Re: A question to Stan


"Brian Westley" <westley@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12fjff9o4r7f70e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ernie Wisdom" <ewisdom@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157207375.348777.87040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stan,
Would it be acceptable for a public school to demand that boys
swear to do their "duty to God" as a condition of playing in the
school's football team.

Realize that, with this oath, nothing is expected of them that isn't
"an integral part of our culture and heritage". Hence, according to
you "ALL boys would be eligible" and "no boy would be excluded".

Also, would it be acceptable for a public school to demand
that boys swear to do their "duty to God" as a condition of
attending math class? Again, nothing in that oath isn't
"an integral part of our culture and heritage".

Chimp

Chimp,



In that strange alternative universe world:


Would it be acceptable for a public school to demand that boys
swear never to mention God as a condition of playing in the
school's football team?

Realize that, with this oath, nothing is expected of them that isn't
"an integral part of our culture and heritage". Hence, according to
you "ALL boys would be eligible" and "no boy would be excluded".

Also, would it be acceptable for a public school to demand
that boys swear that they have no religious affiliation as a condition of
attending math class? Again, some believe that no oath is
"an integral part of our culture and heritage".

In this universe is it right that the view of a few mandate that all
beliefs
be removed but theirs. Where diverse religious flourishes now in this
universe the Creedal Belief of the State is there shall be no mention of
any
religious belief accept that decreed by the State. With the Motto, "There
is
no God to Trust in".

Welcome to the world atheists live in, only reversed.

For over 200 years, multiple religions have existed together, while not
always harmoniously they existed.

Now comes the rise in Atheism, "the unbelief in God or deities" (Encarta
Dictionary).

It's Creed seems to be that there should be no beliefs other that of the
allowed and conforming to the beliefs of the Atheists.

No, that's what people who want their religion to be dominant say.

Ernie, which of these is neutral:

1) Having "under god" in the pledge
2) Having "under no gods" in the pledge
3) Having "" in the pledge (pre-1954 version)

You'll notice people only argue about using #1 or #3; I have
seen nobody seriously argue for #2.

In other words, atheists are suing for the government to be NEUTRAL
on religion, NOT to advance atheism.


In my view at the time of the change number 3 would have been the neutral
choice. One reason I believe that to be so is that it would be a continuance
of the status quo.

And which of these is neutral:
1) in god we trust
2) there is no god to trust in
3) e pluribus unum

Notice again that people have only actually been arguing for
the theist-promoting version (#1) or the neutral one (#3);
atheists are NOT arguing for the non-neutral #2.

"P.S. Some have pointed out that E Pluribus Unum is also another way of
expressing the Buddhist ideal of becoming One with Everything. Om, baby,
Om!"

This is from http://www.rubyan.com/politics/ while I might think #3 is
neutral it seems others rightly or wrongly do not.

Now Ernie, if you'd like to argue that the "atheists' creed" is
"there should be no beliefs other that of the allowed and
conforming to the beliefs of the Atheists", perhaps you could
come up with some actual examples from real life. I can
easily come up with examples of theists trying to get the
government to promote their theism, but I'm having a hard
time finding atheists trying to get the government to
promote atheism, or to get the government to prevent the
free exercise of religion.

Now the whole quote said "It's Creed seems to be that there should be no
beliefs other that of the
allowed and conforming to the beliefs of the Atheists."

You will note that I said seems to be, and to me that is how it seem. Could
I be wrong, sure but that is how I see it.


And this universe you live in:
In this universe is it right that the view of a few mandate that all
beliefs
be removed but theirs.

No Ernie, removing unlawful religious promotion by the government is
NEUTRAL, it isn't promoting atheism, no matter how hard you try to
say it is.

While you might feel something is a promotion other might think it is an
historic icon.
Some people might think that this part of the first amendment is being
forgotten, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Now if there was a change in the Constitution that flat stated the religious
symbols were ok on government property, thereby making them legal would it
be ok with you because they were now legal.

Let's say there's a city hall that does not have a 10 commandments
monument in front - is that city hall promoting atheism?

No, of course not.

Now, let's say the mayor puts up a 10 commandments monument, and
someone sues to have it removed.

Is removing the monument promoting atheism?

No, of course not. It only reverts back to the original situation,
which was not promoting atheism.

If a church across the street puts up a 10 commandments monument,
do atheists sue to have it removed?

No, of course not. Which shows that your statement that "the view
of a few mandate that all beliefs be removed but theirs" is a lie.

While my view can be wrong it is still my view so I do not consider myself a
liar while you may.

You missed one example.

The Mayor that put it up in the court house did so in 1896. There is no
record of any one converting to anything because of it. It has become part
of the towns history. Can you see how some people rightly or wrongly could
see removing it a non-neutral act?

If you think REALLY hard, you might realize the difference
between a 10 commandments monument in front of city hall,
vs. the same monument in front of a church across the
street, even though both are publically visible.

What about a reglious symbol on goverment land that people want to by the
land, (at fair market value) would that be ok?


And it's lying by people like you that contribute to the
problem, by deliberately distorting what religious rights
are.

I am sorry that you feel I am such a contributor to the problem because of
the statements I make of my views and the questions I ask.


---
Merlyn LeRoy


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists cause trouble over 11-million-dollar Christmas treeinAbuDhabi:)
    ... "Putting the Christmas tree... ... Shame on you, and every other person in the world, of any religion, ... true atheists are religious fundamentalists who can't see ... assumption that God exists, that God doesn't exist, and that whatever this ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Atheists cause trouble over 11-million-dollar Christmas treeinAbuDhabi:)
    ... "Putting the Christmas tree... ... Shame on you, and every other person in the world, of any religion, ... true atheists are religious fundamentalists who can't see ... assumption that God exists, that God doesn't exist, and that whatever this ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Znalezione w sieci - Ten myths about atheism
    ... Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods ... Myth -1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. ... Myth- 4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. ... And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. ...
    (soc.culture.polish)
  • Re: Atheists cause trouble over 11-million-dollar Christmas treeinAbuDhabi:)
    ... "Putting the Christmas tree... ... objections as coming from atheists: ... Shame on you, and every other person in the world, of any religion, ... assumption that God exists, that God doesn't exist, and that whatever this ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Religion divides us politically - text vers.
    ... serve God. ... and the government buildings to teach your religious beliefs even though you may not have had that original intention. ... The place for religion and the teaching of religion is in the home and in the Church, Synagogue, Mosque or Temple; ...
    (alt.politics)