12 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerHere's a longer quote of the Legislative History from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Newdow v. US Congress at p. 23 (h=%22newdow%20v.%20US%20Congress%22):
How do you add something into a text without including it?
Was the Cold War the reason given by Congress or the President for including it?
At this moment of our history the principles underlying
our American Government and the American
way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy
is at direct odds with our own. Our American
Government is founded on the concept of the
individuality and the dignity of the human being.
Underlying this concept is the belief that the human
person is important because he was created by God
and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights
which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of
God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge
the dependence of our people and our Government
upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the
same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and
materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant
subservience of the individual.
H.R. Rep. No. 83-1693, at 1-2 (1954), reprinted in 1954
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2339, 2340.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperIf I get's somebody to become a Christian, then that's all that matters to me....
I still want to know why many Christians think it is *not* a problem that non-Christians who want to recite the pledge (thereby professing their patriotism) must lie in order to do so. There is absolutely no reason to include religion in this country's national statement of patriotism.
TheSkipper
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Including it" would seem to infer it was there to begin with, but was generally not used. "Adding it" might mean pulling it out of your derriere and sticking it in for...what's that thing Freaky says?...oh, yes, an agenda.
How do you add something into a text without including it?
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn response to your edit, no, I don't. Even things like "love" and "beauty" are neutral processes, and might ultimately be quantified. Do I think that current scientific processes are sufficient? No. I don't.
Don't you mean lower credulity?
😀
EDIT: Do you think there are limits to what scienctific observation and experimentation can and cannot tell us about our world?
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs an atheist, if it were my country, I'd feel offended by having to bow to some imaginary god everytime I want to say the pledge to my country. The pledge is to the country - not god. I would say that yes, it is discrimination.
Let's set aside the question of whether it does, in fact, violate the First Amendment.
How, precisely, does it constitute discrimination against non-theistic citizens? What goods/services/opportunities are they prevented from obtaining?
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by IronstarSo long as we truct in mammon and our weapons of mass destruction, it remains sacrilegious to have the words "under God" in our Pledge.
A friend of mine asked me the question "should the words 'under God' be taken out of the pledge of allegiance?" I don't think so. After all, our country was founded by Christian people, and God has indeed blessed us as a country, though we may not sometimes see it.....
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think the historical importance of Christopher Columbus cannot be overestimated. I think you are overestimating the importance of god. He didn't figure. He doesn't exist.
You've yet to acknowledge the historical import of God within the formation of the nation. If you need to, take a nap and think about it.
12 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou might be right, or not—only (perhaps a lot of) time will tell. But do you not need to assume that, at least potentially, in order to do science without a priori limiting the scope of scientific inquiry and what scientists may discover? I think scientists are unfairly criticized for this stance.
In response to your edit, no, I don't. Even things like "love" and "beauty" are neutral processes, and might ultimately be quantified. Do I think that current scientific processes are sufficient? No. I don't.
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks for your heart-felt post, LH. Best I've read from you recently.
Now I'm not arguing that the US become a theocracy. If I were around in 1954, I probably wouldn't have supported the inclusion of the words "under God" in the pledge. But I find the way you, BdN and RW simply seem to simplistically assume secularism=good; theocracy=bad more indicative of an anti-religion bias than the product of critical thinking.
Your assessment of my position is somewhat reductionist. I don't hold that theocracy is necessarily bad. The Buddhist theocracy of Tibet was both popular and peaceful. Then there is Bhutan, supposedly the only democratic theocracy in the world. Both countries have or had a relatively homogenous population and shared belief system. However theocracy and pluralism do not seem to co-exist well. Negative of state-supported religion in multi-cultural societies abound. In South Africa, for example, the Dutch Reformed Church played an active role in suppressing dissent and fomenting apartheid. The track record of the Puritans in the United States is not a good one either. Calvin's experiment in Geneva was deeply unpleasant (there's an example of a fanatic for you). I don't think such political Popes as Alexander Borgia were good publicity for theocracy either. That's why I'm against the return of a religious state in such societies. Perhaps you can furnish counter-examples illustrating the benefit of a state run by the priesthood (or equivalent), though.
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerA small aside, do English speakers separate the concept of 'laicity' and secularism?
I disagree that the purpose of a theocracy (in the broader sense of a State with a State religion) is to impose control over the expression of people's religious beliefs. A theocracy may try to exercise control over people's actions based on religious principles -- but how is that any different from any other form of government that uses fundamental p ...[text shortened]... h "thought crimes" as at least potentially dangerous, if not criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
If yes, I would say that neither a secular nor a theocratical state respect religious freedom, while a 'laicist' state is the only form of government (anarchy excluded) that respects it.
13 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdLet's take the assertions in there one at a time.
When a theocracy ... tries “to exercise control over people’s actions based on religious principles,” they are trying to impose particular religious beliefs, whereas “fundamental principles” can cut across religious lines. Of course societies try to control people’s actions through laws and statutes—but in a democratic system ..., those laws and statu ...[text shortened]... st restrict that debate according to religious doctrine—then what is the purpose of a theocracy?
If a theocracy makes laws based on religious principles, are they trying to impose particular religious beliefs? If a Jewish nation prohibited murder on the basis of the Ten Commandments, would it be the case that they are trying to impose particular religious beliefs? Is the prohibition against murder a matter of religious belief then?*
"Fundamental principles" can cut across religious lines, true. But they're not going to cut across all ideological divides. There have always been (and probably will always be) people who clamoured for slavery, monarchy, suspension of the Bill of Rights etc. Why should the fact that some principles may or may not cut across religious lines accord it a favoured status if it's not going to cut across all ideological lines?
You say that laws and statutes are not removed from public debate in a democracy. Is that actually true? To what extent, for instance, is the Bill of Rights "debatable"? Can the public do away with it if they want to? Or is it only interpretations of the BoR that are open to debate? Even with the interpretations of the BoR, is the debate not restricted to certain ideological frameworks (that would exclude, for instance, fascism)? And who has the authority to interpret? In the United States, that would be the Supreme Court -- a group of non-elected officials with life tenure who are not answerable to anyone. How is that any different from (say) an "inner group" of priests in a theocracy?
The point I'm making is that theocracy-democracy is an exaggerated (if not artificial) dichotomy. From my vantage point, most democracies already have several features of theocracy in their structural framework. The fact that the word "religion" seems to blind you to these common features (and exaggerate, if not demonize, the differences) is precisely what I was referring to when I spoke of anti-religion bias.
EDIT: Basically, the word "religion" seems to turn on some "switch" in your mind that changes your weighting of issues.
---
* This is a variation of the genetic fallacy that comes up every time abortion is discussed.
13 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThe question was not whether you would oppose it; but whether you would consider it a crime. Or, to be more open-ended, how far would such an Al Qaeda agent need to go before you would consider it a crime? How far before you consider it at least dangerous for your country and your principles?
With regard to your footnote and the Al Qaeda example: what al Qaeda would be attempting would be the overthrow of a democracy to establish a theocracy. I oppose not only the violent means, but the aim as well.
It's just a modern version of what heresy was in the 12th-13th centuries.
EDIT: This highlights one of the falsehoods/exaggerations in the theocracy-democracy dichotomy that I was talking about. There are people (maybe reading this) who simply cannot countenance heresy being a state crime, but have absolutely no problems punishing this Al Qaeda operative for what is substantially the same crime.
13 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd
LH: Yes, I agree that a theocracy designed to promote religious pluralism is counterintuitive. But why is religious pluralism a particular good to be aspired for?
vistesd: I’m not sure I understand the question. What I am promoting is maximal religious freedom within a pluralistic society. I think the clear counter-question is: “How far would you [that’s a general “you”] go in restricting religious pluralism, and for what purposes?”
I'm afraid it's definition-time. 😉
What do you mean by "religious pluralism"? Do you equate it to or see it as an integral part of religious freedom or vice-versa?
I was using pluralism simply in terms of population. A country that is 100% Presbyterian (say), would not be pluralistic. One can refine this to a "sliding scale" definition. A society where every religion has a more or less equal population and/or power would be "fully" pluralistic. This is why I asked whether religious pluralism was a good in itself to be aspired for. I wasn't asking for a restriction of religious pluralism or freedom.
13 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have literally been up all night, and have to get some sleep; so I’ll reply to your posts, then I’m gone.
Let's take the assertions in there one at a time.
If a theocracy makes laws based on religious principles, are they trying to impose particular religious beliefs? If a Jewish nation prohibited murder on the basis of the Ten Commandments, would it be the case that they are trying to impose particular religious beliefs? Is the prohibition against mur variation of the genetic fallacy that comes up every time abortion is discussed.
If a theocracy makes laws based on religious principles, are they trying to impose particular religious beliefs?
That was an over-generalized statement on my part, I admit.
If a Jewish nation prohibited murder on the basis of the Ten Commandments, would it be the case that they are trying to impose particular religious beliefs?
I don’t know what you mean by a “Jewish nation”—I will assume you mean a theocracy. If they imposed a law strictly on the basis of the commandments in the Torah, then, to a certain extent, yes. Let me change the particular commandment: suppose they imposed kosher dietary laws on everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike (which I suspect they did in biblical times), because that is commanded in the Torah—would they be imposing their religious beliefs?
Is the prohibition against murder a matter of religious belief then?
For some people, yes, clearly—whether that is a fallacy or not.
Why should the fact that some principles may or may not cut across religious lines accord it a favoured status if it's not going to cut across all ideological lines?
No such principles are likely to cut across all ideological lines, religious or not; just as any particular set of religious commandments may well cut across lines. How is that an argument? If we can’t totally protect religious freedom for all people all the time, we shouldn’t bother to try to achieve the best we can. That seems to be pretty absolutist.
[I note that in your murder example, you chose one which is likely to cross the vast majority of lines—which is why I offered the “kosher” counter-example.]
Can the public do away with it if they want to?
Yes. It’s called amending the constitution. The BoR is amendments to the constitution (the first ten).
Why you would pick “fascism” for your argument is beyond me. Fascism is exactly the opposite of what I am arguing for—a democratic society, with checks and balances. To assume that a democratic republic has to accept fascism as a constitutional possibility is as silly as to say: “Well, you’re not really free if you won’t accept a dictatorship.”
In the United States, that would be the Supreme Court -- a group of non-elected officials with life tenure who are not answerable to anyone. How is that any different from (say) an "inner group" of priests in a theocracy?
And if the body politic does not approve of the Supreme Court’s decisions, the avenues of redress are legislative or amending the constitution.
From my vantage point, most democracies already have several features of theocracy in their structural framework.
I’m using the word theocracy in a political sense—democracy, monarchy, theocracy, oligarchy... In that sense, a partial, politically functioning theocratic structure would be a limit on democracy—to the extent, say, that the body-politic could not choose to not add religious language to their national pledge; or that the body-politic could not amend Shariah. (I admit the possibility of partial systems, such as a democratic monarchy; the question is how they function). If you’re just using in the sense that a given society or culture has a religious history, then we’re not talking about the same thing. If you are just talking about a “nominal” theocracy, say so.
An example, in most (all) court systems, it is convention to for witnesses to be sworn in on the Bible—however, people of other faiths, or no faith, have the option of not (No.1 can offer any necessary corrections to this statement). I would object if they did not have that option.
The fact that the word "religion" seems to blind you to these common features (and exaggerate, if not demonize, the differences) is precisely what I was referring to when I spoke of anti-religion bias.
EDIT: Basically, the word "religion" seems to turn on some "switch" in your mind that changes your weighting of issues.
That’s just BS, LH. The topic of this thread is broadly religion and the state (narrowly, and originally, with regard to including a religious statement in the national pledge; as is usual, the discussion “spreads out” ). If the topic were democracy versus an oligarchy, my arguments would be similar. I think you’re the one that’s blinded because it’s theocracy we’re talking about, and not fascism. (How much fascism can be permitted in the “structural framework” of a democracy before it ceases to be a democracy?)