 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/27/2002 4:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | OK. I didn't see anything posted up on the other threads. Leave it to me to put something up on this topic.
What do you people think about the court's ruling yesterday? Especially you Americans.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/27/2002 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm in the middle of moving into a new house here in Beirut. What ruling?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 6/27/2002 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 yesterday that the pledge of allegiance is an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the government.
First, as a believer in good ole original intent, I am highly skeptical of the use of the Establishment Clause to prohibit the phrase "under God." Furthermore, this isn't an issue of compulsion. Students haven't been compelled to say the pledge of allegiance since the mid-40s.
However, I am already cringing at the thought of what the Christian Coalition-types are going to do with this decision. Nothing makes me more nauseated than to hear them talk about the "downfall of society" by pointing to stuff like prayer in school and the two words "under God" being taken out of the pledge. If Christians put just half of their energy on this stuff into THEIR OWN LIVES AND FAMILIES, there might actually be some GENUINE moral renewal in this country. Can I get a witness. . .?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori."
Edited by - BJS on 06/27/2002 10:27:02 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/27/2002 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I should have posted what the ruling was. Sorry. Anyway...
Tom, what does "in the middle of moving into a new house" got to do it with it? In Beirut, even. You are American aren't you? You're dispicable. Just ignore the question and go back to doing what you're doing. 
Brett, Cool.  Hey, I'm a believer in original intent as well. Isn't that how we do Bible hermeneutics as well?
Brandon thinking to himself: "Brett must be a Bork groupie. Riiight on. "
Though I didn't know about the non-compulsion rule, I agree with you on what you said about the Religious Right. There is more going on that will contribute to the "down fall of society" than people not acknowledging God through mere lip service.
However, however my good lawyer friend, do you see any legitimate concerns that the Religious Right might have? If so, what do you think they are?
Is this an important ruling for churches and Christians and basically people of religious faith? If so, why? If not, why not?
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/27/2002 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom, what does "in the middle of moving into a new house" got to do it with it? In Beirut, even. You are American aren't you? You're dispicable. Just ignore the question and go back to doing what you're doing.
I did drive around Beirut with my American flag hanging out the window when the USA played Germany. Got some stares. Oh well! 
What would Andie Rooney say about the court ruling. I'll go with Andy. He's my kinda guy!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/27/2002 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I did drive around Beirut with my American flag hanging out the window when the USA played Germany. Got some stares. Oh well!
What would Andie Rooney say about the court ruling. I'll go with Andy. He's my kinda guy!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Oooo...now I am totally ignorant about Beirut. You mean you didn't get shot at?
Andy Rooney, eh? Now there's a conservative legal scholar! 
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 6/27/2002 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | | My 1/4 cent...
It's about time that took that out! Let's make sure the separation of church and state is complete. Now the atheists can swear allegiance to the good ole usa with a clear conscience, and the christians can also do the same not fearing that the usa will dirty the name of God.
Kudos to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals !!!
peace and love, don
"It's time to wipe the tears from our eyes time to stop questioning why, 'cos every clipped birds gonna fly the Healing has begun" T.S Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 6/27/2002 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
However, however my good lawyer friend, do you see any legitimate concerns that the Religious Right might have? If so, what do you think they are?
Is this an important ruling for churches and Christians and basically people of religious faith? If so, why? If not, why not?
I think it is absurd to suggest that a Christian should think this ruling matters at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's relationship with Jesus Christ. Nada. Zilch.
My concern regarding this ruling is purely legal. That is, it is yet another attempt by activist judges to turn their personal viewpoints into mandates of the United States Constitution. The more we allow judges, conservative or liberal, to do this, the more unilateral and undemocratic national decision-making becomes. This is an issue to be debated in a free market of ideas and subsequently resolved through democratic representation. No one person, or oligarchy of persons, should be able to use the authority of the United States Constitution to force his or her particular position on everyone else.
My pair of pennies,
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/27/2002 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Brett, when I asked the question of whether this ruling should matter to Christians, shirley I was not concerning myself with one's personal relationship with Christ. You are right.
And I think your thoughts on "run-away" judges is on target. For both sides, liberal and conservative. My concern though, is with religious liberty. Not for Christians, but for all. After all, the US and Canada are hardly "Christian nations." I don't know if anyone has noticed? But since the founding of both countries? It has become more pluralistic?
So. Do you see this as an infringement on religious liberty to some extent, even though no one is compelled to say it? And what about the atheist and his "right" not to say it or have his child not say it? Are their rights being infringed upon? How would we solve this dilemma where both sides could be happy? Or can it be solved?
Thanks for the replies so far you guys. Especially you Tom. Your response was really informative. Later...
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/27/2002 8:03:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/27/2002 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Don,
I don't think you have to worry about the USA dirting the name of God. Christians do a good enough job themselves. But you do bring up a good point. Separation of church and state.
What do you think the Founders meant by that? Do you think it meant a separation of all semblance of religious influence from the public sphere? Is that not privatizing religion? Is privatizing religion "No Religion at all" or is it, "Push it to the fringes of society? It is good for utilatarian purposes. It serves the state." Don't they do that in communistic countries?
Does the separation of church and state mean not creating a state church. Was this not the real reason why the Pilgrims fled to America? So one church wouldn't be the big guy on the block?
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/27/2002 8:01:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2002 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | The Senate Chaplain's comments were interesting. We can embrace a separation of "church" and "state"; but this nation does not separate God and government. (I might be switching a few words.) Point being, that this government/country is mindful of the winds and the rains, its limitedness, and the might of the almighty.
Along that note is this thought from today:
While I don't doubt the pious intent of those who inserted "under God" into the Pledge -- whatever year that happened -- and I can understand and begin to empathize with those who would want to limit the piety of the few from ruling the piety of the many (Constitutionally); yet, no matter what the intent was ... the REALITY is larger than the intent. I think. The reality is almost NEOLITHIC. "Under God" plays as an adjective to modify or define "one nation."
So, "One nation..." is really what that portion of the pledge is about. Any arguing, to have merit, must focus on that, and not on any surfacy individual words. A "nation under God" has the reality of being a nation that is either favored or buffeted (winds and rain) by the deity. Demonstrably the Pledge declares to the world that we are ONE NATION in all that happens to us -- for good or for ill. (We fought an un-Civil War about that!) We are NOT -- and we say so -- NOT a country of multiple gods. (AND THAT IS AN INTERESTING POINT WORTH PURSUING!) We are all Americans. We all become so. (The "United We Stand" bumper stickers in Spanish on the streets where I live demonstrate that.) What one part of this corpus does affects the other.
Think back to the early O.T. when the good and the bad were BOTH caused by God's "spirit" (small s). In Neolithic level theology the wind and word were somewhat distant from the solar-god. (Insulating the deity somewhat from scandal.) That is somewhat what is in the Pledge.
ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE...
To what end?
WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
So what does the Pledge say that we expect from the deity, then?
Doesn't say. Just declares and pledges what we are going to do (pledge alli-gence, as a republic as one nation...), and, with the addition, that what we do is INEVITABLY "under God."
And in that addition is the proclamation that WE COMMIT OURSELVES TO and we hope, hope that God will bless us in being LIBERAL IN JUSTICE, and JUST IN OUR LIBERTIES.
. . .
I hope that what I've said it true.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/27/2002 9:47:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/27/2002 7:30 PM (GMT -6) | | There are a couple of things to be said. First, that court is the most overturned one in the nation. All experts agree that it will be overturned, most likely before it reaches the Supreme Court. Second, when religion cannot even be brought up in schools it gives children the impression that religion is irrelevant to life, when the exact opposite is true. It should also be noted that the decision is only binding in the nine states that court is over.
We have become a nation ruled by any minority who doesn't like something. The Supreme Court has already ruled that children cannot be forced to say the Pledge, so what is the problem? The problem is that some atheist doesn't want his feelings hurt, regardless of what others want. And that is part of the problem with such rulings. It is ruling that doesn't want to offend.
Our founding fathers wanted to protect the rights of ALL to practice their religious beliefs (even those who don't believe they have them. Atheists are the most religious people in the world). But government is not done in a vacumn. People govern. And people are governed by their beliefs, both godly and ungodly. The expression of those beliefs should never be infringed upon, even if they are religious. Why, for instance, can't an atheist simply not say the words "under God" when it comes to that part? Because everybody has to have their way, regardless of what others believe? It is a sad society we live in.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/27/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Brett: it is more absurd that you would think that this decision wouldn't matter to Christians. Sure it does...to declare that the simple words "under God," these small words cannot be said in a public school speaks volumes about how the government views religion, regardless of what their intent is. Kids don't care about intent. They see religion being eliminated, they think it isn't worth the effort to follow. So yes, it has a lot to do with personal faith. Given the social nature of faith, most things do.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/27/2002 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Will we someday claim that the words "our Creator" in the Declaration of Independence are unconstitutional?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/28/2002 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Dad,
I think you misunderstand Brett. I understand him. Everybody else here does. Y'all do don't you? It must be you, Dad.
Brett said,
quote:
It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's relationship with Jesus Christ. Nada. Zilch.
He did not say, that it "doesn't matter" nor did he say the exact words"personal faith."
I'm assuming there are two separate distinct spheres here. The two spheres (public and private) are separated. Yet they do overlap and intersect with each other. Where they overlap is where it matters, where it has an affect on our personal faith, yet not necessarily our relationship with Christ. So one could say for i.e. that in a communist country where all semblance of religion is removed from the public square "one can still serve God." "One can still be a Christian." One can be a Christian under any system of government. They did so in Rome. Yet when a government becomes like Rome, "God-like", demanding allegiance to the nth degree where they move into the private and "take over," then it does affect our "relationship with Christ."
As a matter of fact there is much government encroachment into the private going on as we speak, yet I would assume your relationship to Christ is in tact Dad.
Look at it from this angle. Where a public area of life should either come under the private (and therefore religious) or where the private/religious is suppose to influence that most public area, then yes, it affects our faith. Yet it may not have an affect on our personal relationship to Christ.
PoW: I am hot on your tail as far as there being a separation of "church and state", and not "religion and state" or "religion and government" or "God and state." You are right on the money. It is ultimately impossible to separate religion from the public sphere. And government is one part of the public sphere. Everyone has a metaphysical worldview and everyone brings their view to bear on the public sphere, whether they like it or not. Yet having a state church or state religion, "Orthodox Christianity or Protestant Christianity and in particular the Pentecostal sect is the official religion of the state, etc, etc, etc" is clearly unconstitutional.
Now, I think you bring up some interesting thoughts that, "The Pledge of Allegiance" is really concerned with "one nation." That that is the focus of the Pledge. However, it is still being buffeted as you say, for good or for ill, by a deity. And isn't this precisely what offends the atheist or some religious sects that are atheistic?
Also, by "downplaying" God and placing the emphasis on "one nation" have you not by default, succumbed to the secularistic frame of mind or point of view? I am not accusing, I am asking. For i.e. the deity could be what we say is ultimate independent reality. For the atheist, that could be atoms and molecules, etc. So for the atheist, atoms and molecules are what buffet for good or ill. But this is what those of theistic religions will not have. And the atheistic ones will not have what the theistic ones will have. So I wonder if it solves the problem.
The reason I brought up this question in the first place is due in part because of the media. Why is it, whenever we hear a story on church state issues, the story is usually about religion being removed from the public sphere? I hardly ever hear of news stories where religion was brought back or allowed its due place in the public sector. Like it gives impression that religion has a very unimportant place in society (this is writerdad's complaint). Instead of being EXclusive, government should be inclusive of all religions. The question for me is how to make it so that all could be happy.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/28/2002 10:07:25 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 6/28/2002 5:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon wrote:quote:
So. Do you see this as an infringement on religious liberty to some extent, even though no one is compelled to say it? And what about the atheist and his "right" not to say it or have his child not say it? Are their rights being infringed upon? How would we solve this dilemma where both sides could be happy? Or can it be solved?
First, let me say that I didn't mean to suggest that YOU were being "absurd" in any way by asking whether "under God" should matter to Christians. After I re-read my post and some of the responses, I thought I might have come across the wrong way. So I hope you didn't take offense, bro. . .!
Anyway, as to your question about whether this is an infringement on religious liberty. The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to have our religious sentiments expressed by the government. What it does protect is our right to practice our personal religions freely. So, no, I don’t think this decision (as much as I disagree with it legally) is an infringement on religious liberty.
Writerdad wrote:quote:
Brett: it is more absurd that you would think that this decision wouldn't matter to Christians. Sure it does...to declare that the simple words "under God," these small words cannot be said in a public school speaks volumes about how the government views religion, regardless of what their intent is. Kids don't care about intent. They see religion being eliminated, they think it isn't worth the effort to follow. So yes, it has a lot to do with personal faith. Given the social nature of faith, most things do.
Sorry, writerdad, I really think it’s absurd to say that students will think God “isn’t worth the effort to follow” because the words under God aren’t in the Pledge of Allegiance. I guess students before 1954 (when the Eisenhower administration put these two extra words in) just didn’t have a chance?
A child’s desire to follow God is dependent upon far more important things that have nothing to do with the government (and frankly, SHOULDN’T have anything to do with government). As I said before, if Christians really want faith in Christ to flourish in this country (and elsewhere), they should be investing their energy into genuine spiritual transformation, not superficial two-word mantras.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/28/2002 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
First, let me say that I didn't mean to suggest that YOU were being "absurd" in any way by asking whether "under God" should matter to Christians. After I re-read my post and some of the responses, I thought I might have come across the wrong way. So I hope you didn't take offense, bro. . .!
Anyway, as to your question about whether this is an infringement on religious liberty. The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to have our religious sentiments expressed by the government. What it does protect is our right to practice our personal religions freely. So, no, I don’t think this decision (as much as I disagree with it legally) is an infringement on religious liberty.
Brett. Well, my feelings were a little  ...juuust joooshing ya!  I didn't take it that you thought that I was being absurb at all. You da man. I think I would agree with you if I understand you correctly (I am a little dry on these issues) when you say:
quote:
The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to have our religious sentiments expressed by the government.
For i.e., the government should not give me preferential treatment over others (nor them over me) as to guarantee me the right to practice the specifics (religious sentiments) of my Christian faith, say my belief in the resurrection, or my practice of communion or baptism, etc, in public or private for that matter. For i.e., mandatory praying a "Christian prayer" in public schools of all people.
But when you say: quote:
What it does protect is our right to practice our personal religions freely.
Isn't it infringing upon the practice of religion in the public square in this case? Would not "atheism as religion" or an atheistic worldview or a secularistic worldview by default be substituted in it's place?
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/1/2002 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | A couple of reflections.
1. I never knew this before, and I’m not sure its accurate, but I read in the paper yesterday that a) the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist in the 1890’s and b) that the "under God" clause was inserted in 1952 by under the influence of Einsenhower who, like Napolean, believed you can’t have enduring order without a belief in religion – though he said he didn’t particularly care which religion or "God" it was.
2. My own belief is that America has been from the start far more deistic in religion than Christian. As a whole, have a vague generally belief in God (94%) that has no discernable influence in our lives. I also believe this makes America one of the hardest places to be a missionary in, because everyone inherits a veneer of "Christianity" and confuses Chrsitianity with "decent patriotic living." America’s Christianity is pretty much on a par with the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 2nd to the 4th centuries: everyone publically acknowledged it, but no one really believed it – to the point where they’d practice it in private. They had a "ceremonial" public religion. I think we have a "ceremonial deism." And the myth that we are "one nation under God" is part of it.
3. I have a little concern with Christians pledging "their allegiance" to a particular nation in the first place. In the early church one pledged their allegiance to the Roman government by bowing their head before the statue of the emperor, and, on pain of death, the early Christians refused to do it. Few Roman citizens really believed the emperor was divine, but it was a "civic duty." Yet the early Christians thought it compromised their one allegiance to the kingdom of God to engage in this.
I’m not suggesting Christians shouldn't ever say the pledge of allegiance. I just think we should think about it. And I’m just suggesting that there may be something askewed with our thinking if we get bent out of shape about a court ruling that takes out a phrase in a creed we should have little vested interest in in the first place. Our singular "allegiance" must be to Jesus Christ.
4. The creed (it IS a profession of faith and allegiance) was required in schools, without the God clause, in the 40’s because of the war. But, even if we agree with our involvement in the second world war, do we want to pledge our allegiance to the US in ALL wars, on ALL causes? Why should we have a special allegiance to the nation we just happen to be born into, over and against all other nations? Are we not, as believers, to have an allegiance to Christ that requires us to be GLOBAL in our love for humanity?
5. I'm with BJS in his worry that the religious right will further damage the cause of authentic Christianity in our country by using this ruling as a battle cry to get Christians to work the political process to "take our nation back to God." I wonder, at what point was America "to God?" Was that before we deceived and then massacred the Native Americans or before we kidnapped millions of Africans and put them into slavery? Were we "to God" when our constitution declared blacks were 3/5ths human? Was that before or after we had as a nation less than half the church attendance rate we have today (early 1800's)?
I say we give up this "once upon a time" myth, recognize that our country has never been "under God," and start living like outrageously loving missionaries who offer people something more than 'civic deistic religion.'
Just thinking out loud.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 7/1/2002 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Well said Doc.
Not only was the guy who wrote the pledge a socialist, but according to this website www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm he was a Christian socialist. But remember this is info from the net and you never can be sure if its very accurate or not, after all any bozo can post anything on the net (can i get an AMEN!)
I wonder what the guy who wrote the pledge would make of all this?
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/2/2002 4:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg said:
quote:
I’m not suggesting Christians shouldn't ever say the pledge of allegiance. I just think we should think about it. And I’m just suggesting that there may be something askewed with our thinking if we get bent out of shape about a court ruling that takes out a phrase in a creed we should have little vested interest in in the first place. Our singular "allegiance" must be to Jesus Christ.
Nice political statements Greg.
Shirley, Americans should not be bent out of shape about a court that takes a phrase out of a creed. But what Christians in the US ought to be concerned about is what it possibly represents. And that is the removal of all semblance of formal religion from the public square and becoming thoroughly secularistic.
I know I may sound somewhat like a fundamentalist when I say that, but I assure you, I am not. My influences have been Francis Schaeffer, John Neuhaus, Richard Niehbur (sp), Mark Noll.
At the founding of the US there were many influences including Christianity. But religion and Christianity in particular were still a major influence. And because of this, people had a general consensus about morality, etc. Religion was good for civility. According to Schaeffer, those countries that had the influence of Christianity had the most freedom and prosperity. They were far from perfect, (according to both their own and our own historical contexts)but it is hard to deny the influence of Christianity.
My concern though is not necessarily with missions, but with the removal of all semblance of religion from the public square, to be replace by something else as thoroughly religious but secularistic in nature. I would still rather have the freedom that the US has than to have what they've had in Russia for the last 80 or so years. And that is freedom to practice my religion without governmental interference.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden
Edited by - BBBCanada on 07/02/2002 09:04:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/2/2002 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1. I never knew this before, and I’m not sure its accurate, but I read in the paper yesterday that a) the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist in the 1890’s and b) that the "under God" clause was inserted in 1952 by under the influence of Einsenhower who, like Napolean, believed you can’t have enduring order without a belief in religion – though he said he didn’t particularly care which religion or "God" it was.
Thought about this after I posted. The highlighted part. Isn't that a guilt by association argument? I mean, who cares? Who cares if the man was a socialist or not? As far as not having enduring order without belief in religion, I think there may be some truth to that. Schaeffer likes to call it "freedom without form." In other words, morality draws limits on one's freedom to do as he/she pleases. Religion is basic to that formation of morality and value system. Laws are based on morality. Laws provide order. Therefore, religion is basic to the ordering of society. I think the reason the specific religion was not important, say Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Catholic, Protestant, etc, is because all of these have the same basic morality that can be applied across the board.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 7/2/2002 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Isn't that a guilt by association argument? I mean, who cares? Who cares if the man was a socialist or not?
I don’t see how Doc faulted him for being a socialist. I think you’re reading that into Doc’s words. Where does he ever say that being a socialist makes someone guilty? Where does Doc ever count that against someone? In fact, Doc’s statement was simply indicative, it made no evaluative comments at all.
So why did Doc include this? Well we’ll have to ask him to be sure, but I’ve got an idea. Even if it’s not why Doc included it what I’m about to say is still valid I think.
What is amercian, I mean really truly american? What would appear on a list of what is quintessentially american?
Well we could make a long list of things like apple pie, baseball, freedom of speech, bald eagles, old glory, hot dogs, uncle sam, capitalism, the pledge of allegiance…we could go on like this for awhile. (Not to mention oil addictions, bombing Afghanistan weddings just for kicks, testing nerve gas on its own troops, finding loop holes so that you can deny POW’s rights by renaming them etc etc, oh but wait, we aren’t supposed to mention that because mentioning that part of america is unamerican)
But on our whitewashed list of american attributes you probably would not find socialism. In fact socialism might appear on a list of what is quintessentially unamerican along with flag burning, cuban cigars, (and mentioning all those things you’re not supposed to mention).
The point is that to find socialism at the source of the pledge is unexpected. The pledge is one of the things that americans use to define themselves, and when they use it they think they know what their identity is. But the fact that the pledge was generated by socialist politics undermines who we are trying to convince ourselves we are.
You see I think americans, especially now, are trying to convince themselves about themselves. We’ve told ourselves what the pledge is supposed to be and it helps us tell ourselves what we are supposed to be. But it turns out that the truth is that at the root of the pledge is something we are not supposed to be. Whatever the author of the pledge meant when he penned those words it has been redefined by how americans have used it to shape themselves.
Its like an anti-Semitic Christian who, in his attempt to convince himself about himself, has to suppress the fact that Jesus was a Jew. But as it turns out suppressions of this sort are not that hard to maintain, just look at the pledge. I’m not sure, but that’s something like what Doc was getting at when he pointed out that this guy was a socialist.
Jeanette Winterson says that “all day long, in countless different ways, we convince ourselves about ourselves.” Learning that this guy was a socialist might give us pause because it objects to the america that we think we are. We difine our identites with positive statements (I am this) and negative satements (I am not this) and the history of the pledge puts our identity into question because it mingles both elements in how we've been raised (or some might say brainwashed) to see ourselves. We identify with the pledge's ideals and differnentiate ourselves from socialist ideals. Yet who are we when the plege's ideals and socialist's ideals are identical?
quote:
As far as not having enduring order without belief in religion, I think there may be some truth to that. Schaeffer likes to call it "freedom without form." In other words, morality draws limits on one's freedom to do as he/she pleases.
Well I think Schaeffer is off his rocker in several areas, and how morality works is one of them. Look at the general theory of morality functioning here. First of all, historically to the extent which this view of morality has been enforced it has resulted in the justification of the greatest acts of immorality. Secondly, its just plan bad. That’s right, bad as in not good. Morality is organic not forced.
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown
Edited by - Seymour on 07/02/2002 9:38:41 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 7/2/2002 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Shirley, Americans should not be bent out of shape about a court that takes a phrase out of a creed. But what Christians in the US ought to be concerned about is what it possibly represents. And that is the removal of all semblance of formal religion from the public square and becoming thoroughly secularistic.
Okay you raise a fair point here. But this point raises, for me at least, a series of questions.
First, churches are public places, and nothing in this ruling interfears with churches continuing in their formal religion. To what degree is the church called to act publicly outside of its own public nature?
Second, if the church is called to act in other pubic spheres how should it go about doing it?
Third, and here is what I'm most interested in, how does what this possibliy represents relate to the reality of christians in the public? I'd have to agree with the person who said that in today's culture the map has become more real than the territory it represents. From what I see the people who are raising a fuss over the pledge are waging the battle on the wrong level. Those who are concerned with what this might represent want to exert their own infulence on this representation. If they can get "under God" back in the pledge it will represent a return to christian influence. If they can get prayer in school this will represent christian influence even more. But their fighting on the level of the map, and the reality of what the map represents isn't being changed. You can argue all you want over whether or not to put a volcano on the map inbetween st. paul and minneapolis, but whether you do or not isn't going to change the fact that there is no volcano in the terrain. Now i'm not even concerned with getting footsolgiers out there to really make a difference. I just think, and i'm gradually getting more solidified in this opinion, that christianity is NOTHING except an image among other images. Everyone is just doing what they are doing so that they won't be alone, (now pause here, this is profound damn it, or important or something, they don't want to be alone so they cast images, uhuh) so that they won't be abandoned, so that they will be congradualted. For somepeople that image is very different from the christian one, but for christians if you say certian things everyone will praise you. we're just casting an image of how we want to see ourselves. i was watching an interview with a televangelist and his wife to try to stay awake the other night and somebody asked the televagelist's wife how she would like people to remember her after she died. and i'm not picking on televangelists, i have no doubt she was as sincere as the rest of us she just happened to be a televangelist's wife. anyway she asnwered something like this, "I want people to say that she loved the lord above all else and that she loved her husband and her family." its an image, and its impossible to excape it. and if you say what happens to be true that doesn't fit the image of praise, well then you get blasted and punished--who cares if its the truth--and they punish them by leaving them alone, but all you have to do is find a different crowd where what the christian image damns the others praise. but you look at how people spend so much time and engergy making sure that the happinings that go on represent the right thing, that the pledge is said and we pray in school, and its just more convincing of ourselves about ourselves, and its impossible to do anythng else.
i'm really tired, and i know this is really poorly written and sappy too and its the kind of stuff that when i read someone else whose written it i hate them for it but its all because i'm tired i sware. but im tring to stay awake for a few more hours so i'm going to see if there's another televagelist on tv.
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown
Edited by - Seymour on 07/02/2002 10:11:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/3/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon wrote:quote:
As far as not having enduring order without belief in religion, I think there may be some truth to that. Schaeffer likes to call it "freedom without form." In other words, morality draws limits on one's freedom to do as he/she pleases. Religion is basic to that formation of morality and value system. Laws are based on morality. Laws provide order. Therefore, religion is basic to the ordering of society. I think the reason the specific religion was not important, say Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Catholic, Protestant, etc, is because all of these have the same basic morality that can be applied across the board.
I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with the notion that persons who believe in a higher power to which they are ultimately accountable tend to be better behaved and more orderly citizens. In that regard, it is true what Schaeffer says. However, that really has nothing to do with whether the government itself should be espousing certain religious positions. We do not need the government to express our God-fearing sentiments in this country in order to be God-fearing. In fact, as others have argued, having the government significantly involved in expressing our faith may actually have a chilling effect on authentic God-man relationship because it allows Americans to "feel" Christian merely because they live here and the lingo is thrown around so freely by the state.
Now please understand me here. I can agree with you that the trend of state secularization that we have seen in the past 40 years may indeed be a symptom of a substantive movement away from God in America. If that is your only point, good. However, if this substantive problem exists, we as Christians should not be investing so much of our energy and spiritual capital into symptomatic relief, i.e., raising countless millions of dollars to fight tooth and nail for the preservation of an incredibly watered-down, completely non-sectarian, overtly blase prayer in school; the preservation of a superficial, two-word mantra in the pledge of allegiance; the posting of the Ten Commandments in the local city hall; etc., etc., etc.
Rather, we should be working for legitimate, authentic spiritual renewal in this country, beginning with (1) ourSELVES, (2) our own families, (3) those we can love and care for through the ministries that we can involve ourselves in.
The problem is, working for this kind of legitimate renewal is much more difficult and challenging than the more popular "symptomatic relief" efforts. With the latter, Christians make themselves feel engaged in the cause of Christ by merely ranting about the pledge of allegiance or prayer in school. Unfortunately, this distracts us from the real, much more difficult spiritual needs that exist.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/3/2002 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | | In ancient religion--like Egypt--some of the minor deities had names like "truth" and "justice." Against THAT kind of historical backdrop (like Doc mentioning that America has in some/many ways a deistic heritage) s statement like "One nation UNDER GOD" can simply but forcefully mean that we are all under the same divine laws. THAT is important. Even in the statue, "Justice" is blind to the particular identity of individual. (CEOs watch out!) Without the "under God" the part about "one nation" goes up on the auction block. | | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:51 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|