associate a stubbed toe or other sudden mishap with sex, and I don't think you really mean that. And I don't think that's true of an appeal to a deity either, although no doubt many religious people (and probably Goatfell) might want to think that there's an instinctive, built-in recognition of or need to appeal to (their particular) god.

There just MIGHT be an instinctive trigger to call out with an exclamation or imprecation of some kind under "stubbed-toe" conditions, but "God!" or "Fuck!" or "Son of a bitch!" is no more instinctive than "Gee!" or "Ouch!" or "Rowrbazzle!"

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:27 AM

Well, it would be nice to get all that god stuff out of serious public life... but I'm not counting on it...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:59 AM

They do it basically for the same reason you yell "FUCK!!!" when you stub your toe. You're not thinking about sex at that time either. It's instinctive, not conscious behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: goatfell
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:46 AM

if Atheists don't believe in God then why do they pray to him or cry out to him by sayingthings like 'oh my God' or God help me(prayer).

if they truely didn't beleive in God then why mention him

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:10 AM

You'll never make it as an owl, Rog. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:06 AM

GO NEWDOW!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rog Peek
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 02:34 PM

Couldn't give two hoots!

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:36 PM

I have those exact same thoughts, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 11:12 AM

Right. And yet our financial sector and our economic advisors and policy makers keep ignoring that and trying to create more economic growth. Amazing, isn't it? I get the impression that the few people in charge think they can just create some little islands of luxury and safety for themselves while the rest of the planet slides into disaster. Or do they plan to somehow eliminate about 90% of the world population and exempt themselves? One wonders...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 08:59 AM

The concept that an economy must be "ever expanding" puts in play a series of events that guarantees the total destruction of the planet--at least as we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 11:07 PM

Yes, of course, money is about the extension of power, and so is the system. Money confers personal power upon individuals, and it confers military power upon governments. The more money you have, the more power you can command, and that can lead to very deep problems in itself....when you have a disunited, fearful, and ruthlessly competitive humanity whose lust for power outstrips their moral fiber...which is usually the case. ;-)

The other problem, which you have alluded to, is that some people get so used to playing "the game" that no amount of money is ever "enough" and they always want more, and that can lead eventually to total insanity.

Money is just a tool of exchange...but what happens when the exchanger falls in love with the tool itself? He loses all sight of what life is actually about.

And what is life actually about? I think it's about love. Love of every sort. That is, love of individuals, love of life itself, love of other forms of life, love of nature, love of the planet, love of society, love of all acts of useful or beautiful creation (such as writing a song or building a house or cooking a meal or teaching a class)...love on every level of human existence. That's what life is truly about, as far as I'm concerned.

When people become empty, fearful, and lost and they cannot find or experience the love they are instinctively seeking and longing for to fill their souls, it is then that they turn in frustration or ignorance to seeking power over others and money for its own sake, and possessions far beyond what they could ever need. They are trying to fill a void which cannot be filled with any of that stuff, and no matter how hard they try, the void remains. So they try even harder, and things get further out of whack.

I am not condemning money itself (because it's just a tool, and tools are neutral), I'm condemning the turning of money into an idol or an obsession or an addiction, and the turning of temporal power into another idol, obsession, and addiction. Out of the pursuit of those false idols comes the sorrow and destruction in this world.

And that is why in the Bible it doesn't say that "money is the root of all evil"...it says that "the love of money (for itself alone) is the root of all evil". That gets to the crux of the matter. I don't mention it because I'm a Christian (I'm not) or because the Bible is my all purpose authoritative source (it isn't), I mention it simply because I think that is a wise statement that is being made there in that passage.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:27 PM

To enlarge on that a little:

Notice, I said that the economy and economics is, among other things, about power. Not talking about electricity there, but influence, including sometimes compulsive influence. That's where the undesirable aspect of money comes in.

Money is about power: The power to get into a movie, the power to command the labor of others, the power to order and pay for a gourmet-restaurant meal rather than having to settle for a Big Mac, the power to obtain the best medical care for our families.

The big problem, as I see it, is that eventually an individual doesn't really need more power (money) to make a high-class, comfortable life.
How many Rolls Royces do you really need? How many luxury mansions? But by the time you get there, it's often a way of life to scramble for more, more--partly by habit, partly as a way of satisfying atavistic urges to impress and control that have been with us since the cave man and before, when we were tree dwelling primates.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:14 PM

Little Hawk told us:

The biggest overall myth that humanity is suffering from right now is the myth that it is necessary to have an ever-expanding economy in order to have a successful society. That is the maddest, stupides, possibly the most self-destructive myth ever perpetrated yet, and it is threatening all life on the planet. Why is it being done? To make money. Period. Just for more money.

Wrong! Economics, and the economy, is NOT about money. It's about goods, about power, about labor, about land and land use. Money is just a convenient way of keeping track of the flow of labor, food, goods, energy (or more accurately, TRYING to keep track.)

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 06:32 PM

That was more a symptom of the Viking problem than a cause, wasn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 06:06 PM

"Little Hawk's list of historical causes for war"

Also, the spreading genetic material. The Viking's are a good example of that, and did it well,"by red and by freckle".