BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'

Subject: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

Some atheists and other like-minded groups have filed suit that "so help me God" be deleted from Obama's inauguration oath.

Curious to know Mudcatters' take on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:34 PM

It's HIS inauguration. Let the control freaks control their own lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:39 PM

Took the words right out of my mouth, Jeri. Well, not literally, but I woulda said the same thing....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:56 PM

They also don't want a prayer or anything by any minister, priest, rabbi, shaman, or medicine man.

I agree with the above.

It's Obama's day -- as long as he's legally sworn in who gives a rat's rectum?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM

Obama is a Christian! I rather expect he'll say it as he pleases.

The problem would be if we ever elected a non-religious president who decided NOT to say it. (Don't hold your breath.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:17 PM

I can see the day coming, Bill. But it will require a crisis of magnitude, much as the economic blowup spurred Obama's election.

I can see the Bill day coming....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:21 PM

I see no point in having the phrase "so help me God" in the oath office. If you can't promise to do your utmost best for your country without decorating it with some kind of supernatural legitimacy, then to me your promise is meaningless. Leaving god out shows that the oathmaker is prepared to take full responsibilty for his actions and decisions.

But I don't agree with militant atheism, either. No better than any religious or political organisation that works to ram some kind of tenet down unwilling throats.

The mob is the untruth.

For me - the jury is still out on atheism. Religions can't prove God exists and atheism can't prove God doesn't exist. I tend to think that if God does exist in the religious context, then he is a cold, uninvolved bastard. This thought is based on ages of unchecked suffering (especially the children). And the feeling has only grown as I've aged and been exposed to more horror.

I will probably recant (just like so many others) in late age. When mortality threatens and I am trying to cover all angles. But that is another day.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:32 PM

"I can see the Bill day coming...."

funny...I can't. Not even with my bi-focals cleaned.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:36 PM

VTam.... well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Art Thieme
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM

Live and let live. Coexist! Die gendanken sind frei--so think what you will--and they will too!!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:48 PM

(personally, I am not comfortable with the idea of a god who gave one of his creations (us) the ability use logic and to reflect on our very existence, but punishes us for using it to doubt. My 'logic' tells me that if *I* had created a bunch of very fallible beings who couldn't be trusted to follow all the rules, I'd show up a lot more often and in VERY clear ways to remind them)


but...*shrug* since many are ok with the idea of just 'believing', I am not likely to change their minds...and if they intend to recite pleas for help in their duties, I can't prevent them from doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:51 PM

Each day, I give thanks to God for having made me an atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:57 PM

Hahahahaa.... I like it, BWL. God is laughing at that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 03:17 PM

The problem is, with having it in there, when the presidency fails, all the swearee has to say is, "Oh well, god refused to help!"

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 03:29 PM

Federal employees are given the option of saying "I so affirm" instead of "so help me god." I have used the affirmation in any instance when called upon giving an oath. Oath taking seems stupid to me anyway, I'd rather no one have to do it at all. One boss who was very strict about these rules raised his eyebrows when I used that, quite startled to find a heathen in his flock. Tough.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 03:44 PM

I was the first or second to vote in the advanced poll in my polling station in the last three federal elections. Took Mum along. At the first of those, in a Baptist church, my mum noticed a Bible on the administer's desk. She asked and was told it was to swear upon if you didn't have the proper paperwork and wanted to vote.

That church was not a polling station in the subsequent elections, by Canadian Law. Ya don't mess with the law and ya don't mess with Mum.

Yes, SRS.... tough indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 03:58 PM

Hot damn... that is fantastic Gnu. I am a Recovering Baptist. And it was my church attending days made me think really hard and long about the whole absent God thing.

Wonder what the Southern Baptist organisation would make of the fact that it's dogma and practices made a near athiest of me.

Ha ha ha.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: number 6
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:00 PM

"Each day, I give thanks to God for having made me an atheist."

Luv it BWL !

And thank God we have the freedom to be atheists.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM

Everyone should get to make an oath exactly the way they want to...with or without mentioning God...Barack Obama included. And it's no one else's business what decision they make about that or whether or not they want to mention God.

No one else has a frikkin' clue what another person really means when they utter the word "God" anyway...they just have their customary facile assumptions about what they think God is or isn't or what they think someone else thinks God is or isn't...and their assumptions may be quite wrong in that regard...and that's one of the reasons they have no business trying to control whether someone else chooses to say or not say the word "God" when making an oath.

Control freaks of the world, control yourselves instead, as Jeri suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: RangerSteve
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM

Thomas Jefferson, when asked his opinion of the Unitarian Church, said "It neither steals my purse nor breaks my leg". I wish people would use this philosophy more often. Obama can say "by Jupiter" for all I care. It won't change my life or have the slightest effect on it. Why not sue because he won't have your favorite musician perform at the inauguration? Maybe vegans can sue because meat will be served in the White House. You don't have to be a yuppie to exhibit yuppie-like behavior (the world must revolve around Me. Everyone must strive to please Me. It's all about Me. Me. Me.). I'm waiting for the revolution, when everyone showing yuppie-like behavior will be exiled to to a remote island and left to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:42 PM

I think it was VirginiaTam who said:

Religions can't prove God exists and atheism can't prove God doesn't exist.

You miss the point, VT. Atheists (such as me) don't need to prove that god doesn't exist. They merely make their own decision, "I believe no god exists," or perhaps the lesser statement, "I don't believe a god exists." To paraphrase Jefferson, that steals no-one's purse and breaks no-one's leg. (Thanks, RangerSteve)

If a person calling himself an atheist arrogates to himself the right to protest Obama's use of "So help me God" in the inaugural oath, that person is not acting as an atheist as such, but as a controlling busybody who happens to include in his belief system the tenet that there is (or maybe "should be") no god.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 05:11 PM

I think LH has the right idea, much as I hate to admit it. This is Mr. Obama's oath, and must be in the form that he sees as most binding upon himself. As a believing Christian, any oath that did not mention God would not be as meaningful to him as one which did. Whether or not someone else "affirms" or professes a lack of belief in God/god entirely or finds the inclusion of a/the deity in the oath of office repugnant isn't really relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 05:29 PM

Swearing "so help me God" didn't help Nixon or many others. Swearing to tell the truth "so help me God" didn't keep a whole string of murderers from the hangman when the evidence clearly contradicted them.

I'd rather an honest atheist than a lyin' believer. (Of course, technically you can't be a Christian and a liar, but we all know better, don't we?)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:04 PM

Uncle_DaveO... ummm, would it not be better for atheists, while they do not believe in "God", to also say they do not deny his/her existence?

Why tempt fate?

And, yes, I know the term "agnostic"... I just think it's spelt wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Midchuck
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:22 PM

UDO said:

Atheists (such as me) don't need to prove that god doesn't exist. They merely make their own decision, "I believe no god exists," or perhaps the lesser statement, "I don't believe a god exists."

Those are two VASTLY different statements. With regard to me, the second is true, but the first is a matter of insufficient data.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:23 PM

in one dictionary program I have, 'atheist' is defined specifically as "Someone who denies the existence of god"

I think the entomology of the word actually means 'denial'. In that sense, it merely represents an opinion.......which, as a matter of fact, is all 'believing' does.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:37 PM

Curious to know Mudcatters' take on this.

My take on it is that God helps when HE pleases, prayer or not.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:44 PM

My take is that God helps when We please, if we choose to accept God in our heart. Whatever God that might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:46 PM

Well, doesn't the United States have some clause about separation of church and state????? EH???? That to me, seems to rule out 'so help me God'.

But, whatever

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:59 PM

I have always preferred a phrase along the lines of "I swear by all that I hold sacred" or "I swear by the gods my people swear by" or simply, "As best I possibly can."

When I was sworn in during a court session I was asked if I swore to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" and I said I would. No god in it, just a perjury charge.

(I wanted to respond, "Up to a point" and when the judge asked "What point is that?" I'd say, "The point where I start lyin'." But our lawyers wouldn't let me and that's probably just as well.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:01 PM

Why not sue because he won't have your favorite musician perform at the inauguration? Maybe vegans can sue because meat will be served in the White House.

Why not stick to the subject?

The fact that I don't have a belief system that incorporates a god deity is my business. When someone else tries to push their personal deity on me, I push back and ask them to keep it to themselves. In the grocery store last week a particularly stubborn little old lady in line behind me just didn't get it and I had to simply ignore her as she kept preaching her gospel at me and offering "have a blessed day." I do resent it when people offer that little parting shot, because it is a manipulative way they have been taught of layering their ritual over my life. Do they think I don't get it? It's like Mormon's baptizing deceased Jews. They need to keep it to themselves.

What I REALLY resent are those religions that feel the need to co-opt everyone else's belief system. The christian's answer I have heard many times, when discussing the practice of other religions, that "it's all the same god." This is not only wrong, it's rude.

Here in the U.S. so many localities are trying to include school prayer and a "creation science" that, of course, favors the creation stories of the christian religion. It doesn't look at how the Choctaw believe they travelled from the Northwest transporting the bones of their deceased loved ones and guided by a tall pole indicating their direction of travel, or of the Southwestern tribes who climbed out of a hole in a log from under four layers inside the earth. It isn't really meant to teach ALL creation stories, just the one.

The legislation is as sly and lying about what is being taught as any you'll find on the books. Pretend it is science and a few folks might not realize it is really our religion, and we'll indoctrinate those kids young. To teach one religion in public schools to the dismissal of all others says this religion is more important or better, and it isn't, it is simply more widespread.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: MaineDog
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

Swearing an oath by God means, basically, that you are accepting as fact that you will lose your Salvation and be damned to hell if you fail to do you best in your enterprise. The assumption is that the oath-taker is a Christian, and is therefore seriously influenced by taking this oath, and so, he can be trusted to fulfill his promise. In a society of believers, this carries a lot of weight.

How then, should an atheist attempt to convince the largely atheist public that he is really serious about his promise?

"I will forfeit my --- if I fail to do this!!!"

My ipod?
my unfaithful wife
my wine cellar?
my stock portfolio, (which is now worthless)
my dead Subaru?
my house on the sand (also worthless)
my reputation (already suspect)
In short, he can't convince me of anything.

So, if he is serious, he must swear by God, even if he doesn't actually believe.
sorry
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:08 PM

Atheist or otherwise, the objection to "so help me God" is valid, as is an objection to any deviation from the exact oath of office specified in the U. S. Constitution.

U. S. Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Note that a precise, specific, and exact wording is prescribed, and there is no allowance for, no reason for, and no justification for, any deviation from the specified precise set of words there.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:19 PM

God is not the property of any church, Sorcha. ;-) (though they mostly seem like to imagine that they have an exclusive franchise on God...)

You can separate the state from churches, certainly. But how can you separate the state from a concept which is not under the control or grasp or jurisdiction of churches, no matter how much they try to control or grasp it? God (at least in one sense) is an idea. It is an idea of something unlimited and transcendent that underlies our existence and which determines the nature of existence itself. In many cultures it is the idea of something omnipresent and eternal. Such ideas exist and they always have in philosophy, but they cannot be separated from a state or a society as long as any of the people in that state or society have those ideas resonating in their consciousness.

To invoke God in an oath is NOT to bring any particular church into the government, it is simply to invoke the idea OF God itself, and that idea exists outside of churches as well as within them. It has always existed both in AND outside of churches.

I belong to NO church, yet I do have an idea about God...my own particular idea about it...which came from no church that I know of...and if I were part of a government and I expressed some of that idea in a ceremony I would not be bringing "the church" into "the state", because I do not subscribe to "the church" in the first place. The church plays no part in defining my concept of God.

Furthermore, if there is anything like a universal principle that is 100% real and woven into the nature of our existence, and that could be termed "God", then by definition it pre-existed ALL churches, and as I pointed out above...it is NOT their property now nor is it under their jurisdiction...nor can it possibly NOT be part of the state, because everything that exists arises out of it in the first place.

What people are objecting to here is a form of outward ceremonial that they don't happen to subscribe to themselves, and they're saying "I don't believe in that form of ceremonial (or the philosopy behind it), and therefore I don't want other people to do it either."

Well, tough! Other people in this world are always going to do a few things in a ceremonial or formal sense which you don't choose to do, and if you don't like them doing it, don't WATCH it. Go focus on something else you like instead and stop trying to force other people to be the same as you. That's not their choice.

And who made you or anyone else the arbiter of what someone else's choice should be? Barack Obama would, I believe, choose to invoke God in his oath of office, and that's just fine for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: MaineDog
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:24 PM

Oh, sorry, I did not show up for the gig because snow was threatened.
Yes, I affirmed that I would come, in writing, even, but with no threat of retribution, I really was not sufficiently committed to even try to get there. So, at the least difficulty, I gave up!
I know what the constitution says, but a person making a serious commitment needs to do something meaningful for those who are on the receiving end of the promise. The majority of Americans still are more influenced by an oath before God, than by an "affirmation".
I'm not trying to force religion on atheists, but to point out that there is a reason why some people can't trust them.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:34 PM

Well, there IS a really big thing waiting for anyone who doesn't keep their oath: perjury, impeachment, nonfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance....

Deep inside something says to me, "Keep your word, keep your promise, and you don't need an oath. It's what you should do anyway because it's the right thing TO do."

"...A promise made is a debt unpaid..." Service wrote. Unfortunately, too many people are worming their way out of their debts today.

Heck, if you want to swear on the Pentatuch, the Koran, the Bhagava-Gita, the Tao Te Chin, your sword, whatever -- I don't care. Just keep your word.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:43 PM

He was voted in presumably because enough people trust him to give it his best shot with integrity. So why make him say an oath! Even Jesus thought that saying yes or no should be good enough for anybody. It's quite entertaining to see how so many Americans see the constitution, as drawn up by a flawed bunch of old racists all those years ago, as immutable. Especially when they see something in it that lets them keep guns all over the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:47 PM

I keep my word, NOT out of fear but because it's the right thing to do. Something, I believe, that's true of most Christians.

You don't have to trust me. It's not my problem. I'm also not likely to trust anyone who needs fear of retribution to be decent. What sort of a person needs that motivation? I don't have a problem with people adding to their oaths so long as the required bits are in there. I'd have a problem if the 'so help me God' were required. Just a different sort of flag pin, I'd think. Just a show to appease the holier (or more patriotic) than thou assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM

Maine Dog, you said: "Swearing an oath by God means, basically, that you are accepting as fact that you will lose your Salvation and be damned to hell if you fail to do you(r) best in your enterprise."

Bullfeathers. ;-) It means that only if you think it means that, and it doesn't mean it if you don't. I have a certain concept in my mind about "God", but it does not include the notion of a heavenly judge who damns people to hell. It does not include the notion that anyone would EVER be denied "Salvation". I don't even believe in hell or denial of salvation.

You are assuming that everyone who would swear an oath to God MUST believe exactly (and only?) the specific things about God that you think they must. You are right, no doubt, in certain cases...yet totally wrong in others. You have no business assuming that everyone who believes in "God" must therefore believe in a God as stupid, vicious, and unlikely as would please your basic assumptions about the matter. No, they are not all as you imagine them.

And that's why I bother responding to these pathetic threads at all. I'm irritated by the very deep chauvinism of people who assume that other people's ideas about God must be just as stupid as they think they would have to be. That is stereotyping people for your own ego enhancement ("Oh, I'm soooo much wiser and more realistic than they are...."), and it's as foolish as the kind of chauvinistic stereotyping of people that religious fundamentalists commonly engage in when they are attacking people who are different in belief from themselves.

It stinks, going both ways. Both sets of intolerant jerks (the atheistic intolerant and the religious fundamentalist intolerant) are forever patting themselves on the back because..."Oh, well, I'm not an idiot or a fool like those--------- people who don't believe as I do. If ONLY they knew what I know! If only! Tsk, tsk! (shaking his head in pity)"

You haven't got a clue what other people believe in or don't. You never bothered to really try finding out. All you have is your habitual prejudice toward them and your enjoyment of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:55 PM

If you can't keep your word in small things, I can't trust you with large.

If I were with a banker or stockbroker and s/he didn't stop to pick up a penny from the ground I'd take my business elsewhere even if that person were the Pope, the Prophet, and the Messiah all rolled into one.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 08:03 PM

Hmm. Really? I sometimes stoop to pick up pennies on the ground. Usually, in fact. But occasionally I don't bother to.

Where does that place me, Rap? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 08:44 PM

"Usually" is different from "never." I've known financial types who couldn't be bothered "because it costs more in my time to pick it up than it's worth" and I'm not talking pennies here. To me that says that they wouldn't spend the time on small accounts that they would on big ones because the small accounts wouldn't be worth their time.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:34 PM

From: Jeri
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:34 PM

It's HIS inauguration. Let the control freaks control their own lives.

But it is OUR nation!! Next, you'll be wanting him to re-write our constitution, all the laws, and change our form of government....to continue the work Bush/Clinton/Bush worked on doing....

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:53 PM

Rewrite the Constitution? Leave that up to the exceedingly rich and powerful in high places who can afford clever lawyers who can concoct clever legal chicanery to simply outmaneuver the Constitution and violate it without every saying so or with most people even noticing...as has been done a great deal over the years by a long succession of American presidents.

For instance, you're not supposed to go to war without a formal declaration of war first being announced and passed in both houses of Congress...but you've been doing it ever since the Korean War which was described as "a police action" and right up to the present against other nations such as Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. That's chicanery, and it's unconstitutional.

So is setting up illegal torture facilities offshore and locking people up without any legal charges or any normal legal representation.

So is importing illegal drugs stateside through government operatives (CIA) in order to finance their other covert operations.

Hell, it happens every day. They violate the Constitution and they break the law and nobody does a thing about it. This has been accomplished by the major financial and military-industrial power groups and the military intelligence agencies, not by someone who wants to utter the word "God" in an oath. It's been done for money and power, not for God.

They just enjoy manipulating a large sector of the public by pretending to honor God in some ceremony or statement...meanwhile dividing and conquering the public by keeping the pot continually boiling between atheists and fundamentalists, gays and straights, and any other dichotomies along that line. It's good business. Keep 'em at each other's throats and they will be far too confused and disunited to ever be able to deal with real problems, like the destruction of their democracy and Constitution from the top down.

This thread is just another sorry contribution to maintaining those angry divisions and collectively disempowering yourselves as a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:30 PM

Yes uttering the word god is a very terrible thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:46 PM

It's not as bad as uttering the word "frglebsntchnarzl".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:14 AM

...geeziz........I just read this thing and figured that no one had bothered to read the Constitution but then I came across John's post which he even did in MONSTER letters and yet still this goes on!

IF not the Constitution, then let me have the late George Carlin tell it better than I can do it myself. Its only 9 minutes but worth it......at least try the first 5.

Spaw

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

How did those people who filed the suit know that his oath was going to include "so help me God"?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:27 AM

Typical standup comedy, Spaw. Carlin handily points out something most of us know (or should know)...that our religious ceremonials are arbitrary stuff that somebody made up.

Fine.

So are our clothing styles. Why does anyone wear a tie? Why does it have to be tied a certain way? How much sillier can something possibly get than wearing a tie? Why shouldn't the president-elect refuse to wear a fuckin' tie??? Or why shouldn't he refuse to tie it with the special knot and just drape it around his neck casually? Or why not tie it rakishly around his forehead like Peter Sellers in that old Pink Panther movie? Who says he can't do that????

And why do suits have to be so dull and predictable? Why shouldn't the president-elect wear a bright yellow suit with no sleeves and red polka dots on it? Why not?

And why do so many women wear bras? What the fuck is that about??? They don't need them. They would be less constricted without them and they might not get as much breast cancer if they weren't constricting those soft tissues!

It's all arbitrary shit and no one knows why anyone does it, but everybody does it because somebody thought it up and because it's "the thing to do".

Why do so many men shave? I shave! Why? It isn't necessary or natural to shave the hair off your face or other parts of your body. And why do women feel that they should shave their armpits and their bikini line and why do cartoonists draw only females with eyelashes and the males get no eyelashes when we all know that EVERYBODY has eyelashes??????

Huh?

And why the hell does Daisy Duck have to wear a top, but she gets away with wearing no pants??? What's that about?

And why do car wheels have to be made out of black rubber? And why do people eat turkey for Christmas and Thanksgiving. Because of some pilgrims way back then? I don't think so. No one really gives a shit about Pilgrims now and I don't believe those old stories anyway. Half of that stuff was probably made up by somebody too.

So about 90% of everything we do is arbitrary shit, and nobody really knows why they do it or why people have BEEN doing it for a long, long time, but here's the problem....

You listening?

The problem is that we all want a sense of our identity. Right? One of the things we get that from is all of our cultural nonsense, most of which is arbitrary stuff that somebody made up. But if we didn't have all our cultural nonsense as a basis for who we are then we wouldn't know who we are, and that would be quite a problem.

Why is it you Americans don't give a tiddly about the Canadian Constitution or even know diddly about it?

Because it's not part of YOUR culture! Okay? So that's fine, we all have our own culture and that's fine.

Now it just so happens that one of the silly essentially arbitrary things that has come down through your culture and mine is to swear in a certain fashion with one's hand on a Bible during certain ceremonies. No one knows why, but people have been doing it for a long time, and that's why we're doing it now.

George Carlin should be smart enough to know that, and I'm sure he is, but what the hell...he was going for laughs, right? And he had a nice receptive audience there for those kind of laughs. Organized religion is a dead easy target for a George Carlin audience to chuckle over.

But George Carlin does a lot of silly and arbitrary stuff too, every day. We all do. Why? Because we automatically obey the many arbitrary dictates of the culture we were born in.

Now, the people who are pissing and moaning about someone swearing on a Bible are not doing it because swearing on a Bible is any more silly and arbitrary a notion than hundreds of other things they do every day...or any more important either.

No. They're pissing and moaning about it because they are personally quite hostive to one specific aspect of culture, namely the religious aspect.

So, as I said some time ago, they're enjoying exercising their favorite prejudice, that's all. Beating on the old hobby horse one more time.

Well, if you can do that, then I can complain about Obama wearing a tie. I hate ties! They are stupid and uncomfortable and they restrict the throat. They don't even look good. Fuck ties! I DEMAND that Barack Obama NOT wear a tie at the inauguration or ever again because it is insulting to common sense and it offends people who prefer to go tie-less. So there!!!

Yup, I can be downright silly and prejudiced and demanding too. Just like the rest of you. ;-) I can try to save YOU from the horrible fate of not thinking the way I do about ties!!!   

Tit for tat, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:37 AM

The whole problem with identity is that as we are all something like 98% alike and refuse to admit it so we focus on the pissant 2% that is different. None of that makes the whole arbitrary bullshit thing any less important but rather adds an undeserved importance to it all.

BTW........The only saving grace to a tie is that I personally like where they point.........But when I was teaching it was requirement. They had a hundred reasons for them so I started wearing ties I had made from alternative materials, like paper clips. This of course casused a real stink which wasn't the reason I did it exactly, rather it was just something to do to pass the time. James Kunen once wrote out a personal classification I adopted for most things in life.......Mildly Amusing or Pain in the Ass.

To keep the world in Category One often requires elements of the "Counter-Ridiculous" or things spill out into a depressing Category Two. Sadly, too much is solidly entrenched in what I realized was a missing Category Three......Just Don't Give Rat's Ass.

This entire subject and most opinions about it are deep in the 3-Hole.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 05:48 AM

Keep 'em at each other's throats and they will be far too confused and disunited to ever be able to deal with real problems, like the destruction of their democracy and Constitution from the top down.

Too right, Little Hawk!

Here's hoping that Obama will not fall into the political ruts carved by his predecessors.

Here's hoping that major News Agencies will do what they should. Report unadulterated fact, unclouded by political agenda.

Here's hoping that the Federal Government exerts pressure on State Governments to provide for the unpropagandised education of future voters.

Well I can dream, can't I?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 08:32 AM

"(Of course, technically you can't be a Christian and a liar, but we all know better, don't we?)"


                   Those of us who suspect that Christians are basically lying to themselves don't really expect them to tell the truth to anybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: MarkS
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 09:00 AM

"frglebsntchnarzl".

Hawk, you have definitely gone too far with that one,

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 09:13 AM

Good on you Hawk

OF COURSE we make it all up

but to answer the question succintly...

We do it because the religious people quite frankly use violence to enforce their point of view.
Religious fanatacism actually requires opposion to "war" against.
So we continue to go along to get along.


By the way the word Atheist is out of date
Its now Atheian

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 09:27 AM

WHY DON'T WE FOCUS ON SOME REAL PROBLEMS FOR A CHANGE??

Like people losing their homes because of layoffs or medical bills?
Like the abysmal state of science and math education in the US, et al.?
Like attention spans measured now in picoseconds?
Like really working to solve the drug problem?
Like people who don't get diagnostic medical procedures because they can't afford them?
Like parents who don't give a rat's ass about their kids?
Like teenage suicide?
Like hopelessness?
Like assuming that military violence is The Answer to every problem?
Like media that glorifies violence because it's good theater?
Like (fill in the rest yourself)....

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 09:36 AM

Stamp out the scourge of religion, and you're well on your way to solving all of those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stu
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 09:43 AM

I wouldn't swear an oath of allegiance to any politician, monarch or religious movement anyway. They're welcome to earn, my allegiance but making me swear an oath of their making isn't for me.

I am a free man.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 09:50 AM

Isn't there something in the Bible about NOT swearing oaths? Swearing to God especially was something I understood to be a Big Fat No-No, and isn't that basically what you do when you swear on a Bible?

If the President-Elect just says, "I promise to do my duty to the best of my ability," then shakes hands with whoever's administering the ceremony, that's plenty good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 10:18 AM

Yeah, there IS something in the Bible about not swearing oaths! Amusing, isn't it? ;-) But when did people really pay attention to that? Look, we make it all up as we go along...or we just imitate what the previous generation made up as they went along or what we learned in school or saw on TV or something. It's all just "monkey see, monkey do" and hardly anybody really knows why they do anything except eat, sleep, and have sex.

But, hey, a lot of good stuff in those previous posts...'cept for old Riginslinger who is still flailing away in his usual emotional rut, the one that's based on curing all the world's ills through destroying religion. ;-) Gosh, Rig, there would have been such a great spot for you in Pol Pot's Cambodian administration or among Mao's Red Guards...you might've even got to be commander of one of those countryside camps where they were "disposing of the problem", one human being at a time.

Spaw put it beautifully: "The whole problem with identity is that we are all something like 98% alike and refuse to admit it so we focus on the pissant 2% that is different. None of that makes the whole arbitrary bullshit thing any less important but rather adds an undeserved importance to it all."

Exactly. It's unbelievable to me that anybody would even waste any of their time worrying about whether or not Barack Obama swears on a Bible at his inauguration. It doesn't matter. It is inconsequential. And it's his business if he wants to, and it's nobody else's business if he does.

Let's focus on the 98% that's the same about all of us for a change, eh? Wouldn't that be refreshing? Why, we could even probably avoid getting in another war by doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 10:47 AM

Much ado about nothing, IMO. The act of being "sworn in" means that the oath being taken is the most sacred and inviolable thing this person can do. I would expect the person taking the oath to swear to honor it using that which is most sacred to that person. In the case of a religious person that would be to the Almighty of his/her persuasion. But if that person were atheist/agnostic and chose simply to swear on his/her honor, it would have the same weight with me, and bear the same consequences.

The militant atheist is just as troublesome to me as the fundamentalist religious person. Live and let live. Obama swearing to God represents no threat to them. As long as he doesn't try to impose it on them, or treat them differently because they don't share those beliefs. Tolerance cuts both ways.

And no, I do not think anyone should be forced to swear on a bible or to a god, if it is not in their belief system.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

The presidential oath isn't an oath of allegiance to any politician, monarch, or religious movement. It's an oath to faithfully execute the Office of Presidency, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Those are the most important things a government official can do in this country, and swearing an oath to do them is a big part of what makes this country a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stu
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:45 PM

I didn't suggest the Presidential Oath was an oath of allegiance to any politician, monarch or religious movement, I simply said I wouldn't swear an oath to any of those tossers (except my wife of course!).

I suppose I was thinking that here in the UK they make all new citizens swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Sod that, I wouldn't swear allegiance to her or her government as I'm a republican.

I agree with Mick, people who do swear oaths should only include wording relevant to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:10 PM


Isn't there something in the Bible about NOT swearing oaths? Swearing to God especially was something I understood to be a Big Fat No-No, and isn't that basically what you do when you swear on a Bible?

What's prohibited in the Bible is swearing FALSE oaths, that is, calling on God to witness as truth what one knows to be false, or that one doesn't intend to perform.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:32 PM

what happened to the original poster? really didn't get his opinion. is he being like god winding up the clock and just watching as it runs itself down?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 04:01 PM

Oh, quite possibly. It's fun to throw the bait in the water and watch the sharks gather. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM

Yeah, but I'm already tired of this thread.........no shit, I really am............swear to god!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 06:43 PM

Ha! I love your sense of humor, man.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: skipy
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 06:47 PM

Your assorted "gods" are responsible for most if not all wars! Also millions, yes millions of deaths! I would rather follow a leader who takes it upon him/her self to to shoulder the burden of leadership than one who has a "god" to fall back on & share the blame!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM

No, skipy, you are mistaken. What is responsible for most wars is hunger for land, money, and resources...domination of commercial markets...that sort of thing. It all comes down to money and power. People start wars to acquire more money and power. Religion is just a handy superficial propaganda thing that they use to motivate the fighters (if the fighters happen to be religiously inclined).

For example: The Nazis made much use of Christian religious messages to inspire their troops, reminding them frequently that the Soviets were "godless Communists". This had a good deal of effect in motivating German soldiers to kill lots of Russians and to fear them also, but religion was not the essential force behind Naziism. The essential force behind Naziism was a German hunger for physical expansion of the German state and its valuable holdings and power in the world.

I could list many more examples, but why bother? I doubt you'd be inclined to listen, as it wouldn't serve your specific agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: skipy
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 07:50 PM

Correct Little Hawk, men cause war not religion, but religion has ALWAYS been used to drive war fwd. By the way, just for the record, I don't have an agenda, just the right to have my own thoughts which I don't push onto anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 08:24 PM

"Your assorted "gods" are responsible for most if not all wars! Also millions, yes millions of deaths!"


                      I agree, of course the gods didn't start the wars, because they're not real, but it's all done in their name, over and over and over and...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 08:34 PM

Correct, skipy, religion (or sometimes official atheism's attack on religion) has always been used to drive war forward. That's not the fault of religion itself, however, nor is it the fault of atheism itself, it's the fault of extremely ambitious and ruthless men in government and media who are quick to use anything and everything they can to drive a war forward...for their own gain.

So what do they use? Whatever will work. They use...

Patriotism

Fear of other cultures

Genetic Racism

Cultural racism

The excuse that "they were going to attack us someday, so we'll attack them first"

False flag "attacks" (that didn't really happen or were not perpetrated by the other country that is being attacked)

ecomomic incentives -there's much money to be made in wartime

Political theories - such as Naziism, Communism, the "Free World", Fascism, Maoism, etc

Religion (you have already focused on that, so I hardly need to elaborate)

Past grievances - They did this horrible thing then. Therefore they deserve to be attacked by us now.

Rumors of theoretical threats (like Saddam's nonexistent WMDs)

Declarations of altruistic intent - the USA pretended it was going to war with Spain in 1898 to help Cubans! What a grand pretense. They didn't do it to help Cubans at all, they did it because Cuba and the Phillipines were very rich islands in Spanish possession, full of economic gains to be made if the USA could get them, plus it would give the rapidly expanding American fleet some very handy major bases in both the Caribbean and the Pacific, thus making the USA for the first time a global power...and Spain was a doddering, weak old military power which couldn't possibly win such a war. So the US government convinced its public that it was going to war for altruistic reasons, and to avenge the Maine (which may have indeed been sunk by someone, but I highly doubt it was the Spanish...they were desperate to avoid a war with the USA).

There was no religious reason behind that war was there? Nope. Just the usual reasons of economic, territorial, and strategic gain for the aggressor.

The sinking of the Maine may have been a "false flag" attack accomplished by American agents. It may have been done by Cuban revolutionaries to trigger American intervention on their side. It may have been an accident, due to spontaneous combustion in the coal stores (such things happened to warships on quite a number of occasions back then, and similar things even happened in WWII...the Japanese lost a major battleship to an internal explosion of unknown cause while it was sitting peacefully at anchor one day in 1943). At any rate...I doubt that the Spanish did it.

Religion didn't cause that war. But I bet almost every pulpit in America backed it vociferously. They didn't do so because religion started the war, though, they did so because they probably believed the US government propaganda and were in a frenzy of patriotic fervor.

It's governments who start wars, and they do it for their own gain.

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

So help me god, or if not, Moi... might be fittin'. It's the kind of oath Miss Piggy would make. Obama, being a more well-read and gracious sort, is likely to amicably leave the phrase is there.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 11:35 PM

Well, at least it doesn't screw up the scansion of the oath, the way that "under God" did to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:18 AM

Whether the "gods" were real or not, Rig, it's hardly fair to blame them for the wars started by people in their name(s), is it? ;-)

Imagine being a perfectly innocent and kindly god, wanting everyone to be prosperous and happy, and watching in disgust as people all over the place started wars and killed other people in your name! It would make the job hardly worth having on some days...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:34 AM

I agree with your post, Little Hawk..

From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:43 AM

Thanks. I figured you'd agree with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:16 AM

LH - Can you shed any light on genetic racism? Cultural I can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bee
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 09:46 AM

It could be argued that men also cause/d (invented) religions, therefore should never be permitted to blame any atrocity on the gods, time honoured though that excuse may be.

Obama claims belief and perhaps feels that an oath including his god is the strongest indication of his firm intent to do his best. I'd be satisfied with a promise made on his own honour to use common sense and take good advice (and recognize such) in his endeavours.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:08 PM

Yeah, Bee, but you don't know exactly what Obama's concept of "God" is, do you? It might be quite different from what you imagine. Maybe even Obama is not entirely clear what his concept of "God" is, after all. (Most people are a bit unsure about the exact nature of the God they believe in...)

Rig - Well, what I meant was this:

Cultural racism - People of basically the same overall racial stock, such as the Scots and the English...or the English and the French...or the Iroquois and the Hurons...or the North and South in the Civil War...or the Japanese and the Chinese...attempt to destroy each other over their petty cultural differences.

Genetic racism - Blacks and Whites...or Asians and Europeans...or Whites and Amerindians...attempt to destroy each other over differences in basic racial type, which I think are differences that could be described as genetic in nature.

Every conflict seems to involve plenty of cultural racism, but a few also involve a specific form of racism based purely on race itself. If so, it will also be accompanied by the usual forms of cultural racism.

It all amounts to one simple, primitive, dumbass train of thought that is held in the mind of a moron: "They're different from us. That's really disturbing to me. Let's kill them."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:30 PM

I am quite sure that wars are not caused by Gods, but by cartoon characters: Bullwinkle, Mickey, Donald, Goofy, the South Park kids, Rocky, and Miss Piggy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bee
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:39 PM

"Yeah, Bee, but you don't know exactly what Obama's concept of "God" is, do you? It might be quite different from what you imagine. Maybe even Obama is not entirely clear what his concept of "God" is, after all. (Most people are a bit unsure about the exact nature of the God they believe in...)
" - LH

Did I suggest otherwise? In terms of oath-taking, it doesn't matter (to me) what Obama's concept of his god is, so long as he believes invoking that god makes his promises more durable or more dangerous to break. Although I still think a person's word should be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:10 PM

Isn't it remarkable how arguments make much so more sense when you put them in big type?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:22 PM

Well, usually I shrink anything larger than an <h3> headline font (as gargoyle knows), but guess I'll let this go because I guess there's some kind of point here....

I guess I'd say I'm uncomfortable with the use of the name of God in official documents and ceremonies, because the God referred to usually seems to be very closely allied with the Republican Party. I have a very firm belief in God, but not THAT God.

But as Jeri said so succinctly, it's Obama's inauguration and he should be allowed to do what he wants to to - including asking Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation. And somehow I don't think that born-again Republican God will be attending this inauguration.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 09:18 PM

"...I don't think that born-again Republican God will be attending this inauguration.:


                      You think Rick Warren will show up without him?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 09:19 PM

By the way, thanks LH. I'd misread your meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 10:32 PM

Oh, that hardline Republican version of God is a nasty one, all right! ;-) I would not want to meet "Him" in a dark alley, that's for sure.

If I was going to believe in a God that was a humanoid figure of some kind, then I would choose to have a female God who looks kind of like I imagine Joan of Arc...or Lady Arwen from Lord of the Rings. Much nicer in every way. She would deliver some tough lectures from time to time if necessary, but no one would be cast into any kind of a hell, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 01:08 AM

Little Hawk, If you met God in a dark alley, I doubt the alley would still be dark...you think??

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:18 PM

I see your point. ;-) Still, God is both the Alpha and the Omega, right? So can't God be both the darkness and the light? I would figure so.

I don't envision a Universe that is divided into "God" and "not-God", because that just doesn't make sense to me. I think that all of it is God.

I don't think God's "over there somewhere" (at a distance) either. I think God is simultaneously existing everywhere. That would be both outside and within oneself. Such a God, needless to say, is not confined within just one visible figure or manifestation.

The only possible means of separation from such a God is simply a lack of awareness on one's own part...and that is the normal human condition: a lack of awareness (to one extent or another). A fully enlightened human is simply a human who has reached full awareness.

Science has determined that we use only a small percentage of our total brain capacity. What would happen if we used all of it? We would, I think, become extraordinary beings, and many very interesting changes would occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:24 PM

On the other hand, darkness isn't something in itself. It's just an absence of light.

Hmmm.

Perhaps your original point was entirely correct, GfS. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:19 PM

So darkness it is, obviously!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:21 PM

That horse is already dead!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Haruo
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:03 PM

Uncle DaveO wrote

What's prohibited in the Bible is swearing FALSE oaths, that is, calling on God to witness as truth what one knows to be false, or that one doesn't intend to perform.

but the previous poster (Steve Shaw) who mentioned Jesus in passing

Even Jesus thought that saying yes or no should be good enough for anybody.

was correct, assuming Uncle Dave's Bible contains Matthew's Gospel, where in chapter 5 verses 34-37 Jesus is quoted as saying, "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (That's the somewhat archaic King James Version; the less archaic New International Version translates "         But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.")

FWIWWAAL...

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:11 PM

Excellent. In other words, just say a simple "Yes" or "No", don't embroider it with a lot of grandiose declarations and solemn oaths sworn on this or that, because the insincere do tend toward grandiosity, don't they, and vice versa...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:13 PM

I think the Bringer of Light is somebody else.

I don't think 'So help me god' is an oath. It's more of a perfunctory prayer. (says the atheist)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM

IF I WERE GOD, I'D ABOLISH RELIGION!!

That would remove the major cause of mayhem, mutilation, and murder, from the face of the earth.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Haruo
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:36 PM

A major cause, maybe. My guess is there are at least two or three others of the same order of magnitude, as causes. Religion looks like a greater cause than it is because it is waved as camouflage by so many actually motivated by other causes, such as greed.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:57 PM

Swear to god......I'm gonna' do it!!!!

I am!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:57 PM

Dear god,

Let this work.....last time tonight......Swear to god!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:57 PM

"That horse is already dead!"

                And it was a dark horse indeed!




    "IF I WERE GOD, I'D ABOLISH RELIGION!!"

    "That would remove the major cause of mayhem, mutilation, and murder, from the face of the earth."


                      I agree completely, Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:58 PM

100

Okay..... I'm done for tonite..........swear to god........................Continue along now....

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:01 PM

Rats.............See? Just another possible proof that there is no god. Ironic its Rigs who fucked me up acting as "god's tool," if you will.

I've always said you were a real tool Rigs................

Spaw {;<))

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

Yes, Don, but if as God you were to abolish religion...or abolish anything else...you would be depriving many people the use of their free will, thus defeating the entire exercise of life, as it were.

Think of it this way. There is no use in creating a gigantic interactive computer game, for example, based on a host of people creatively using their individual free will (within the rules and limitations of the game, naturally) if the designer of the game steps in frequently during online gameplay and forces some of the players to make only the specific moves he approves of! Such a game would hardly be worth playing, would it?

We either have free will or we don't, and my contention is that we have it. Therein lies the challenge of life. If we were not permitted to choose freely and to make our own mistakes, we would never learn anything.

In any case, the major causes of most modern (and even most ancient) conflicts have been:

a shortage of arable land

a shortage of drinkable water

poverty

overpopulation

starvation

oppressive political regimes and philosophies

xenophobia, tribalism, and nationalism

greed for material gain at someone else's expense

major financial and trade opportunities to be secured by war

entangling alliances (which are based on common interests)

Religion is often the excuse for fighting, but it is seldom the root cause of a conflict. The root cause is usually financial when you get to the bottom of it. Money drives the system...and it drove the old religious systems in Europe and Asia too, because only with large amounts of money can you maintain and equip large armies.

People who ignore all this so they can just beat on their favorite hobby horse of blaming religion for the world's troubles remind me of someone who complains about germs in the kitchen while ignoring the fact that the roof is leaking and the furnace is not working. It's a form of tunnel vision, driven not by logic but by a grudge...or a sense of superiority.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:12 PM

Spaw? Have you been told today? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:59 PM

If I had to choose just one, I'd single out tribalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:31 PM

Another reason to be a loyal RC:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090103/hl_afp/vaticanreligioncontraception_090103212901

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:40 PM

Little Hawk's list of historical causes for war:

"a shortage of arable land

a shortage of drinkable water

poverty

overpopulation

starvation

oppressive political regimes and philosophies

xenophobia, tribalism, and nationalism

greed for material gain at someone else's expense

major financial and trade opportunities to be secured by war

entangling alliances (which are based on common interests)"

Yikes. Not one of those conditions, worldwide, has been eliminated or even improved. In fact, the first six in the list are worse today and growing more so, every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: bald headed step child
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 01:58 AM

Yes, but L.H. also seems to agree with me that God is pro choice.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 06:32 AM

"Yes, but L.H. also seems to agree with me that God is pro choice"

But, which God do you refer to?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 12:46 PM

Which God indeed? ;-) That's always the question, isn't it? There are a million different versions.

But yes, I think that God is definitely pro-choice and always has been, but that's just my personal view of it, you understand. The Pope can think whatever he wants, I don't care about that. I don't think of "God" as messing in human affairs...just providing the entire field of play, as it were, and the basic rules and parameters of the game, the things that must be dealt with and the things that can't be avoided, such as...

- the free will of others
- a great variety of types and attitudes
- gravity
- birth and childhood
- eventual aging and death
- entropy
- atomic structures
- light
- physical substance
- different forms of energy
- gender (in some, not all, forms of life)
- conscious awareness
- the various physical limitations we all must deal with, we who have physical bodies at present...

and so on...

Those aren't a matter of choice. You simply have to play with the hand you've been dealt. But after that...you are totally free to choose how you play the game. The moves are yours to make freely.

That's freedom of will, and that makes God pro-choice. God isn't the problem in life, you see. Not at all. ;-) Other people are the problem!!! Or so it seems....(?)

The real truth that matters, though, may be only this: the one really significant problem you will ever face in life is your own personal attitude toward the experience...and toward others.

(And that is why I suggest not blindly attacking religious people...or people of any general category...as if they were all the same. They're not.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 02:23 PM

"(And that is why I suggest not blindly attacking religious people...or people of any general category...as if they were all the same. They're not.)"


             Of course there are people who are addicted to ancient superstitions, and people who are not addicted to ancient superstitions, so you can catagorize them that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 03:37 PM

Yes.

There are also people addicted to present day myths and superstitions (both religiously speaking and otherwise). It's really quite a complex situation. One person's political myths, for example, are another person's political gospel.

Many Americans, for example, have long held a Messianic view of the American Way and the role of America in altering other cultures into its own image. Their government has promoted that view for generations and used it to advance a military-economic strategy which mostly involves invading and financially dominating other cultures. The Nazis held a similar Messianic view of their political system, as did the Stalinists and the Maoists. I regard those political myths as having been considerably more dangerous and destructive in the last hundred years than religion has been, though organized religion has also caused a good deal of strife and destruction, unquestionably.

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.

Nature does not recognize or respect money, because it's not real. Money is a totally abstract invention. It's just an idea. Nature...the living planet itself...will eventually turn upon and destroy a people who are so stupid as to attack their own environment relentlessly in the pursuit of more money.

Now, I put it to you that that is a far bigger problem than organized religion ever was or ever will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 04:10 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."


                  Well, Little Hawk, I can certainly agree with you on this one, completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 05:15 PM

Good. ;-) You know, the reason I come back to this thread so much is, it's just my way of having fun. I enjoy discussing this particular subject, because I find it quite interesting.

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".

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:36 PM

I have those exact same thoughts, Little Hawk.

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: 15 Jan 09 - 09:06 AM

GO NEWDOW!

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: 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 - 09:59 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:39 PM

What is a scissorbill?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:21 PM

That's a good point, Penny!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 09:57 PM

I think a good argument can be made that even if Obama himself was not a strong believing Christian--even if he were an agnostic--he would not ask to have "so help me God" dropped from the inaugural oath.

After the model, perhaps, of Henri IV ("Paris vaut bien une messe"). It's a simple question of picking your battles. There are far more believing Christians in the US who would notice the lack of "so help me God"-- (ably assisted, no doubt, by the media) --than the number of rabid atheists pushing for deleting that phrase.   And he needs the support of the first group on any number of issues--so there is no point in needlessly rousing even some of them against him.   The second group is very small--and their clout is even smaller.

As has been said, facts are stubborn things.

And I am by no means a strong Christian--just somebody who recognizes reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 10:00 PM

That's right, and politics is the art of diplomacy as much as anything else. It would be downright stupid of Obama to deliberately break with that tradition, even if he had any personal reason to, and he doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:01 AM

Ron Davies commented:

I think a good argument can be made that even if Obama himself was not a strong believing Christian--even if he were an agnostic--he would not ask to have "so help me God" dropped from the inaugural oath.

Ron, it's not a question of having "so help me God" dropped; it was not there in the first place. The Constitution ways, in effect, "This is what you must say", and doesn't include "So help me God." But it doesn't say that the new officeholder can't add that if he wants to, either.

Your point about the diplomacy of the thing is well taken, but I believe that Obama is personally so oriented that he would want to say it.


Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:02 AM

Oh, I guess it was Little Hawk who mentioned the diplomacy of the thing. Sorry.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 11:27 AM

We in the USA have schizophrenic relationship with religion. One one hand, we have have a Constitution that says we shall NOT "establish" a religion, while on the other hand we say that everyone will have "freedom of religion"

That leads to extremists on either end of the spectrum saying that
1)No religious signs, oaths, public prayers....etc., should be allowed.
or
2)We have a right ("freedom of religion") to do anything we wish to promote our version of the 'truth'.

There are those who argue....with great sincerity.... that since the majority of our citizens are some version of Christian, and since many of our founders were some form of Christian, that this IS therefore, "a Christian nation". They just conveniently disregard that awkward line in the Constitution that says we are NOT.

Then, we have the situation that the Christian faith has a line in the New Testament:

"Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

(There is a similar passage at Mark 1:14)

This is one of the passages that are cited to defend and promote evangelism ...to exhort those who believe in the literal interpretations of the Bible to try to convert others and spread the word.
   This make a certain kind of convoluted sense. *IF* you believe in God, and that Jesus spoke FOR God, then if HE wants you to try to save the souls of misguided NON believers, you should not be deterred by silly political documents...after all, you are doing folks a favor!

To this end, you assert that your "freedom of religion" granted BY that silly ummm.. important.. political document, gives you the right to overlay public ceremonies with Christian prayers, put monuments with Christian lines (i.e., the 10 Commandments) in public buildings, knock on people's doors and preach to them, insert "under God" into oaths and engrave it on the currency......

   All this strains, to put it mildly, relations between those who feel they are just "witnessing" and following their religion, and those who do not WISH to have religious invocations added to situations where they have little choice about being there.

Now...this in no way prevents someone from swearing "so help ME God" to assert that he is invoking HIS deepest and most sincere promise about his words & actions....but 'teaching' children that the 'proper' way to pledge allegiance to one's country must INCLUDE "under God" is simply saying "ha, ha...we are in the majority. and we'll do it our way"....and yet they decry 'mistreatment' or censorship of Christians in lands where they are NOT the majority.

I don't pretend that all sincere believers go thru all the steps of logic I note above...they just have the basic attitude of "I am right, so whatever I do in the NAME of righteousness is reasonable"

Thus, I can see what effort it was for Rick Warren to contrive a prayer that satisfied him, but did the minimum to upset others.

I do wonder how hard it would be to just ask everyone at moments like that to observe a minute of silence & contemplation and ask for help & guidance from whatever source they feel is appropriate. If I understand it right, believers believe that God hears sincere prayers whether they are done out loud and over a PA system or not.

(I try not to do one of these postings too often, because, as you see, I get all wound up...)

I just repeat what I have said many times..

"Freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion for those who wish it."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 11:46 AM

It should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for "freedom of religion" (whatever that formulation may mean).

The Constitution includes language to the effect (meaning that I'm too lazy to check my quote, but I think I'm correct) that "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion."

The concept of "freedom of religion" is a quite different thing from a prohibition on the government's establishing an official religion. It's a high value, but it's not constitutional.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:01 PM

Correct, Dave...but it is widely understood, and a concept I agree with, that "...no law regarding establishment of religion." may be assumed to include the idea that this must logically include the idea of no establishment of non-religion.....if that makes sense stated that way.

Fairness means that everyone gets to believe and/or worship as they choose, providing they do not interfere with the rights of those who do it another way. Sadly, some like to interpret the widely accepted idea of free exercise of religion to mean that they can, simply by some legislation, impose language and practices on others just because they have 'votes' to do so.

It is a constant struggle and (at least for me) a delicate matter to try to remain "fair" when I see others defining "fair" to allow themselves only one answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM

Conservative Chief Justice Roberts is not supposed to prompt 'so help you God' in the Presidential oath, but his insistence to do so got the oath all screwed up. By the time he got to the end however he said louder and in exagerrated question form "SO HELP YOU GOD??"

its time to put away childish things.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:14 PM

It got all screwed up earlier, before even reaching that part. He messed up the order of the words in the middle part of it, prior to the "so help me God" thing, which is at the end. You could see Obama hestitate, because he knew Roberts had not recited the words properly, and he wasn't sure what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:16 PM

And speaking of childish things, how about we put away our stockpiles of nukes?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 05:14 PM

Little Hawk, Obama's orientation is decidedly Christian which is in violation of the Separation of Church and State. Rick Warren? Lowery? Then there's the National Prayer Breakfast which is run by the "Fellowship" in Washington which are followers of Jesus though they don't call themselves Christians. Jeffrey Shurtleff has written the definitive book on the "Fellowship" and how they operate underground for their religious agenda.

The notion of "god" is so ambiguous in the minds of the people who use the term that it becomes crystalized by religious institutions. There are those who believe in more than one god. (Pantheistic). There are Trinitarians, Unitarians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Jews etc. who all have their idea of a god. They don't agree. The notion of a god is not universal.

Bill D, "Congress shall make no law with respect to religion" means that religion must remain out of the public sphere of government. This is not ambiguous. Freedom to worship as you please is never denied by the Constitution. It just doesn't belong in the exercise of government. I think we may agree on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 05:21 PM

I agree, Stringsinger.... I do wish it were not so difficult to clarify this in the minds of the public. Maybe "basic Constitutional law" taught beginning in Kindergarten?
☺

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM

The National Prayer Breakfast is a multinational and domestic political economic steering commitee that has been around since the 30's. They have had good things to say about Hitler and Stalin since the corporate profit motive is their only true god. One of their oft repeated beliefs is that the stupider political leaders are - the better. Coating Corporate Republicanism with a thick gooey syrup of Christian sanctimony is purely a ruse that Republicans have used beyond their wildest expectations.
Of course no member or guest need be a republican or religious, only that corporate interests be served first last and always.
For example Hillary Clinton is a member in good standing, which was yet one more reason I could not support her.




I am willing to bet that Obama is the first President to mention non believers in an inauguration speech.



AMOS that was a well written post, I wonder if you could jot down some of the html codes or link that accented your piece so well.

Have you ever noticed that Evangelical Christians (which is only an off shoot cult that was begun in England in the late 1800's)
need to pick a fight with society?? This is because the anger which they provoke is a powerful and provocative psychological tool which is essential to thier existence. Without opposition they lose their passion and raison d'etre.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 09:48 PM

another catter noted that Yeats noticed it.

"The Second Coming" by Yeats

.......the worst are full of passionate intensity.........

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:45 PM

Hey, guys... ;-) There is one simple reason why I don't freak out in a knee jerk reaction over things like Obama saying "so help me God" and I don't worry about it being a conflict of interest between church and state.

It's because I live in a country, Canada, where religion barely ever even raises a blip in the ongoing political dialogue of the nation. It simply doesn't matter here, except to a few cranks who have an emotional obsession about it, and they comprise less than 1% of the population, I figure.

Oh, and there's another reason. I don't expect everyone else in the world to bend to my own chosen preferences in such things...whether they be "for" or "against" such things as using the word "God" in a ceremony or believing in some concept which could be called "God". They can do it if they want. They can not do it if they want. I.....don't.....care. I am not threatened. I lose no sleep over it. I enjoy the variety of viewpoints, since I am living amongst a variety of people, so it's to be expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:46 PM

"Have you ever noticed that Evangelical Christians... need to pick a fight with society?? ...because the anger... they provoke is... essential to thier existence. Without opposition they lose their passion and raison d'etre."

                  I have not noticed that, but it's well worth looking into.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 10:53 PM

I've noticed that the fanatics and cranks at both ends of the spectrum like picking a fight with someone of the opposite persuasion ...because the anger... they provoke is... essential to thier existence. Without opposition they lose their passion and raison d'etre."

Without opposition they also lose the chance to be "right" and make someone else "wrong", and that is the strongest desire motivating the average arguing ego. He wants to win, and to be proven "right" in so doing. Without any opposition, he can't do that, so he searches about diligently for an opposition to argue with.

And that's also the key to America's more disastrous foreign policy moves in the last 60 years... ;-) (as well as similar blunders by other aggressive military/political powers along the same line) They NEED enemies to fight with or they lose their primary motivation in life.

If a real enemy does not exist, then one has to be created somehow. It's a quick and easy mental trick. Anyone can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 09:39 AM

"If a real enemy does not exist, then one has to be created somehow..."


             I have noticed that, among countries. The Cold War seemed particularly stupid to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:13 PM

They were already planning for that one before Adolf was even in his grave. Patton was eager to get going the moment the Germans surrendered and "kick their asses all the way back to Moscow". ;-) Well, that was a little too abrupt for the powers that be. He really was a loose cannon. They sacked him.

Nope, they needed a bit of time and propaganda to get the public in a mood for the next conflict, but it came round soon enough.

An excuse always has to be found to keep up our massive military production. Remember the "peace dividend" we were all supposed to get after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War?

It never happened. We shifted rapidly into new conflicts in the Balkans and the Middle East and military production has been maintained, even enlarged. With the declaration of a "War on Terror" (an indefinable enemy with no specific location) an excuse was provided to have a war with no forseeable objectives and no forseeable end. Perfect...if you are in the business of making war materiel.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:42 PM

Little Hawk, it's one thing to pick a fight for ideological or religious reasons but quite another to suppress non-believers which is the trend in US politics. You may not quite have this problem in Canada but I can assure you that it is a rampant disease here in the US and
those who protest against this are not cranks. We are only asking for equal representation which we do not get in our government. Not losing sleep over this issue is just stating a denial of the fact that this is an inherent problem here.

In Europe and other places, non-believers have a voice and are not silenced or suppressed by religious references in politics. If religious folk want to be given credence for their views, then they have to be open to the views of non-believers. This is pointedly not done in the supposedly most democratic country in the world. Denial does not address this issue. The absurd invocation given by Rick Warren should be enough to limn the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM

Chief Justice Roberts's interrogative "So help you God?" was not a mistake. Nor a constitutional misstep, methinks.

Up to that point he had been feeding the prescribed lines (if he'd read them correctly), which Obama was required by the Constitution to repeat.

Then, just to more or less continue the style of call and response, he prompted Obama's "So help me God" as a question, a personal prompt, but as a question (sort of, "Do you want to add 'So help me God?'", so as to distinguish it from the preceding essentially commands to echo in the previous partial lines. Roberts could have just quit, and Obama say "So help me God" on his own, but asking the prompt was a matter of style.

Obama's response was not, I believe, any violation of the Establishment clause for at least two reasons:
1. The Establishment Clause specifies something Congress may not do, and is not phrased as applying to the president.
2. Obama's expression had to do with himself, not the government, not the people, not laws of any kind, not appropriations, and not the State.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM

"I do wonder how hard it would be to just ask everyone at moments like that to observe a minute of silence & contemplation and ask for help & guidance from whatever source they feel is appropriate." Bill D

The day that FDR died, our principal at school announced it at lunchtime and asked us to stand and observe three minutes of silence. I don't know how the others felt but to the 9-year-old kid that I was it was awesome.

"Patton was eager to get going the moment the Germans surrendered and "kick their asses all the way back to Moscow". ;-) Well, that was a little too abrupt for the powers that be. He really was a loose cannon. They sacked him." Little Hawk

I realize that you are a student of WWII but are you sure that it is Patton you speak of? It does'nt fit what I know of his career.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:58 PM

Given his beliefs I see nothing objectinable in Warren's prayer; in fact, it seems obvious that he tried not to offend. Offend believers in other faiths, that is. There wouldn't be much anyone could pray that would not offend non-believers. *g*

Here is the text of his invocation:

Let us pray.
Almighty God, our father, everything we see and everything we can't see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.

The Scripture tells us Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one. And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.
Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.
May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 10:52 AM

Some good points are being made here.

1)   I also wondered if Roberts' "So help you God" was possibly an underhanded test for Obama--trying to require that he, in the most public way imaginable, would distance himself from atheists.   Just reciting the oath back to Roberts, as in fact prescribed for that situation, wouldn't necessarily require any actual thinking about the oath.   Consider all the times so many American kids stood up and recited the Pledge of Allegiance without thinking at all about what they were saying--just trying to figure out, for instance---will I be able to finish those algebra problems before 3rd period when I have to hand them in?


(But this whole theory is probably entirely too Machiavellian--even for Roberts. It was probably just an honest mistake--though he made at least 2 of them in administering the oath.)

2) And I believe Donuel is right that this is the first time non-believers have ever been included positively as citizens whose views are worth considering.   And, interestingly enough, Obama has already paid a price for his inclusiveness:   several " religious spokesmen" have already criticized him for including unbelievers in his inaugural speech.

In fact the US has never been welcoming to atheists.   Perhaps that's why some are so strident on Mudcat--it's one of the few places they can come close to any sort of clout.

However, even Jefferson, whom atheists on Mudcat like, wrongly, to cite as backing them, was sufficiently aware that, as I recall, when Paine, who had established himself as a thorn in the side of the religious community, wanted to visit the White House, Jefferson felt he had to be careful about that visit.

But neither the people at that time who pilloried Jefferson as an atheist--and they did---nor the Mudcatters now who seek to claim him as one of their own--are correct. Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus--shocking enough in his day--but was not an atheist.   Anybody who feels differently is invited to provide evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:06 PM

"Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus--shocking enough in his day--but was not an atheist."


                  Probably because he lived before Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:37 PM

Rig, what the heck does Darwin have to do with it???? Seriously. Most of the people I know who say they believe in God also have no problem whatsoever believing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The two do not conflict.

And why would they? Belief in God does NOT require believing hysterically unlikely things like that the World was created 4,000 years ago or that Eve was made out of Adam's rib! Nor does it require having a literal belief in the Bible...or indeed, any belief at all in the Bible as a flawless and undeniable source of spiritual authority.

Strinsinger - Yes, your situation in the USA is unique in the entire western world as far as I know. I know of no other modern society in which atheists come under fire as they do in the USA, and in which politicians are afraid not to be seen publicly attending some church or mouthing their religious faith. It's astonishing, in fact, what goes on in the USA in this regard, and I realize that that is what probably lies behind the extreme reactiveness of some of you here toward anything "religious". It's understandable, in the context of what you are dealing with in the USA in the public sphere.

Ebbie - I'm not saying Patton wasn't a fine general. He was a superb battlefield general. He was, however, quite eager to give the Russians a licking at the first opportunity, and he was hoping to get a chance to do so ASAP when the European war was in its final days. He didn't like the Russians one bit. He envisioned re-employing surrendered German troops in the Allied forces to help fight the Russians...and certainly he would have found hundreds of thousands of German soldiers very willing to join in such an effort and push the Russians back east...but he was jumping the gun. The mood of the general public in Britain and America would not have welcomed a further terrible conflict in 1945. People wanted peace. They wanted an end to the whole thing. The soldiers wanted to go home after securing their hard-won victory over Germany and Japan.

I think Patton's main problem was this, Ebbie. He simply loved being at war. It was his reason for living, it was when he felt most alive and felt his personal destiny being fulfilled to his satisfaction. He was made to fight wars. Soldiers like that are often quite frustrated when their war ends, because they "don't have anything to do" anymore...

I think Patton was such a man, a pure warrior. Such types are few and far between, but they do exist.

On the other hand, I may be wrong... ;-) It's just my personal theory, based on what I've come across about George Patton.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM

LH--

Could you tell us about any Canadian politicians who assert they are atheist?   This is not a "gotcha" question--I really would like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:00 PM

I think there probably are some, Ron, but darned if I know who they would be, because the subject never seems to even come up in the first place. ;-) I'll have to look into it. What I mean is, when our mainstream politicians campaign they normally don't have anything to say about their religion (if any) or what church they go to (if any), and no one ever seems to ask them about it. It's not a political issue in Canada, and I think it would be considered in rather bad taste to make it one.

Anyway, hang on and I'll see if I can track down something along that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:10 PM

Well, here's an interesting article from the Vancouver Sun, comparing the Canadian to the American electorate in terms of voting for an atheist...or an evangelist:

Barack Obama would not have been elected president if he were not Christian. Polls show the vast majority of Americans will only vote for someone who is strongly religious, with the religion of choice being Christian.

Unlike in Canada, Obama would not have had a chance to get elected president if he'd been an atheist. That's one of the reasons we heard a lot of religious oratory when Obama was inaugurated. The other reason is Obama seems to take seriously his membership in the liberal denomination, The United Church of Christ.

Still, it's off-putting that U.S. polls by Gallup show only 45 per cent of Americans would be willing vote for a presidential candidate who is atheist. When pollsters turned the question around, more than half admitted they would actually refuse to vote for an atheist. I'm not an atheist, but it seems to verge on mass bigotry.

Only three U.S. presidents have been non-religious or at least unaffiliated with a religion -- and they all lived more than 150 years ago. Surprisingly, they include two of the United States' most revered leaders -- Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. (The third was less respected Andrew Johnson.) More than half of U.S. presidents have been Episcopalian or Presbyterian. Only one president was Roman Catholic, John F. Kennedy, according to a fascinating compilation by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Canada is a different place, especially now. A 2006 Ipsos Reid poll showed 68 per cent of Canadians would be quite happy to vote for an atheist. That compares to only 63 per cent of Canadians who would be fine voting for an evangelical Christian. (Ironically, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian, albeit it one who keeps it very low profile). Most Canadian prime ministers have been Roman Catholics, sometimes it seems in little more than name.

Whatever the case, Obama has been a longtime member of one of the most progressive denominations in the U.S., the 1.2-million member United Church of Christ.

Its members tend to be pro-same sex unions, which goes with their general leaning toward social justice. Some prominent United Church of Christ members have included the late, great theologians Richard Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, as well as Reinhold Niebuhr, who once graced the cover of Time Magazine.

(Reinhold is best known for writing the Serenity Prayer, used by 12-step groups. It begins, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change / the courage to change the things I can / and the wisdom to know the difference." Good advice for a president saddled with incredibly high expectations.)

A current member is the brilliant novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson, author of Housekeeping and Gilead and The Death of Adam. The contemporary theologian, Walter Breuggemann, is also a UCC clergy.

The complicating factor for Obama is he was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for over 20 years before resigning his membership from the congregation in 2008 following a dispute over the fiery anti-racist views of his black pastor. The Obamas are currently searching for a new church in Washington, D.C. Presumably he will stay within the fold of the United Church of Christ, which is part of the Congregationalist family of denominations within mainline Protestantism.

The UCC has a vibrant and rich tradition, with all of the above spiritual thinkers warranting a look. In his books Obama makes clear he has been among those been inspired by their Christian visions, in his case to seek the highest office in the land.

A recent Newsweek article about Obama's winding spritual path included this paragraph:

"In Chicago, Obama found that organizers and activists there (and elsewhere) were employing a progressive theology to motivate faith groups to action. Using the writings of Paul Tillich and, especially, Reinhold Niebuhr—and also Martin Luther King, African-American and Roman Catholic liberation theologians, and Christian fathers like Saint Augustine —local religious leaders emphasized original sin and human imperfection. Christ's gift of salvation was to the community of believers, not to individual people in isolation. It was therefore the responsibility of the faithful to help each other—through deeds—to respond to the call of perfection that will be fully realized only at the end of time. Adherents of this particular theology frequently refer to Matthew 25: "Whatever you neglected to do unto the least of these, you neglected to do unto me." Everyone, in other words, is in this salvation thing together."

I had to copy and paste the whole article, because the link will not work.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:16 PM

"Rig, what the heck does Darwin have to do with it????"


                Darwin has everything to do with it. I know people are constantly adjusting their "beliefs" to accommodate scientific findings, but the day will obviously come when they'll have few if any beliefs left.

                Jefferson was a very smart man and a man interested in science. I think just a smattering of exposure to Darwin's theories would have enlightened him even further.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:17 PM

Here's another interesting, but brief, comment about Stephen Harper's religious beliefs from the Vancouver Sun:

"A recent feature column that's been picked up by many newspapers in Canada and the U.S. amounts to a spiritual profile of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It's the first newspaper article to try to tease out the evangelical Christian beliefs of Harper. Harper keeps his religion private because polls suggest it would hurt him badly to be upfront about it in secularized, pluralistic Canada. This piece explores the strict conservative beliefs of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, a denomination that Harper has attended for decades.
Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with political leaders having firm religious views. But I'm fascinated by the inner conflict Harper must be feeling. Should he continue appearing secretive by avoiding discussing his religion, or should he be more upfront about it all?"

So, you see, in Canada a politician who is an evangelical Christian tries to hide it because it could lose him too many votes! Quite a difference from the USA, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:22 PM

Another article that may be of interest:

Charles Lewis: Why don't Canadians want to hear about our politicians' religious beliefs?
Posted: August 07, 2008, 3:35 PM by Dan Goldbloom
Charles Lewis
An Angus Reid poll released this week asked Canadians their feelings about mixing politics and religion. Among its major findings: 66% of Canadians thought it was wrong for politicians to talk about their religious beliefs, while 25% thought is was perfectly acceptable.

Mario Canseco, director of global studies for Angus Reid, said it was also worth noting that the more conservative the respondents were, the more likely it was they would not object to politicians musing about their religious feelings.

That is not all that surprising, he said, given the religious values of many conservatives more closely mimic their total world view. In other words, it is harder for religious conservatives to park their faith at the door when they head out into secular society — often referred to by the non-religious as the "real world."

But for that other 66%, what is it that makes them so nervous at the thought of politicians sharing their religious beliefs?

A colleague suggested many people are made nervous by anyone who speaks with moral clarity. In a society that wants to be accommodating to all views, anyone who announces that they have a deep faith in one specific religion may trouble those who do not share that particular faith. And, of course, there is the fear that some crazed religious person may take power and start telling everyone else what to do. Funny that no one ever worries about a crazed secular person telling everyone else what to do.

But if a politician was dreaming of creating a theocracy — like the Ayotollah Khomeini — most of us would want to hear that before he got into office.

Most Canadians know that Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin were deeply believing Catholics and most Canadians know that Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian. But why should their silence about their faith be of comfort? It is not that hard to find out what a Catholic believes. Even the Complete Idiot's Guide series has the Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism. None of this is a secret.

Someone who is Catholic, an evangelical or an Orthodox Jew may hold conservative views about abortion and same-sex marriage. But their faith may also inform their compassion for the poor or their feelings about going to war. It may also say nothing at all about how they would behave in office. Either way, finding out is not that frightening.

And it could tell us something else, that everyone might find comforting.

In a world so maddeningly complex, there is very little that one political leader can do. Often the best we can hope for is knowing how that person would stand up under extreme pressure, how they react in a crisis or their willingness to change course when things are not working out or even, on occasion, admit to being wrong.

And knowing whether someone is leaning on their faith to get through difficult trials is not the worst thing to know about.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:11 PM

Do Canadian officeholders take an oath of office? To whom and by whom do they swear?

I'm constantly bemused by how much - and sometimes, how little- has been retained from countries of origin. (As a total aside, one of the bits of law that we in the US allegedly kept from Britain is the one that gives ownership of disputed land to the one who has it in its possession and use, even when the owner paying taxes on it didn't know the neighbor had encroached upon it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

"Only three U.S. presidents have been non-religious or at least unaffiliated with a religion .."

well...as a matter of fact, Eisenhower had to look about hastily for a church when HE decided to run. His earlier affiliations were awkward, and he had not attended church much for 30-40 years. He ended up with a quiet, non-political little Presbyterian church.

"Eisenhower's family originally belonged to the local River Brethren sect of the Mennonites. However, when Ike was five years old, his parents became followers of the WatchTower Society, whose members later took the name Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower home served as the local WatchTower meeting Hall from 1896 to 1915, when Eisenhower's father stopped regularly associating due to the WatchTower's failed prophesies that Armageddon would occur in October 1914 and 1915. Ike's father received a WatchTower funeral when he died in the 1940s. Ike's mother continued as an active Jehovah's Witness until her death. Ike and his brothers also stopped associating regularly after 1915. Ike enjoyed a close relationship with his mother throughout their lifetimes, and he even used a WatchTower printed Bible for his second Presidential Inauguration. In later years, Eisenhower was baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church in a single ceremony on February 1, 1953, just weeks after his first inauguration as president. In his retirement years, he was a member of the Gettysburg Presbyterian Church in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.>

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:11 PM

But, sadly, it is true that anyone hoping to run for president in the US had best be a declared Christian. There are far too many folks who want to know THAT before they even ask what you think about taxes or war or global warming.

I would REALLY like to see an election where one candidate was a stupid, hate-mongering, bribe-taking bigot...who just happened to be 'officially' religious, and a calm, sensible, decent, respected fellow who revealed that he was NON-religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:14 PM

"...(Eisenhower was) baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church in a single ceremony..."

An ultra nit-pick here: Surely this means to say a simple ceremony?

Hmmmm. Maybe not. I guess the three functions would usually take place in separate ceremonies.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM

hmmmm...I missed that, Ebbie. I dunno.... it's more than a 'simple' typo would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM

Ebbie, here are the answers to your questions.

Yes, Canadian ministers and prime ministers do each take an oath of office. It can be stated 2 ways, it seems. You can "swear" or you can "declare" that you will do thus and so and be loyal to thus and so. If you swear, then you can end it with "so help me God". If you declare, however, then you don't bother with the "so help me God", so it's your choice whether to put God in the equation or not. Here are the details of the various oaths:

Canadian Oaths of office

Oath of Allegiance

I, __________, do swear (declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors.

So help me God.

The Oath of the Members of the Privy Council

I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.

So help me God.

Oath of Office (of a minister or prime minister)

I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as ...........

So help me God.

Note: Individuals may choose to affirm their oath. In those cases, the word "swear" is replaced by the word "declare" and the expression "So help me God." is omitted.

****

So, if the prime minister wanted to and it was Bill Shatner, he could, for example, say, "I, William Shatner, do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Prime Minister."

Period. That would be if he chose to declare it, and not mention God in any way.

But the really big difference from the USA is this:

1. It's not a great big huge public event (I have no recollection of ever seeing any Canadian prime minister take an oath of office...it just happens quietly the day after the election, and it happens in some government setting or in the governor-general's office or something like that.

2. It doesn't cost anything to do it. ;-) It's just a legal formality that involves very few people and takes about half a minute.


As you can see, the English Queen (or King) is considered the titular head of state. She never does anything here, though. She doesn't affect anything here. She doesn't tell our Canadian government what to do or anything like that...she is just a symbolic head of state...like a living crest or flag or something symbolic like that which is a leftover from an ancient tradition.

When I was a kid, I thought it was neat having a Queen. Kids are more openhearted and less cynical when it comes to stuff like that. They haven't developed pet political grudges to chew on yet, generally speaking, the way you find later when they have become adults.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM

It says a lot for the day that Eisenhower had to "look around" for a church to cling to prior to running for president. Today a candidate would have to have those ducks lined up way before the event, and if he/she happened to belong to something out of mainstream like Mormon Romney, there will be a lot of trouble over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:30 PM

You got that right, Rig. We are livin' in pretty crummy times, I hafta say that. You can't leave nothin' to chance no more cos some muckraker will dig it up and turn it into front page news. I been havin' troubles like that too. Somethin' about various offhand remarks I made about women or gorillas in the past that didn't mean nothin' at the time, but you know how people are. Everyone's got a chip on their shoulder these days.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:55 PM

Evidently Canada has not always been as lackadaisical about the significance of an oath.

'Twas Not Always Thus

And another:

"MICHAEL McATEER would really like to become a Canadian citizen. The 75-year-old retired journalist was born and raised in Whitehall in Dublin, but has lived in Canada since 1964. He has resisted taking citizenship, citing the 45-word ceremonial oath that includes a pledge "to be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty queen Elizabeth the second, queen of Canada, her heirs and successors".

"The self-described republican explains that it is a matter of conscience for him. "I know a lot of Irish people would mumble over the oath or cross their fingers while saying it," said McAteer, who says the idea of a monarchy is "anathema" to him. "But if I am forced to take an oath, it's binding. I can't take an oath I don't believe in."

"McAteer is one of four permanent residents of Canada who yesterday asked the province of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice to certify a class-action lawsuit. They allege that Canada's citizenship oath violates their freedom of conscience, a fundamental right under the nation's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by compelling would-be citizens to "express allegiance and faithfulness to a royal family and/or a monarchical form of government".

For Country- But Not for Queen

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 09:52 PM

It clearly has significance in a legal sense, Ebbie. What I'm saying is that it is not a huge public ceremonial event in Canada that engages the interest of the ordinary public. It's just a technical formality that has to be done within the government itself, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:08 PM

LH--

I note with interest that "So help me, God" seems to be in the oaths taken by Canadian PM's etc.   It seems this would be a serious problem for any avowed atheist. And implies pretty strongly that there has never been an atheist PM in Canada--unsurprisingly. Nor is there ever likely to be.

Unless they were willing to do a Henri IV.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:11 PM

Or do you know of any who have taken the "declare" not "swear" route?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:23 PM

And there is also a huge difference between the aggressive atheism of some Mudcatters and and a certain skepticism on religious matters. It would be eminently sensible for people to say they are not sure about the existence of God--agnosticism, it seems, is the reasonable stance for anybody who thinks about this sort of question and wants to rely on empirical knowledge.   But atheism--saying there is proof there is no God--is just as unsupportable as a literal interpretation of the Bible.   Because in fact there is no proof, nor could there ever be--of either extreme.

And I suspect thinking people in Canada as much as in the US have reached this conclusion----and Canadians, since they do not identify with extremists of any stripe, have never and would never elect somebody who is an avowed atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 12:37 AM

There are all sorts of atheists, Ron. Some are extreme, some are not. To be an atheist does not necessarily mean you think you can PROVE there is no God...it just means you think there isn't one. You have that opinion. It doesn't presuppose empirical proof. You are quite right, though, that the Canadian population is very unlikely to vote in someone they view as an extremist, and an aggressively outspoken atheist would appear so. People tend to go for the moderate center here if they possibly can, and the politicians are usually quite willing to provide a semblance of exactly that. ;-)

It is entirely optional whether or not one says "so help me God" in those oaths. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some have not said it, but you wouldn't hear about it much, because most people here wouldn't even be interested to know. It wouldn't be a big deal, and most people wouldn't care. The number of people who would care is not large enough to intimidate our politicians.

The majority of the Canadian public seems to much prefer NOT to be told what a politician's religious views are. They figure that's a private matter (and in my opinion it is). They'd rather hear about his views on fiscal policy, foreign policy, employment issues, national unity, and other practical stuff like that.

Thus we presently have the amusing situation here of a Conservative Prime Minister who is apparently an evangelical Christian, but he is doing everthing he can to avoid drawing attention to it...because it would just lose him votes if he drew attention to it!

I think the contrast to the situation in the USA could hardly be more dramatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 09:26 AM

Ron Davies said, in part:

But atheism--saying there is proof there is no God--is just as unsupportable as a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Ron, as a person who has to describe himself as an atheist I have to quarrel with that statement, or at least the part before the second dash. As phrased, it comes across as being a definition of atheism, and as such is defective.

Atheism is merely saying, "I'm convinced (or 'of the opinion') that there is no god." Note lower case g.

It's certainly true that there are a lot of atheists who make the assertion that "there is proof there is no God", which I agree with you is insupportable, but such an extreme position is not a sine qua non of atheism.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:02 AM

In passing, it is worth remarking the in the UK the oath of allegiance exists in a form with and without reference to God ... (but natually is about loyalty to the Queen, not abou the best interests of the country or anything like that!) And generally politicians do not like to be linked to religion ... its one of the few thing that ever embarrassed Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:04 PM

Whereas in the USA they seem to have to be linked to religion to be electable. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:20 PM

Which would explain why the US is bogged down in Iraq, and Canada is not!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:09 PM

Ebbie, it's interesting to note that Warren is a true man of Fraud. And a homophobe.

Fraud blessed America with the recent bailout. A-women!

Dave, the notion that there is a specific or unspecific god is equally unsupportable.

Ron Davies, the problem is that unbelievers are not given the credibility that is proffered to the sanctimonious. The other aspect is that science is now coming around to test the validity of the theory that there is a god. So far, it looks like science is showing that the notion of traditional "gods" may not hold empirically.

You also can't prove inconclusively that there is no Santa Claus. (The logical fallacy here is that you can't prove a negative.)

Dave O, I think that atheists pretty much disagree on everything and it's like herding cats.
For example, I believe the Communism was a religion under Stalin and in today in China.
I think any political "cult" can be interpreted as religious with fanatical followers defining it.

Reason's Greetings to all.

Ssngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 04:43 PM

Of course Communism was a religion...just not a God-based religion, that's all. It was (and is) a political religion. The same can be said of Naziism, Fascism, and that nebulous set of grand expectations called "the American Way". ;-) They are all political religions, complete with a set of sacred historical figures for inspiration, some sacred documents, and some sacred symbols for the worshipful masses to focus upon and defend with their lives.

Whether or not "God" enters into the picture can vary. You can base a political religion on "God"...or on atheism...or on the profit motive...or on sheer pragmatism...or on anything else that provides a powerful motivator.

The notion that there is...or is not...a god cannot be proven or disproven, it is a matter of subjective opinion. The same is true of the notion of romantic love. Does it exist? Or is it a fantasy? The answer is a purely subjective matter and cannot be proven or disproven in any empirical fashion.

Why? Because the idea of god and the idea of romantic love both concern inner perceptions...not outwardly objective phenomena that can be measured. One man's inner perception may be another man's sheer fantasy, but that doesn't mean the inner perception isn't real....it's just not a physically observable phenomenon, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM

Well, I was going to be flip and just post "No atheists, so help me God!" But then read Virginia Tam's message near the beginning and it prompted me to add this from a Christian perspective:

Atheist and agnostics take the same position that human reason is superior to all things. If God cannot be "proved" either He doesn't exist or the jury is still out on the question. If God can be attained to or discovered via reason, via human logic, then only the brilliant minded, the "rational", the elite, would know God. The average Joe would be tough out of luck. The knowledge of God comes after "faith" in God. It is antecedent. It is revelation and NOT perception. Most folks who do come to a knowledge of God do so only after they have exhausted all human resources in their desperate quest. They find Him because they have come to understand their NEED for Him. We Christians are a needy lot. We have sought relief from sin and guilt, from futility and death. We have come to the end of ourselves and turned in the aforementioned desperation, to the One whom we hope will be able to save us. And joy of all joys, He didn't strike us down but lifted us up, cleaned us off and gave us new life that will never end. The Christian faith and experience goes far beyond what simple, inadequate logic can do for us.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:03 PM

When we suffer from lack of intellect and abandon logic we turn to other things, opiates, alcohol, religion... The list is endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:03 PM

Stringsinger said,

Dave, the notion that there is a specific or unspecific god is equally unsupportable.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above assertion, but Jupiter was a god (whether one thinks he actually existed as an entity or not), Thor was a god on the same basis, Baal was a god ditto, and Jehovah was (or "is", if that's what you want to think) a god ditto. (Lower case g, a member of the class "god").   Thus the Greeks and Romans and Norse had gods, even though I don't believe there is/was a referent entity for any of those god-names. And YHWH is a god on that same basis, I think.

In our culture, generally when one uses that monosyllable one is referring in short form to that god in Judaeo-Christian belief, Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH, both for brevity and because our tradition commands the avoidance of pronouncing or writing the sacred name, and the ordinary class-noun "god" becomes in effect a name-substitute, a proper noun, and is rendered as "God", capitalized to show that we're referring to THAT god. But God, capitalized, is not a name, it's proper noun, though we habitually handle it as if it were a name. It's conventionally capitalized, just as the words "Him" and "He" are capitalized in referring to that putative deity, for the same reason.

If I, as an avowed atheist, have reason to refer in print to the Judaeo-Christian deity with that monosyllable, I will capitalize it, "God", not subscribing to "His" existence, but so that you and I and Charlie's Uncle know that I'm referring to that specific (though unbelieved-in) deity. If I refer to "a god", lower case, you are given to know that I'm referring to a member of the general class.

An atheist is one who doesn't believe in the actual existence of a god--ANY god, whether Zeus, Thor, Mazda, Krishna, Bella, Friga, or Jehovah, et al.

On a somewhat related subject, the Islamic reference to their believed-in one-and-only deity, "Allah", is etymologically "the god", as I understand it--thus, "The one and only member of the class, god", but it's a reference or description, not a name as such. Can't remember where I learned that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM

You're quite right, Slag, that the basic error most "rationalists" make is that they assume that human reason is superior to all things. Their faith in that concept is adamant and unshakeable. The god they worship is rationality itself, their god is the human mind....themselves, in effect, at the level of their own mind.

That's the most common error made by human beings, and it is the crux of how the ego functions (the ego being that which says: "I am separate from everything else around me.") (It also implicitly says: "I'm the most important one here, and my needs come first." although it may not always openly admit to that. It may pretend to be quite impartial.) The objective of most Eastern religions is to free human beings finally from the tyrranny of their own separated ego, the self-ruling endlessly chattering mind, and to attain oneness with something much greater, something that can be termed "the One" or "God" or "Life" or "existence" or "pure being" or "enlightenment" or "Self-realization". In that state one loves others as oneself and without prejudice...one does not engage in egotistical preferences or competitive ego games...and a careful study of the New Testament reveals that that is what Jesus was demonstrating and teaching.

It is, however, totally futile talking about this with anyone who still believes in the power of the mind above all else and wants to work only on the level of his mind...because he'll think you are talking complete nonsense about something unreal...and you'll think the same of him! ;-)

Therefore, why worry about it? Let those who wish to work on the level of their mind only enjoy themselves doing so, and don't dispute with them about it. It only leads to a lot of arguing, ego jousting, and verbal battles for supremacy, not to mention hurt feelings...and no one ends up thinking any differently than they did when it started. They just end up hating each other. ;-)

Bill D and I have been going through that for years on this forum, and I know how profitless it is to fall into the temptation of beating the old dead horse one more time...just to "prove" that you're right and someone else is "wrong".

They'll never believe you. You'll never believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:38 PM

And speaking of oaths:

In the Torah there are at least three main types of oaths. There was one known as the "Salt Covenant". Salt was a scarce commodity in that day and one can not live without it. Those folks carried their salt in a little leather pouch usually worn like a necklace. If a salt covenant was made the two men (only men could make an oath) would take and mingle their salt together and then reapportion it and say something like "until you can separate your salt from mine our pact stays in effect". Pretty neat, eh?

Another most solemn and irreversible oath was the "Blood Covenant" which involved the sacrifice of an animal and halving it and passing between the halves. It is rather involved and heavy with symbolism and theology which I'd rather not get involved with at this point. Needless to say it was very permanently binding.

There are others but the third one I wanted to mention can be seen in Jacob's final blessing of his children. The KJV has it that they grasped each others thighs but what it really involved was each participant would take hold of each others scrotum and swear by the "sack of life". You may laugh but the practice was quite widespread in the day and for most of history in Greece and the Middle Eastern environs. It is where we get our word "testimony" from, the testicles. Why couldn't the presidential oath of office involve something like that? Attendance would be WAY up!

In the Book of Mathew, chapter 5, verse 33 and on Jesus is saying, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, 'Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths' But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be 'Yea,yea; Nay,nay' for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

So there! I agree with the atheists. Skip the "...so help me God." Unless the person is truly seeking God's help. And if that IS the case, she or he doesn't need to make a public spectacle of it. They can seek out God in the privacy of their own hearts, away from the camera and the crowds.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

Right on LH. You have to get outside yourself to see or even begin to see yourself. Unfortunately a lot that goes by the name "Christian" does not see this. To me, that goes under the heading "...in name only."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM

Yes indeed. Your description of the oaths in the Torah is fascinating...and in the case of the scrotum-grabbing oath...amusing!

To simply give one's word (a simple "yes" or "no") should be enough among honest people....and if one is not honest, then what possible good can it do to go through the outer exercise of a ritualized oath of some kind? (It will only end up being broken regardless, in all probability.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 11:13 AM

Dave O, none of these gods really existed. They were myths. Well, OK myths exist but
they are not reality-based or scientifically verifiable. They were stories, parables, metaphors but not physical entities. Of course what I meant is that these myths are unsupportable by science as being real entities as in flesh and blood or physical properties.

Myths do serve a function in society as Joseph Campbell has pointed out. But they are not physically real entities and as a result function as ideas, metaphors, instructions, parables etc.

I also understand Campbell when he says that society needs "our myths". I can go along with the need for some of them.

Religion per se has come to mean an institutional body that supports churches, synagogues, mosques etc. I personally see no difference between any of the major religions and the "cults" that are often mentioned.

There is a cultural aspect to religion and this may be separate from actual belief in any religion.

Atheism mean no belief in a god. That's all it means in spite of some attempts to define it as a fundamentalist belief system. There is no belief system at all in atheism.
Agnosticism is an attempt to not come to grips with the issue.

There is a growing branch of what I would call Anti-theism which characterizes the criticism by Christopher Hitchens. I think Anti-theism is not supportable by the nature of the US Constitution which allows flat-earth societies and moon-made-of-green-cheese cults. Anti-theism goes aggressively after religion and arises from it's dictates which attempts to make non-believers "wrong". Atheism in my opinion is consistent with the First Amendment.

It's fine for me if people want to have a personal belief in whatever as long as 1. They don't insist on cramming it down other's throats and 2. It's their personal thing like their sex lives. Personally, I am not interested in other people's religion or their sex lives unless it enters the realm of scientific or historical study.

I don't care to capitalize on od by capitalizing the word. I prefer the generic lower-case god to describe all of the myths pervaded by a religious populous.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:12 PM

Sensible comments, Strinsinger. I would disagree on one point, though, where you say: "There is no belief system at all in atheism."

To the contrary, everyone holds a great variety of their own unique belief systems...regarding almost every aspect of their own lives, their cultural makeup, their family, their emotional life, their philosophical viewpoints, etc. That is to say, life isn't just a question of what you know on a factual basis. That's part of life, to be sure, but life is also a great deal more than that for any living being which can think, and experience emotion. In addition to the known and verifiable facts which can be physically proven, everyone holds a vast number of implicit beliefs and assumptions about themselves, others, and life, assumptions which cannot be...or at least have not yet been...physically proven. This is also true of atheists. Atheists, like other people, assume a great deal, they do not simply catalog verifiable facts (as a machine would), they also then extrapolate further assumptions and beliefs on top of those facts. They all, in my opinion, are wedded to their own mythologies...those which support their general attitude...but they often take those mythologies to be entirely real. Freudian or Jungian psychology could shed some light on that, I'm sure. Atheists also can and do fantasize about a great variety of things, but their fantasies will not allow or accept the premise of a "god", that's all. ;-)

Consider, for example, the political/social fantasies that Pol Pot's administration engaged in, or Stalin's, or Mao Tse-Tung's...and they were all diehard atheists. Heh!

"I flippin' rest my case!" (to quote my old buddy Shane...) Mythology is NOT limited to god-based religions.

Furthermore, agnosticism is NOT "an attempt to not come to grips with the issue", it is an indication that a person has enough humility to admit that he doesn't know for sure...

I think such humility is very commendable, because most people definitely do not know enough to know for sure about the greater questions of existence itself or even the burning practical issues of their own time. There's a great deal they don't know for sure and they ought to just admit it for a change, instead of pretending they do know. I think it is their own insecurity that makes so many people dogmatically pretend to have absolute certainty about this or that great subject when in fact they usually know only a few fragments of what there is to know about it. They are the largely ignorant yet apparently confident, those with just enough superficial knowledge and experience to give them the confidence to be arrogant and lofty, pretending desperately to be "in the know" in order to convince themselves and others that their position is unassailable and they are fully in control of it...when it's actually anything but. ;-)

This is true of a great many atheists, it's also true of a great many religious people, and the more insecure they are the less tolerant they will be of anyone holding a differing view...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:10 PM

Stringsinger said:

Dave O, none of these gods really existed. They were myths.

Exactly. You and I can agree that they never "physically" (or metaphysically) existed, and I didn't say that Mazda, Jupiter, Krishna, Friga, YHWH, and their ilk actually exist(ed). But the ideas represented by those names were and in some cases are real enough to those who believe(d); their belief and influence exist(ed). And that's what a god is. They had their own sort of reality in the cultures involved.

And that's what my recent post was mainly about: I find it meaningful to go along with our culture in capitalizing "God" when it is used in our culture to refer to the Judaeo-Christian god as a name substitute, and not when that three-letter word refers merely to one of the class of ideational "objects".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:13 PM

226 posts? Good God!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM

Holy FLIP!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 09:41 PM

I'll be ready to back the candidate that repeats after the cheif justice, "So Help Me Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:26 PM

??? That makes as much sense as "Holy FLIP! "

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 12:14 PM

Or as "so help me god!"

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:39 PM

Dave, I take your point which is for the purposes of communication. I choose, however, not to refer to the capitalization because it gives the concept too much weight. I also have a problem calling people reverend because I don't revere them personally or what they may believe.

To the issue of "so help me god", I believe that it is a recent addition along with the 1954 "in god we trust" on coins and "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

There is too much "goddy stuff" in the government today and in speeches that are intended for the general public by sycophantic politicians.

Stsngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 03:46 PM

I think that all the phrase "so help me God" means in common usage when most people us it is this: "I want to particularly stress and emphasize in the deepest seriousness that I DID mean what I just said."

So lighten up, guys. It's not a big deal. If I was taking the presidential oath, I'd deliberately say it just to bug the lot of you! ;-) (but not because I am one bit worried about God's part in the whole thing)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM

"I'd deliberately say it just to bug the lot of you! ;-)"


                   Which is exactly why Roberts and Obama did it!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:41 PM

God made you!!!! prove otherwise..... no good saying your parents made you because He made them too....... Procreation was Gods invention..........

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:45 PM

So who got wound up by that then????? eh?????

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:59 PM

Not me. ;-) I'm going to leave it to Rig and a couple of others here to get wound up about it....so help me God!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM

Quoth Georgiansilver:


God made you!!!! prove otherwise.....

Georgiansilver, I don't have to prove otherwise, because I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. You, on the other hand, appear to be trying to convince others here (including me) of your first three words.

Actually, even if I were trying to do that, I know I couldn't prove it, because it's not a "Real Question". That is, no "Real" or practical results would flow from either answer, yea or nay. I have my opinion, just as you have yours, and that's fine.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:17 PM

True, Dave, there is no way of proving something like that or disproving it. You cannot prove the actions of the Unmanifest upon the manifest...nor of the Infinite upon the finite. Nor can you disprove them.

The Infinite cannot be objectively observed at all, because the observer himself cannot get outside of it in order to take a look at it! ;-) We can only observe the many other things which are, like ourselves, finite....in other words, they have a perceivable beginning and a perceivable end. This is true of another person, a plant, an animal, a planet, a sun, even a galaxy or a succession of galaxies. We can observe all of them in themselves, but we cannot observe that which contains all of them...and is implicit within all of them.

We can experience it in some way, perhaps, by feeling that we are in a state of conscious unity with it...but we cannot objectively observe it, because to do so we would have to establish that it is either separate from us...or one separate part of us that is within us...or limited to certain defined paramaters...and it isn't. ;-) It is, I think, unmanifest and unlimited, but by the same token it is implicit within everything that is manifest.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:42 PM

The point is, Georgiansilver and others: we skeptics are not making any claims...YOU are, when you say "God made you". We are just saying we don't accept such claims on the evidence usually presented.

The burden of proof is on those who MAKE assertions. There is a reason why we say "believe in a God." Belief is what is required when no 'proof' is possible.

Otherwise, we just agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:48 PM

It's not worth the wear & tear on my blood pressure to get wound up!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

If only my Dachshund could reach that realization! It would be so much quieter around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:56 PM

My old Dachshund died and I got a Weimerwaner. It's like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:05 PM

I bet. Heh!

I'm sad to say that one of the little guys here died too, early this month. He is missed.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 11:10 AM

Our last cat died several years ago. It was 'interesting' to realize that one of my considerations about getting a kitten was the possibility it might outlive ME!

I do miss the purring at the foot of the bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:00 PM

At least you aren't blaming God for their demise.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:46 PM

That would be just downright silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 07:49 AM

LH--

You say the question of religious belief does not come up in Canadian campaigns. My point exactly. Canadians are quite tolerant--if you don't flaunt your religious beliefs--or lack thereof--in their faces. Your 2006 survey alleges a majority of Canadians say they "would be quite happy to vote for an atheist."

Interesting, then, that it has never happened. You have provided no names of atheist PM's.

So, regarding your survey: in the words of my favorite political analyst, Shania Twain--surely you're familiar with her work?---that don't impress me much.

It seems that as long as the subject doesn't come up, everybody is happy. If the candidate were to declare it, the outcome might well be different. Some of the atheists on Mudcat, as PM candidates, would prove the point.

And I'm sure you know people can--and do--tell a pollster anything. There are also many questions regarding such a poll. How many refused to answer the question? Lies, damned lies, and......

I think the vaunted Canadian tolerance on this issue has never been tested. Or perhaps has been tested--and that's why there has never been an atheist PM. Perhaps an avowed atheist would never collect enough support to even be a plausible candidate.

If I'm incorrect, I'm sure you can supply the names of some atheist PM's.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:54 PM

Ron....I haven't looked it up because I simply am not that motivated or interested in proving you either right or wrong about this that I would bother to! ;-) I basically don't care. The mere chance of scoring some kind of tiny argumentative point vis a vis your argument vs mine is simply not enough motivation to get me to do it.

Do you follow?

Look, man, I need some kind of actual motivation here. If you really want me to devote some of my personal time to overcoming my total ennui and lack of interest in the fact that you appear to disagree with me and verbally sparring with you over things that don't matter to me anyway...then send me some money, and I might do it. Maybe. If it's enough money.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

Man, I just shake my head in wonder at it all, I really do...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Sslag
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:55 PM

I'm in favor of the ennui myself. Don't forget the anchovies.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 04:39 PM

MD the majority of Americans can be wrong. They were about Bush. They were about slavery at one time. Women's rights? The list goes on.

As for trustworthiness, I would trust an atheist more than I would most Christians. Reason?
Many Christians are hypocrites. But again, the caveat has to be not applicable to everyone.

And as to the logical fallacy of the wishes of the majority, this is why the world is in economic meltdown today.

All I'm saying is respect the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote the thing and he didn't cotton to all this goddy stuff.

I don't thank god for atheists or anything else.

I thank the Constitution for allowing the Separation.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM

Stringsinger, you said in part:

And as to the logical fallacy of the wishes of the majority, this is why the world is in economic meltdown today.

There are two (as far as I can see) views about the wishes of the majority. One is your "logical fallacy", the idea that the majority is right, or is likely to be right. "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong," as they used to say.

The other is what I consider the soundest basis for democracy, and that is that the governed should get what they want in government, thus hopefully keeping the populace happy and making for peace all around. Since there won't be unanimity among the governed, the minority necessarily get overruled. This idea may be arguable, but it's not a fallacy.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 08:50 AM

One element about the majority that shouldn't be overlooked is, with modern media and a large advertising or propaganda budgets, a few well placed individuals can get the majority to do things they otherwise might not do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM

Dave O, the fallacy is that a minority have determined what "the people want" and they employ methods to achieve that by painting a picture of their view of democracy. Case in point, GW Bush.

The majority is not always acting in their own best interest. They are often wrong and as Riginslinger says, easily manipulated.

The governed will inevitably have to get what they need in government to survive.
But some governments will suppress and subject the governed to needless cruelty,
bureaucracy, and lies.

For example, Wall Street controls the bailout. A rich minority dictates "what the people want" by exploiting them.

One way to control the public is to suppress information and dissent. Keeping the populace happy is not like treating people like Orwell's "Proles". That is a controlling mechanism and not a true expression of democracy.

A true democracy needs to have a discussion of different points of view and a consensus on how best to winnow through these ideas for the betterment of society. Religion is
counter-intuitive to this with its emphasis on authoritarian solutions.

Stsngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 05:51 PM

You know Stringsinger, I have to agree with you. I've been done dirt in my life and cheated by some but some of the worst has come form those who purported to be my "brethren"! So much so that I came up with the phrase "Beware the Brethren!" Not all that goes by the name "Christian" IS Christian---not by a long shot. And that, more than anything, is why the name of Christ and His house are clobbered in the public arena.

When you don't take a stand for anything much, I guess not much is expected of you. You screw up and the common opinion is that well, you're only human. But when one takes the name of Christ you are supposed to live by a higher standard. We are ALL human and Christian and non-Christian alike have failings and short-comings but most of us on either side of the demarcation do try to live honestly and meet our own standards at least. Those who use Christianity as a cloak or a key into the group for their own ends are lowest of the low.

When one takes the name of Christ, asserts that he is a follower of Christ, that is a kind of oath and that is why he is watched differently and more closely than those who don't. That's just the way life is, I suppose. Cynics jeer and hope he stumbles because they do not believe it. To them, the whole thing is a sham or some mental aberration. Some don't care but there are those who watch and wait to see if there really is a difference in the believer's life. The same holds true for other religions and religionists too. I admire and respect someone who is true and honest to their beliefs, especially if those beliefs promote the good things and bring the best out of Man. I even hold a grudging respect for those who are adversely opposed to my rights and beliefs. At least they are true to what they believe.

An oath is many things to different folks but it does say one thing; I have take on this undertaking and I will do all that I can to remain true to it and accomplish what I have set out to do or at least you will know why!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:29 PM

Hi Slag,

Although I believe christ to be a myth, some interpretations of myths are useful for the betterment of society in my opinion. The gentle jesus who exhorts the flock to non-violence is a constructive myth that points the way to a better world. The other jesus that states that if one doesn't believe in him, they will "wither and die" seems dictatorial and less useful.

I think that Thomas Jefferson's bible was useful as he excised all the parts that promulgated
violence and religious dictatorship.

I am reminded of Winston Churchill's comment after reading the bible. He slapped his thigh in laughter and said "That god was quite a bastard."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:55 PM

Churchill was quite a bastard too. ;-) He must have appreciated the Old Testament God's characteristics in that respect to the utmost.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 12:46 PM

I agree LH. He would have been at the mercy of Jesus' injunction that if he didn't believe he would "wither and die". Little schizzy there.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM

Whether or not someone believes that Jesus (the man) ever existed, the New Testament was written some time after the incidents in his life that it purports to describe, and it was written by a number of different people, each one of them with his own particular concerns and his own political "axe to grind", so to speak. They were all telling their favorite version of the story, and they were probably all doing it with religio-political purposes in mind. That being the case, it is hardly surprising that some of the messages in there seem to be contradictory at times, and there is no guarantee of any sort that any specific account is accurate or that anything Jesus is reputed to have said in it is accurate. It might be. It might not.

Furthermore, if you take all the things that have been said by ANY human being during the course of a few tumultuous years...things overheard by others around him...and you repeat them later as best you recall them...then you are going to get contradictory statements, things that don't seem to make sense, things that will be misunderstood because the reader is not aware of the original context they were said in, etc.

All of that should be reasonably obvious, yes?

The only thing that will prevent a person from being open-minded and considering such possibilities is blind faith. Blind faith of 2 opposite varieties.

1. The first: It's all the Word of God and without flaw.

2. The second: None of it ever happened and there was not even any such man as Jesus.

The first is the blind faith of the fundamentalist religious person, and it's motivated by emotion, not reason. The believer loves his religion for its own sake, regardless of reason. He gets satisfaction from believing in it completely.

The second is the blind faith of the fundamentalist atheist, and it's motivated by emotion, not reason. The believer hates religion for its own sake, regardless of reason. He gets satisfaction from denying it completely.

That kind of blind faith will tell you a lot about the emotional history of the above 2 believers (who are both fanatics), but it probably won't tell you anything useful at all about Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 07:36 PM

LH There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist as there is no fundamentalist
atheism. Every atheist has their own non-belief. Getting atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. All that atheism has ever meant is non-belief. There is no belief system
attached to that at all.

The religious person attempts to project their belief in a system onto atheists by claiming a fundamentalism where there is no faith or belief at all. That is religious propaganda. Scientific inquiry as to the nature of the belief system of a religion is not a blind faith at all. It is no faith at all but it asks that a "faith" be substantiated by reason and fact and empirical proof.

StSngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 11:47 PM

You would understand what I meant quite easily if you wanted to, Strinsinger. ;-)

I am suggesting that an open-minded admission of the fact that one simply doesn't know indicates greater wisdom (and far greater humility) than either a dogmatic assertion of religious fundamentalism or a similarly dogmatic atheistic claim that God doesn't exist.

I'm suggesting that people are in no position to make such dogmatic claims, period, and if they weren't so insecure and competitive in their own petty little ego structure, they wouldn't make such claims....because they would realize that they simply don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 01:32 AM

By the way, about what you said: "asks that a 'faith' be substantiated by reason and fact and empirical proof"....

Well, yeah! All human beings have a very strong desire to substantiate anything and everything they are interested in by their reason (they all attempt it to the best of their ability), by facts (they all appreciate finding out facts if they can), and by empirical proof (ditto)...but there is much in life that we are normally quite unable to secure ANY facts or empirical proof of...though we all hope to...so that's where faith comes in...to cover what we don't yet have confirmation of in an empirical sense.

Faith is what is applied to anything that one has not yet been able to substantiate through the perfectly natural processes of direct observation and accumulation of facts and empirical evidence.

For example:

It is a matter of faith to believe that Jesus (the man) actually existed. It is equally a matter of faith to believe that he didn't. We don't have much (if anything) in the way of empirical evidence to prove the validity of either one of those articles of faith.

To think, however, that he probably existed...or that he probably didn't...is a matter of subjective opinion, based on a host of subjective impressions that vary from one person to another, but it's not based on empirical evidence. Neither is it faith. It's merely a conjecture....a "best guess" based on what one thinks of as probabilities.

I think he probably existed and I think it for one very simple reason:

I've seen exactly how a religion (or any religious group) starts, and I've read about how a great many of them have started, and they virtually always, if not absolutely ALWAYS, start because of one unusual or remarkable human being, someone with a LOT of charisma, and someone who many people are VERY impressed by when they're around him (or her).

That's how religions start. They don't start with a book. They don't start with a committee. They don't start with an organization.

They start with one charismatic person, and the books and committees and churches and rules and organizations all come later, in reaction to the remarkable accomplishments and personality and example of that one original charismatic person. That's why I think Jesus probably existed. If he had not existed, the whole darned thing never would have gotten launched in the first place. Something else would have happened...or not...depending on who else was around at the time with that sort of charisma (and there were others too). There are usually some people like that around here and there...though they are quite rare amongst the general populace. Some start major religions. Others start minor ones. Others start new political movements. Others start cults and secret orders. Others become pop stars. But it always starts with a very charismatic person who inspires other people...and they become followers, fans, party members, whatever.

Some of these charismatic people are seen as heroes by posterity. Some are seen as villains. Some remain obscure. Others become enduring legends and their lives change the world, for better or for worse.

Buddha. Zoroaster. Jesus. Mao. Hitler. Martin Luther. Gandhi. Mohammed. Abraham. Moses. Lao-Tse. Churchill. Mussolini. Alexander the Great. Caesar. And many, many more. You find one of them at the heart of every new religion, every new political creed, etc.

They are not all spiritually minded, and they're not all found in religious life, but they all have one thing in common: they inspire tremendous faith in their followers and this has a tremendous effect on many people.

To believe that there was no Jesus (the man) is a bit like believing that a tidal wave or a landslide happened, and yet there was no cause for it. No original motive force to kick it off and get the ball rolling. I doubt that. My reason tells me that that is highly unlikely, because there is always an original motive force behind any new movement (physical or social). There has to be. Simple cause and effect. Elementary, my dear whoever. ;-)

If the writers of the New Testament ALL wanted to start up a new religion (and they clearly did) they would never have even gotten the idea to do that if not for the prior example set by one charismatic individual. That's how these things happen.

I am making no other-worldly religious claims regarding Jesus or what he may have done. None at all. I'm simply saying he...a single charismatic individual...had to be there as the original most significant motive cause that got the whole ball rolling....just as Mohammed or Buddha or Hitler or Mao had to be there. In Jesus' case, he'd probably be more than a bit perturbed if he saw just where that ball has rolled in the last 2,000 years! I'm betting that he would be quite upset about it. That's my "best guess".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 01:49 AM

Oh, hey...let me add to that list Dylan, Elvis, and Sinatra. ;-) Three more charismatic individuals who wrought great change...but they did it (primarily) in the field of pop music, not religion or politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:02 AM

It's just that saying "I don't know" when your uncertainty is less than 0.000000000000000000000...(many more zeroes)...001 is kinda specious, just because it's isn't actually EQUAL to zero. So many of us have stopped saying we don't know, and admit the absobloodylutely overwhelming evidence for natural causes with no divine intervention as sufficient evidence.
In most rigorous sciences, you're allowed to think you know when your uncertainty falls below 0.05! We allow so much, much more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:20 AM

When my older brother, Pete, was 9 years old he became quite ill with pneumonia. My parents believed in a loving god who would heal his illness if they just prayed hard enough. So they prayed and Pete got sicker. They called in specialists from the church to help in their praying and Pete continued to decline. Never once did they think to get my brother the medical help which was available at the emergency room less than a mile away. Finally, despite all their prayers, Pete died.

From that point to now I have made the personal decision to NOT believe in any supreme being. I accept the responsibility and consequences of my own actions. I do not make a habit of espousing my beliefs in public, but I do not resort to silence if the subject comes up. Faith can be a comfort to some people, especially in troubled times. But I don't think anyone should "push" their personal faith upon anyone else, including their children. Just my 2 cents.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 02:50 PM

I can well understand your reaction to that situation, Mike.

You see, I have no trouble at all understanding why people don't believe in certain well-known fundamentalist concepts of God. I don't believe in those either...despite the fact that I don't know for 100% certainty. But it seems just tremendously improbable to me that the God of fundamentalism could possibly exist as he is described by fundamentalists.

There are, however, many other ways of defining God. If a person is saying that he doesn't believe in the specific definition of "God" that pops into his own mind when he hears the word "God"...hey! I can understand that.

Only thing is, his definition may not be the be-all and end-all, and there may be 100,000 other definitions out there. Does he disbelieve in all of them categorically? Or has he never even given a moment's thought to most of them? I would think it's the latter case. If so....well, it's just silly to say you categorically disbelieve in something that you've never even really thought about in the first place.

I don't think of God as a separate anthropomorphic giant spiritual being of some sort who intervenes in human affairs, sets down rules, and rewards and punishes. I think of God as the total summation of all consciousness and all existence and all that is...as an ocean is the summation of all that it contains, for example...or as a planet is the summation of all that it encompasses...or as you are the summation of all the cells and consciousness and energy in your own body. The planet does not intervene deliberately in any single person's affairs, it doesn't take sides in our issues, but it definitely exists and it provides a field of possibility within which its inhabitants act out their lives...and they are all part of it and they are born out of it, therefore they are related to it.

Are you telling me that you disbelieve in all consciousness and existence? I don't think so. ;-) You'd have to disbelieve in your own life force and your own existence to disbelieve in the God I believe in.

Therefore you may say that you disbelieve in God, and I get what you mean...you disbelieve in a specific fundamentalist definition of "God", but you don't disbelieve in my definition of God. See?

Tip: My definition of God has very little to do with organized religion as most people know it, and I belong to no organized religion. Why the heck would I want to?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 04:26 PM

Einstein had his own definition of god, something like Spinoza.

A teleological god like a watchmaker does not have to design all consciouness and existence. This process was observed by Charles Darwin who made the case that evolutionary biology was responsible for consciousness and existence.

If one supposed there was a god who designed all this, you would have to come to the conclusion that he made some serious errors.

Still, LH may be closer to the opinion expressed by Carl Sagan to some devout believers,
"Your god is too small."

Still when "faiths" collide, then the notion of faith as a value becomes suspect. Right now,
Philip Pullman illustrates the idea that two worlds are colliding and the war is over "free will".

The inalienable right to be-lieve or not to be-lieve, that is the question.

LH, apparently you believe in a monothesistic god rather than a pantheon of gods.
You seem to believe in a god that is not personal or caring for you individually.

You do seem to state that religion is a form of politics used as a control device to manipulate others.

Alaska Mike, there's a new saying out, "Nothing fails like prayer". Controlled experiments conducted by the Templeton Foundation show that prayer doesn't work.

I am on the fence about whether I consider religion harmful in all cases. I agree with Joseph Campbell that myths serve a function. I also respect the US Constitution written by Thomas Jefferson (who published his own version of the bible excising all the nasty stuff).
I'm not ready yet to condemn all believers but consider their actions separate from their belief system.

I think that it's important for science to get involved and test these hypotheses that are made by religion. The idea of a god is a hypothesis. Let's test it.

Strsngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM

"LH, apparently you believe in a monothesistic god rather than a pantheon of gods."

Hmm. Well, not necessarily. It's not that I believe in a monotheistic God so much as that I believe in a single Unity which manifests in an infinite number of aspects (and individuals). When people construct a pantheon of gods, all they are really doing is they are characterizing different aspects of existence and assigning them symbolic names. In India, for example, there are many gods and goddesses in their traditions, but it is clearly understood by adepts that those are simply symbols of the One, and that the One is transcendent and indescribable, but encompasses everything. It's different levels of symbolism, which is useful for people as long as they don't start worshipping the symbols blindly. The One is also described as a great Trinity in India...Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva...the Creator, the Preserver, the Destroyer. That's a description of the 3 basic forces we see in nature: creation of living forms, preservation of living forms, death and dissolution of living forms. We see those forces in play all the time through birth, maturing, survival, aging, and death.

But beyond those the Indians still see an indescribable One which supercedes them all and out of which they flow, so to speak, as archetypes or aspects.

What is this? It's philosophy. It's an attempt to understand one's place in an existence where we must deal with birth, survival issues, change, aging, and death. I have nothing against philosophy, and I approach spirituality on that basis, because having a philosophical outlook gives meaning to one's life.

I don't take the various "gods" literally. I take them as symbolic of different aspects of existence. It is existence itself which is sacred, seems to me, and it's too large to be contained within most people's concept of "God". So I would agree with Carl Sagan that, yes, their God is too small.

*****

Regarding prayer, I have seen it work in some very surprising ways. And I have seen it not work also. I think that may have had to do with the inner focus and clarity of the people involved, possibly, or it may have had to do with something else entirely, it may have had to do with actual need, but I have no final explanation for it...I just have seen it take powerful effect on a couple of occasions. There are a lot of prayers that would be better NOT answered, because people tend to ask for the most foolish things! ;-)

When it does work, it does not necessarily make me think that some kind of external God "out there" answered the prayer, by the way. Could be...but I have no definite opinion about that.

When people are praying for someone to survive an illness, how do they know that survival of that illness is the best thing that could happen to that person??? They don't! Death at that time may be a much better thing for that person than they imagine. How can they know it isn't better if they haven't been dead themselves yet? They are assuming that death is the complete destruction of the person. Maybe it isn't. They don't want to lose the person. That's understandable. But maybe the person is going into a continued spiritual life that they have no knowlege of and will be happier there than here. There is no way for someone here to know whether that is the case or not, so they assume whatever they assume about it, and they act on that basis. That's all any of us can do. We do the best we can, based on what we already know...or what we think we know.

I accept death. I've lost individuals whom I cared for, and I miss them, but I accept death when it comes...as it must.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:19 PM

Stringsinger, you made a couple comments that I need to reply to:

I also respect the US Constitution written by Thomas Jefferson (who published his own version of the bible excising all the nasty stuff).

I may be wrong, but I don't think Jefferson every published his redaction of the Bible.   

I think that it's important for science to get involved and test these hypotheses that are made by religion. The idea of a god is a hypothesis. Let's test it.

I really don't think that the idea of a god--any god at all, you name it (him, her)--is testable. It is "Not a real question," in Logical Positivist terms.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 09:24 PM

It doesn't matter WHAT your concept of god is, anyway. They are all equally counter-productive and counter-factual. Many people say well, I don't believe god is a man in the sky, so you don't disbelieve in MY god. Well, yes, we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:38 PM

The idea of testing spiritual things that are not even part of this physical realm is rather ludicrous...because the tests can only be done IN this physical realm.

It would be akin to trying to test anything else that can't materially be pinned down....you cannot test something that is not possible to grasp or manipulate with any of the tools at hand.

For instance, scientists have hypothesized that there may be other dimensions of reality beyond the ones we are presently familiar with. And there may be. But how are we to test them if we can't GO there???? ;-) And if we did go there...we wouldn't be here any more. So no one would hear about it from us, would they?

If there are spiritual worlds, then the problem would be the same. If you can't go there physically then you can't test it, can you?

Look, I can go anywhere I want to in my mind, right? I can do that right now. And my thoughts are real...they're a real inner experience that I'm having in my mind....but they're not physical. You can't test them. You don't know what they are. They're forever invisible to you. That doesn't mean I am not thinking them, it just means that you can't do anything about it.

If there are spiritual realities in what amount to other dimensions of reality...and there may be...then you can't do anything about them either.

Religions generally assert that there are such realities...and there may be. If there were....you still would not be able to test them.

The fact you can't test something or sense it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist...it might exist. And you don't know, do you? But you'd sure like to imagine that you do...right? Well, that's an idea you like holding in your mind because it makes you feel in charge or something, but it's no arbiter of anyone else's reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:47 PM

Until your last para, you made a lot of sense!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:48 PM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 08:59 PM

Well, it seems LH has not in fact found any Canadian PM's who declared they were atheists.

And in the time-honored manner of Mudcatters, seeks to explain this by saying it's not an important point.

Yet he is convinced--probably by his poll--that Canadians would in fact have no problem voting for an avowed atheist.



First of all, let me admit the truth of the idea that for Canadians, being right above the US is like being a college professor living in an apartment above a biker bar.

And let me also say that I'm not here to state that LH enjoys sitting up there making pronouncements about the mortals that dwell down below. Nor can I say that his attitude that there is no difference between US Democrats and Republicans is patently absurd.

I can't say that.

But it seems that based on the number of avowed atheists who have become Canadian Prime Ministers, the "more tolerant than thou" smugness of certain Canadians may not be justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 12:51 AM

Ron, you are a silly prat in the grip of an obsessive-compulsive need of some kind. ;-) It's probably the need to be "right", which always requires that someone else be "wrong". Thus it seems important to you that I should do some online research which you have proposed, and thereby waste some of my own time on your obsession. This is what you keep asking people to do all the time when you disagree with them about anything, and I think it's hilarious. Has anyone been silly enough to take you up on it? If so, how foolish of them!

Well, no, I definitely don't want to do any of your research for you, because it only matters to you, not me, and I'm not going to do it for you, but I'll tell you how you can do it yourself...

Go to "google.ca" (that's the Canadian version of google) Then check the little button that does searches only in Canada. Then type out whatever the heck you can think of that you think will find you that piece of information. Good luck! ;-) I don't think you'll find it easily, you may never find it, but if you persist...you just may find something.

And then you will have wasted your time, and I won't have wasted mine.

Capiche?

And most of that stuff you seem to think that I think...as set out in your last post? Wrong, Ron. Almost entirely wrong. It must be somebody else you are referring to...not me, I guess, but the usual straw man that you erect in your imagination when you argue with people. The guy that says all the things you would like him to say so you could be "right" yet again and he could be "wrong".

I'm not that guy, Ron. He lives only in your head, and you're holding an imaginary dialogue with him right now...and scoring point after glorious point!...even as you hurriedly read through this post of mine and marshall your new armies of straw men to play the role of "Little Hawk".

It gets busy between your ears, doesn't it? I know what that's like. The mental dialogue inside one's head...and the other guy is always so clearly "wrong". It's sooooooo satisfying to the ego, yet a constant strain on the health and the nervous system. One day we die, and it finally stops. Hopefully. Got my fingers crossed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM

Now, now, you two, maintain dignity...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:00 PM

L.H. The notion of a "One" is monotheistic.

Dave O, Jefferson's bible has been made available in print.

Any hypothesis is testable. That's what science does.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:12 PM

Stringsinger, you said:

Dave O, Jefferson's bible has been made available in print.

"Has been made available in print" is not what the original statement was; it was that Jefferson published it, which is another matter.

Any hypothesis is testable. That's what science does.

Not so. In order to test a hypothesis, there must be measurable, repeatable, observable (by some natural means) phenomena. There is no way to test such hypotheses as "God created the heaven and the earth" or "God is omnipresent" or the like. And the "truth" or "falsity" of such statements makes no quantifiable or observable difference, either way; thus they are not "Real Questions".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:31 PM

Dave, I disagree. There are those who claim this "measurable, repeatable and observable phenomena" as valid and they should be called to task. Let them back up their claim. As long asthere are those who use their hypotheses as a legitimate source of control and manipulation, these are "real questions".

Jefferson made his bible available whether it was published or not. You can find it easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:05 PM

If it can't be tested, then by definition, it isn't a hypothesis. Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:51 PM

One may not yet know how to test a hypothesis. That doesn't mean it's untestable, it just means we don't know how to test it yet. That may change.

Strinsinger, yes...I suppose that the idea of the One is monotheistic. You could say it is. But don't people usually assume that monotheism places a distinct God amongst many other things...or outside of them...or above them...at any rate, apart from those other things?

I make no such assumption about the One. If the One exists at all, then it is inclusive of all that exists, and it is not apart from anything, otherwise it woudn't be the One any more. I think that's different from most people's concept of monotheism, as they tend to see "God" as set apart from various other things.

I'm not seeing it as a separate being or power that judges, rewards, punishes lesser beings, etc...I'm seeing it as the complete totality of all existence and consciousness itself. I'm seeing existence itself as a form of powerful intelligence in continual process and evolutionary change, rather than as a bunch of haphazard and therefore meaningless physical events and phenomena. I'm seeing existence as part and parcel with intelligent consciousness, right down to the subatomic level and up to the macro level (galaxies, universes, the dimension of time and space).

Is that monotheism? Well, if you wish to call it that, I don't object...but to me can be both monotheism and polythyism simultaneously, as well as neither of them.

In a word...it's inexpressible. You and I can talk about it all we want, but our words will never succeed in defining it, because they are only words, and words cannot ultimately describe what we are dealing with here. They are just second-hand mental symbols, nothing more...only a direct experience of something can fully convey what is not expressible in words about that something.

You know this as soon as you do directly experience anything, whether it be eating an apple, kissing someone you love, feeling true friendship, or having any other real and moving experience. Only by consciously living a reality in the moment of its happening can we know it. Words are simply not enough.

Thus our conversation here, entertaining as it is to the mind (which loves to chatter and debate and question and contradict), is not going to succeed in unravelling the ultimate truth about much of anything.

It'll just momentarily appease those hungry minds which think words are enough. And they'll soon find they are hungry again. And again. And again. Without letup. That's how the hungry mind works. It is incapable of anything more than the briefest satisfaction (in a moment of imagined victory), and it never rests except when it gets intoxicated or when it sleeps. It is the slavemaster, and most people are its helpless and unwitting slaves during 98% of their waking lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 08:12 PM

I love it when the argument gets to probabilities! Good old "standard deviations" and the "bell-shaped curve". I wonder what the odds are that our planet just happens to have a very active tectonic structure and that we are the right distance from the sun that water stays liquid for the most part. And how about that moon without which life as we know it, would not be possible...hangin' around out there at just the right distance! Have we reached 0.05% yet? When you go through all the "Goldilocks" factors our probability picture is mighty slim indeed. How many other similar planetary systems are there out there? Could be plenty...I don't know...odds are we will never know about them if the do exist.

I had an aunt that took a world cruise some years back. She flew to Japan to meet her tour group but she could locate no one. Finally she sat down in the Tokyo terminal to pray about the situation. She sat there a while then looked across the aisle and spotted an anglo appearing woman so she asked her if she spoke English. She certainly did she said in a slight Australian accent. She asked where she was from and the woman replied a little place in Australia named Wee Wah. My aunt thought she may have heard of the place before so she asked where the woman was from originally. The US she replied. Where? Oh an equally little town in Central California. I'm sure you have never heard of it...MacFarland?...to which my aunt replied "Your name is Clara Freer! The woman was astounded! How did you know that? "I'm Bob Carter's sister!"

This woman and her husband were my Dad's very close friends 20 years before they left to begin a cotton station Down Under. She had never met them but had heard all my Dad's fishing and hunting stories about them. So...out of all the billions of people in the world and the millions which pass through the Tokyo airport at any given time, what were the odds? 0.05? or less? I know many of you have similar stories and not just a few of them. What are the odds?

If you had a few quadrillion pots of water on an equal number of stoves all boiling right away, might one of them freeze solid because all the water molecules just happend to move in just the right way that they crystallized instead of continuing to boil? Probably not... and yet here is Earth, crawling with intelligent (theoretically) beings. What are the odds?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 01:52 PM

This would be a benign discussion on deluded fantasies if they were not employed to
influence and manipulate opinions without being based on facts.

The trouble is we have Obama creating a larger role for "faith-based initiatives" which have been shown to be prejudiced in favor of believers and excluding non-believers.

Words are all we have to express ideas. If these ideas are not expressed, they are inherently unintelligible. Therefore, any "mystery" that can't be explained has no value.

Many mental institutions are peopled with those who claim access to "mysterious" ideas.

Someday, the Unified Field Theory of science will bring together those elements in nature that we don't understand but until then, we have to deal with Quantum Mechanics that defy every principle of physics that we know of. Einstein didn't want to grapple with it. Feynman says that those "who claim to understand quantum mechanics, don't understand quantum mechanics". It's the absurdity of nature.

In the meantime, there is no "theory of everything" available to us. This includes polytheism, monotheism or any speculation on how our universe functions.

Anyone can say that "in my experience" such and such happens and there is no dispute even when a mental patient claims that he really saw that rocket ship steal away his
brain.

Again, you can't prove a negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 03:31 PM

Stringsinger, I think you and I have, in part, been talking past each other.

You referred in a recent post to "real questions". Note lower case.

I've been referring to "Real Question(s)", as referred to in Logical Positivism.   "Real Questions" in my context is a term of art, not meaning "serious question" or "question which seems important to me" or "question which troubles me considerably" or something like that, but the philosophical questions or problems the answers to which (if any there might be) have no results in the outcome in the real world.

Thus, if the world could be proved to have been created by a god, would one's actual situation be any different than if it were proved not to be? Would one be handsomer, richer, stronger, either way? Would the poor be fed if it were so created, but starve if not? Would ice be heavier than water in one case and lighter than water (as it is) in the other.

If no real-world difference in results flows from such a question, either way, it is not a "Real Question".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 09:16 PM

LH--

"silly prat"

Temper, temper little man.

I asked for the name of one Canadian PM who asserted he was an atheist. None was provided.

The proof of the pudding.....

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 09:19 PM

What's the matter--didn't you enjoy my Cheney impression? I'll try to do better next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:58 PM

So Stringslinger...mental illness is a socially defined condition? Hmmm? That would explain why FEMA identifies fundamentalist Christians as "terrorists". Maybe that is why Janet Reno felt justified in using the military to go in and slaughter men, women and children in that wacko-compound in Wacco. Thanks for clearing up that point. I fell better already.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:56 PM

I think the world would be a different place if religion were investigated. I think that a lot of social problems such as world hunger, wars etc. could be put into proper perspective if we could look at the role that religion plays in these issues. Until now, religion has never really been questioned as to its validity in society. The hypothesis has not been questioned. That is changing. This question will have a bearing on how we view these issues. In the meantime,the more we see religion in politics in the US, the more backward we become as a nation.We deny Thomas Jefferson and Madison their point. (Keep religion out of politics). If religious people are threatened by this testing and criticism, their so-called faith can't be very strong.

That said, I would advocate that as an American citizen, we have the right to believe anything we want no matter how wacky it gets provided that it doesn't cause harm to society. When religion becomes tyrannical and it is forced down the throat (such as with taxpayers footing the bill for what they don't believe), then it needs to be examined. I think that this does impact on the poor being fed, ice floes melting, how we treat each other, war, the rise of militarism as a solution to problems, and how we regard ourselves.


Don't remember saying anything about mental illness being a socially defined condition.
I guess it's a matter of who's doing the defining.

I think that this is an important topic of discussion and Obama needs to hear from us non-believers more. Otherwise people will be swearing more at the bible than on it.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:43 AM

I've not visited this for some time, so forgive me if these comments hark back to more distant comment than the current posts.

I was intrigued by some of the posts re. free will, and the assertions that religion was somehow an expression of God's intention to have us exercise that freedom.

In my experience, the opposite is the case. Most, if not all, of the organised religions, command their followers to subjugate their free will, in part or in whole, to the exigencies of the particular agenda of the hierarchy.

The problem I always had was in getting across the idea that "faith" and "religion" are NOT synonymous.

It seems that those who have the most unshakeable faith are the fundamentalists who don't know the difference, and adhere like glue to the distortions of generations of religious leaders, almost all of whom had some personal agenda to pursue.

Faith in a creator is great, but we need to point out that even the finest products are often marketed by unscrupulous crooks.

We WOULD, in my opinion, be exercising our free will as God would wish, were we to say to our religious leaders, "IF YOU WANT MY LOYALTY, EARN IT BY SHOWING TOLERANCE, LOVE, AND UNDERSTANDING TO ALL THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOUR BELIEFS!........

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:02 PM

I have no problem with anyone's beliefs as long as they don't foist them on others.
Getting back to the issue of this thread,"So help me god" does. It puts religion into politics.

Tolerance has to be a two-way street. The religious need to respect the non-believers as well. And keep religious preference out of government and public policy.

I think a respectful conversation can ensue without trashing each other personally.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:42 PM

I'll go with that String. It should be a two way street.

Now, all we have to do is persuade the Fundies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:06 PM

It may be a lost cause, Don. But with new information available perhaps there can be influential pressure brought to bear on Dobson et. al.

There is a "religious war" of ideas out there. As Philip Pullman has stated in "The Golden Compass", it's a battle over "free will".

Stringsinger.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 06:01 PM

One thing I do admire, is the concept of separating religion from politics.

The function of politics is to govern men's everyday physical behaviour and make policy as to how one achieves a good standard of physical well being, by acting in the best interests of the population at large.

The function of religion is to take care of spiritual matters, and make every effort to preserve what we might refer to as men's souls.

There is no valid point of contact between these two objectives in the best organised of social systems, and in poorly organised systems religious input into political policy has inevitably proved disastrous.

It will, I'm afraid, be ever thus, unless we make it universally the case that priests stick to saving souls, and leave government to secular agencies.

This, if established about the time of the emergence of Christianity and Islam, would have prevented the massacres of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the annihilation of the Cathars, as well as forestalling the current belief that there is a Jewish Race.

Israel consists of a multitude of different nationalities who happen to follow the Jewish religion, along with a number of different nationalities who follow the Christian religion, and some Arabs and Palestinians, who espouse a variety of religions, including Christianity and Islam.

The permanent residents are Israeli by nationality, NOT Jewish. When they, and others in the area get to grips with this concept, THEN, and ONLY then, will there be progress toward peace.

IMHO, of course, for whatever that's worth.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 08:50 PM

So it seems rather clear that up to now there has been no Canadian PM who publicly stated he was an atheist.    Just as there has been no US president who asserted it.

It begins to look as if the claim that Canadians would elect an atheist is as valid as the claim that the US would elect a black president. About which there was considerable skepticism.

But of course the US did exactly that in 2008.

So maybe Canada will come through.

Someday.


However, perhaps now we won't hear quite so much about how vastly different Canada is from the US on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:39 PM

Don, I agree with you. I don't accept a god but I agree with just about everything else you said. Of course, I don't believe in spiritual matters.

You are so right about Israel. It is kind of a theocracy although many Israelis would deny that. Any country based on a religious persuasion is a theocracy. Theocracies create wars.

True of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, et. al.

I agree with your definition of politics.

I agree with your assessment of the intrusion of religion into secular matters historically.

Jefferson and Madison both wanted to protect religious beliefs by keeping them out of
government. That was a wise choice.



Even John Adams in the famous Treaty of Tripoli made it clear that the US was
a Christian nation.

Thomas Paine had a lot to say about this in "The Age of Reason". (Of course, he was a Deist and dissed atheism, but his book is still well worth the read).

I think that your view of religion is a lot healthier than stuff I've been reading on Mudcat about it. Your views keep religion personal and private as it should be in the US.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:10 AM

THAT'S the phrase that encapsulates my thoughts on the subject, String.......PERSONAL and PRIVATE.

In point of fact I am, like Thomas Paine, a Deist (or Theist), though I DON'T diss atheism, simply regarding it as another alternative available to those who wish to choose it.

While I believe in a God (Supreme Entity, Creator, call it what you will), I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that mine is the only possible truth.

Be that as it may, I communicate with MY God directly, and receive my responses the same way.

I neither need, nor want, a bevy of men in black frocks to interpret my requirements and intercede to persuade HIM to give ME what THEY think I should want.

Nor do I see a need for a massive building erected from the sweat and toil of working men, and paid for with money extorted from a population, most of whom might have felt, at the time, that they were forgotten by God.

These edifices were built more for the glorification of the builders and the clergy than for the glory of God.

If, and it's a very big if, I ever were to subscribe to one of these "religions", it would be Buddhism, simply because it is built on a premise of RESPECT, for life, for others, and for oneself.

DonT.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 09:21 AM

Re the difference between Canada and the U.S.: This is anecdotal, not proof of anything, but for what it's worth:

I grew up in very rural Minnesota, on a farm with little villages a few mile in each direction. In 1975-76 I spent a year a few miles above the Minnesota-Ontario border, pastoring a small rural church as internship for seminary. The church members promptly noted to me that there was a much lower percentage of church attendance in Canada, which I soon found to be true; I was a little surprised, as about the only other cultural differences I could see were "ayes", mild accents, and a craze for hockey instead of football. A few folk were staunch church people, just like a much higher percent back home. As I dropped in on other area residents, they were open and cordial, but just not interested in church attendance. I don't remember any of them professing atheism, but I don't think I ever asked directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:31 PM

Um - it's one thing to talk to your invisible friends, it's another if they talk back, no? Isn't that what got St Francis in trouble, not that he talked to the animals, but that they talked back?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:35 PM

"Of course, I don't believe in spiritual matters."

See, here is where I have a problem following the discussion. What does it mean to me when I say I don't believe in "spiritual matters".

Spiritual means of the spirit. Love, whether romantic or familial or any of the other forms, is of the spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:54 PM

Um, are emotions spiritual?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM

Good god, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 11:28 AM

OK, so, what is spirit? Is it the same thing as Self, or Core, in the sense of your inner feeling of who you really are? THen yes, since your feelings would be part of that there feeling, I agree with you. Will reread with that in mind, if that's what Spirit is.

Pedant alert: Spirit is literally Breath, as in, respire, etc. This is also where we get inspiration, with the metaphorical Breath of the inner Spirit, versus Perspiration, which is more the literal Breath going through the skin. I think the English phrase Holy Ghost is a slight mistranslation of the Hebrew / Greek Holy Breath / Spirit. So it had more to do with being alive, it was that which disappeared upon death, than to do with the emotions you were having while you were alive. Doesn't mean that's what it means now, though, just because that's what it meant then. Languages are alive and changing and living in New York City, right, as well as elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mr Happy
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:35 AM

Who?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM

Spirit is life, Mrrzy. (in my opinion) You are quite correct to connect it with the breath, because it is the breath, and the heartbeat, and the other cyclical repeating motions such as nerve impulses that indicate life in a living body.

Everything in the Universe seems to be founded upon oscillating waveforms of cyclical back and forth movement that are quite analagous to the breath, if you stop to think about it...and this is true right down to the atomic level. Everything vibrates or oscillates.

In a living biological creature like a human the very obvious vibrations of breath and heartbeat indicate the presence of life...and what is termed "Spirit" in the religious traditions. When the heartbeat ceases, the breathing ceases, and the nerve impulses cease, the Spirit is said to have departed the body....which is the same thing as to say: life has now left the body. The body is now lifeless.

So that's what Spirit is to me. It's life itself.

The fact that vibrations or oscillations are also found in non-biological things right down to atoms has led to some forms of spiritual philosophy that propound the theory that everything is "alive" in some sense...including all the inanimate objects. If that's the case, then they would be "alive" in a very different sense, of course, than an animal or a human or a plant is...and they probably would not possess much, if any, self-awareness or volitional capability.

They would, if so, be "alive" in a passive sense....but not as we are, in an active sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Midchuck
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:34 AM

Everything in the Universe seems to be founded upon oscillating waveforms of cyclical back and forth movement that are quite analagous to the breath, if you stop to think about it...and this is true right down to the atomic level. Everything vibrates or oscillates.

Almost everything, but not quite. Some women just lie there.

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Spirit is who you are before you drum up an identity to be.

It is emotional, and the seat of perception and intention, the postulates that makes our lives unfold and govern how the world seems.

It is the Thou of you, if you will.

That's the short version.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM

And a few people, of either gender, lie about 'most everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
—Matthew 5:33-37.

Therefore (it seems to me) Bible-believing Christians ought to object to the oath as strongly as anyone.

(Not that I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I only quote that to show that Christians of all stripes obey what they want to obey and ignore what they want to ignore.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:09 PM

Uh-huh; either your word is good, or it isn't; if it isn't, you'll have no compunction putting your paw on something to "prove" that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:09 PM

They appear to just be lying there, Midchuck, but in truth they are simply vibrating at an extremely reduced level. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM

Every once in a while, my room mate gets to vibrating to where I darn near need ear protection. More often she just makes funny vibrating noises that sorta crack me up.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:57 PM

T o get back to the phrase in question, it's often abreviated to "So help me!" in normal use. Or "Swelp me!"

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM

As in "So help me, I'm going to kill that two faced bastard." Or "So help me, I could murder a curry."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

Hard for a believer to even explain himself in here, the nastiness drowns out all.

("You call this nasty?"

Says the assailant to the assailed.)