On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 8 Post 80:

Like the 'Separation of church and state' canard that isn't in the Constitution?

My point was your use of "belief and State", where pretty much the rest of the known universe uses the term "Church and State". It is my contention your use of "belief" is an attempt to move the topic away from religious based "belief" and into "belief" in general.

I agree the Constitution does not implicitly state there should be a separation of Church and State. It is my contention it is implied. I agree that reasonable folks can disagree here, and thus we debate the issue.

Only atheist beliefs are allowed, huh?

Let's make a distinction here between "belief" that is verifiable, and "belief" that is not. Of course the a/theist "belief" can't be verified, so I contend we should base our laws on what can be verified through evidence, reason, and logic.

We essentially have an atheistic (no-God) educational system already, you should be thrilled.

You seem to be unaware of those many children who pray each and every day at school. No one is asking these children to not pray, only that the government doesn't legislate prayer into our schools.

Please note the tags to the left under my name. I'm an atheist, I have no god belief. I contend that we should base our laws and policies on the here and now, and not on what folks thought two hundred, or two thousand years ago.

Your opinion, and not part of the Consitution. The majority of Americans believe God IS part of the here and now.

And how can you prove this?

I agree it can be considered when one thinks of folks with religious belief acting accordingly, but such does not indicate the god is actually doing anything.

My point was to show that we should not, and tend to do not allow teaching the unprovable in our schools.

Does your opinion extend to the theory of evolution?

Yes. If the ToE were not verified I would contend it shouldn't be taught as fact.

I'm saying they can't be shown to work, are known to be divisive, and should have no place in an institution that is funded with public money. I further contend there is the potential, and proven historical abuse of religious zealots skirting around, or ignoring the laws in order to push their brand of the unprovable.
If we disallow prayer we disallow the con.

OK, again your opinion that I disagree with.

Yet you offer no verifiable evidence to show prayers work, or they are not divisive, or that any of my points here are inaccurate.

One of my biggest issues here is the fact that many (but not all) theists will use captive audiences to preach, and waste student's time.

That's a separate issue that has nothing to do with a voluntary, non-sectarian prayer.

Yet you have yet to show what constitutes a non-sectarian prayer. How can a prayer to a god that can't be shown to exist be non-sectarian, given that one 'sect' does not believe the god exists?

I can dig it. I object more to theists who try to game the system to support unprovable god theories.

You are good, now you know I gotta pray, if only to myself as I read it Smile

I still see a prayer.

So what?

So let's dance.
-Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack

So what? So what if we impose religious belief onto others? So what if it is divisive, as long as the preaching is allowed?

I've asked what separates a 'sectarian prayer' from a 'non-sectarian' prayer, given that both are praying to a god that can't be shown to exist.

Neither can the idea be shown that He doesn't exist.

LOL "Prove it ain't" is the weakest debate tactic, beyond ad hominen attacks I can think of.

I'm not proposing we should pray to an anti-god.

Are you unable to define the difference, or are you dodging the question?

The video I posted before is on this page:

http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/

My Firefox on Ubuntu system doesn't show a video on that page. I won't go through the site looking for a video that may or may not be the one you are referencing (but I still think I know which video you are referencing).

I do find the following quote on that page:

However, we urge you to actively oppose all "hate crimes" bills which allow federal prosecution for crimes based on "actual or perceived" sexual orientation.

I find it quite ironic a site called Fight Hate Crimes would discourage legislation that seeks to do just that.

>snip<

I'll rephrase it, I would prefer a child have a mother and father. The theoretical single parent doesn't care what I, or you, think about anything.

IMO that is much closer to sane. I took the "insist", in light of our "legal" debate to be a bit too strong.

[Artheos]

However, we urge you to actively oppose all "hate crimes" bills which allow federal prosecution for crimes based on "actual or perceived" sexual orientation.

I find it quite ironic a site called Fight Hate Crimes would discourage legislation that seeks to do just that.

Punishing someone additionally for a crime because of motivation beyond intent seems problematic.

Why should someone who kills their spouse because they were cheating on them get less of a sentence than someone who kills a person because they don't like an attribute about that person?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 9 Post 82:

I find it quite ironic a site called Fight Hate Crimes would discourage legislation that seeks to do just that.

Punishing someone additionally for a crime because of motivation beyond intent seems problematic.

I can agree. Here my point was these folks call themselves "fight hate crimes", yet a reasonable person can conclude it is quite "hateful" to go about preaching that homosexuals are less deserving of respect.

I don't consider "preaching hate" to be a crime per se, but I do think there is a legitimate concern when folks can be shown to have acted out according to what others have said some god "hates", or "condemns" or even considers "worthy of death".
I think it quite reasonable to be concerned when some (if only a few) preachers would "whip folks into a frenzy" over what some god considers "vile, disgusting" and any other emotionally charged language.

Why should someone who kills their spouse because they were cheating on them get less of a sentence than someone who kills a person because they don't like an attribute about that person?

I have not advocated for such.

[East of Eden]

My point was your use of "belief and State", where pretty much the rest of the known universe uses the term "Church and State". It is my contention your use of "belief" is an attempt to move the topic away from religious based "belief" and into "belief" in general.

Wrong, it's two different things. Nobody is asking for an official link between the Federal gov't. and a particular church or sect. My point is you erroneously make the jump from no state church to the idea demonstrations of belief are somehow unconstitutional.

I agree the Constitution does not implicitly state there should be a separation of Church and State. It is my contention it is implied. I agree that reasonable folks can disagree here, and thus we debate the issue.

Agreed.

Let's make a distinction here between "belief" that is verifiable, and "belief" that is not. Of course the a/theist "belief" can't be verified, so I contend we should base our laws on what can be verified through evidence, reason, and logic.

How do you reason youself to a certainty there is no God?

And how can you prove this?

That the majority of Americans believe in God?

I agree it can be considered when one thinks of folks with religious belief acting accordingly, but such does not indicate the god is actually doing anything.

We're again moving from the Constitution to your minority opinion.

Yes. If the ToE were not verified I would contend it shouldn't be taught as fact.

Why don't we not get sidetracked. I'm sure there are other places here to discuss evolution.

Yet you offer no verifiable evidence to show prayers work, or they are not divisive, or that any of my points here are inaccurate.

Here is scientific evidence prayer works: http://www.proofgodexists.org/scientifi ... _under.htm

Yet you have yet to show what constitutes a non-sectarian prayer. How can a prayer to a god that can't be shown to exist be non-sectarian, given that one 'sect' does not believe the god exists?

You're now saying atheism is a religion?

So what? So what if we impose religious belief onto others? So what if it is divisive, as long as the preaching is allowed?

How do you impose something on a population where 90% already believe in God? The imposition would be no prayer.

LOL "Prove it ain't" is the weakest debate tactic, beyond ad hominen attacks I can think of.

I'm not proposing we should pray to an anti-god.

Are you unable to define the difference, or are you dodging the question?

You are wanting to impose your minority, unproven opinion that God doesn't exist. You're not the only one that can ask for proof.

[East of Eden]

I can agree. Here my point was these folks call themselves "fight hate crimes", yet a reasonable person can conclude it is quite "hateful" to go about preaching that homosexuals are less deserving of respect.

I don't consider "preaching hate" to be a crime per se, but I do think there is a legitimate concern when folks can be shown to have acted out according to what others have said some god "hates", or "condemns" or even considers "worthy of death".
I think it quite reasonable to be concerned when some (if only a few) preachers would "whip folks into a frenzy" over what some god considers "vile, disgusting" and any other emotionally charged language.

I recently heard an appalling sermon by a fringe church that really was IMHO inciting violence against gays. You could made a case that should be prohibited, just as I would want to stop Imans who preach death to Jews and us infidels. The Philadelphia elderly black lady I brought up wasn't doing that, however.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 9 Post 84:

Wrong, it's two different things. Nobody is asking for an official link between the Federal gov't. and a particular church or sect. My point is you erroneously make the jump from no state church to the idea demonstrations of belief are somehow unconstitutional.

Demonstrations of belief are constitutional. What is not allowed, if only in my opinion, are government sanctioned displays. I offer my opinion as a reasonably and logically derived take on the issue. I do agree that East of Eden's position has validity, but consider it wrong, IMO.

As it is an issue of who's take is "correct", I contend a sanctioned prayer is wrong because it can't be shown to work, and is known to be divisive.

I agree the Constitution does not implicitly state there should be a separation of Church and State. It is my contention it is implied. I agree that reasonable folks can disagree here, and thus we debate the issue.

Agreed.

'Preciate it. As I said before, I can only argue your position is wrong based on my opinion, and I agree you have a legitimate case.

Let's make a distinction here between "belief" that is verifiable, and "belief" that is not. Of course the a/theist "belief" can't be verified, so I contend we should base our laws on what can be verified through evidence, reason, and logic.

How do you reason youself to a certainty there is no God?

I don't, that's why I said in that post that we shouldn't sanction prayers to "anti-gods".

And how can you prove this?

That the majority of Americans believe in God?

Since this is twice now the full context has been left out, let's go back to what got us here:

From Page 8 Post 81, referencing Page 8 Post 80

Please note the tags to the left under my name. I'm an atheist, I have no god belief. I contend that we should base our laws and policies on the here and now, and not on what folks thought two hundred, or two thousand years ago.

Your opinion, and not part of the Consitution. The majority of Americans believe God IS part of the here and now.

So I asked then:

And how can you prove this?

I agree it can be considered when one thinks of folks with religious belief acting accordingly, but such does not indicate the god is actually doing anything.

Are you going to stick with your argumentum ad populum, or are you willing to offer evidence a god is actually doing anything in the here and now?

Back to Page 8 Post 84:

>snip the evolution issue<

Here is scientific evidence prayer works: http://www.proofgodexists.org/scientifi ... _under.htm

A place called "proof god exists" is offering evidence that prayer works? I gotta see this...

First, there is no link to the actual research, only claims made regarding it.

Second, best I can tell this was not peer-reviewed research. (the site doesn't say and without the actual paper we can't know)

Third, from that page:

Not all experiments were done double blind...
Ninety percent of the praying children survived an average of fourteen months. Only thirty-seven percent of the nonpraying children lived that long. Notice that this study does not prove that prayer CURES terminal leukemia. It only prolonged the children's lives. It did not necessarily heal them. Also note that the praying children at were very much aware that faith was being used to help them. We cannot rule out the psychosomatic effect here...
Similar successes have been achieved when adults with terminal cancer were simply given psychological counseling during their fight for life. The counseled group lived longer than the noncounseled group This study does show that prayer is good for one's mental health and that improved mental health can prolong life.

At best it shows prayer offers a psychosomatic 'boost' that can't be attributed to a god or gods.

Yet you have yet to show what constitutes a non-sectarian prayer. How can a prayer to a god that can't be shown to exist be non-sectarian, given that one 'sect' does not believe the god exists?

You're now saying atheism is a religion?

Is there no tactic you won't employ to avoid this question?

What is a "non-sectarian" prayer? How is it not a religious act?

How do you impose something on a population where 90% already believe in God? The imposition would be no prayer.

No one is saying folks can't pray.

Let me repeat that

No one is saying folks can't pray.

What I am saying is prayer should not be mandated, sanctioned, or otherwise performed by government officials in a school setting.

LOL "Prove it ain't" is the weakest debate tactic, beyond ad hominen attacks I can think of.

I'm not proposing we should pray to an anti-god.

Are you unable to define the difference, or are you dodging the question?

You are wanting to impose your minority, unproven opinion that God doesn't exist. You're not the only one that can ask for proof.

Please link to and quote verbatim, and in full context where I have made such a claim.

Again, since context seems to be edited out or misunderstood, let's go back and see how we got here:

From Page 8 Post 81, referencing Page 8 Post 80:

I've asked what separates a 'sectarian prayer' from a 'non-sectarian' prayer, given that both are praying to a god that can't be shown to exist.

Neither can the idea be shown that He doesn't exist.

LOL "Prove it ain't" is the weakest debate tactic, beyond ad hominen attacks I can think of.

I'm not proposing we should pray to an anti-god.

Are you unable to define the difference, or are you dodging the question?

How many times are you going to dodge the question of what constitutes a 'non-sectarian' prayer?
---------------------------------------------

From Page 80 Post 85:

I recently heard an appalling sermon by a fringe church that really was IMHO inciting violence against gays. You could made a case that should be prohibited, just as I would want to stop Imans who preach death to Jews and us infidels.

I point out that I don't see East of Eden advocating for "hate" or "harm" or in any other way but as a theist who seeks to align the law to his religious beliefs, a not nefarious notion in and of itself.

The Philadelphia elderly black lady I brought up wasn't doing that, however.

Again, lacking proper references I can only consider this based on hearsay. As such, I will withhold comments until the claim can be verified.

I ask again for a reference link that is specific to this woman, and her case. The previous link did not include the referenced video, at least not for my system, which works on nigh on all other websites.

[Artheos]

From Page 9 Post 82:

I find it quite ironic a site called Fight Hate Crimes would discourage legislation that seeks to do just that.

Punishing someone additionally for a crime because of motivation beyond intent seems problematic.

I can agree. Here my point was these folks call themselves "fight hate crimes", yet a reasonable person can conclude it is quite "hateful" to go about preaching that homosexuals are less deserving of respect.

I don't consider "preaching hate" to be a crime per se, but I do think there is a legitimate concern when folks can be shown to have acted out according to what others have said some god "hates", or "condemns" or even considers "worthy of death".
I think it quite reasonable to be concerned when some (if only a few) preachers would "whip folks into a frenzy" over what some god considers "vile, disgusting" and any other emotionally charged language.

Why should someone who kills their spouse because they were cheating on them get less of a sentence than someone who kills a person because they don't like an attribute about that person?

I have not advocated for such.

I didn't indicate or think you were.

The legislation itself is a crime if you think it through, especially in light of the First Amendment. Effectively, it's saying that speech or thought that is not agreed with can garner additional punishment beyond any given crime itself.

I think it is fair to say that if the First Amendment only protects speech that we all favor, it's meaningless.

[MagusYanam]

The First Amendment is not, and never has been, a complete absolute. Intimidation, perjury, libel and slander are not acceptable speech; the community and the law have always had the prerogative to defend themselves against threats, disruption and social disorder.

As regards hate-crimes, the benefit to extra legislation to punish hate crimes that I can see is that it is an expression of the conviction that the rule of law has to protect marginalised groups from systematic abuse and alienation. I think there is a definite qualitative difference between a Nazi killing a Jewish lawyer out of hatred and a client killing that same lawyer over a personal quarrel. The first is an assault on the liberal norms of the society as well as on the group security of Jews as a religion and as an ethnic community. The second is definitely wrong and a crime, but it is only an assault on the society as a whole to that personal extent. (Since we do make distinctions between first-degree, second-degree and third-degree murder based on intent and motivation, I don't see how intent can't have a role to play in the law in this regard.)

If nothing else, the aim of hate-crimes legislation would be to provide a stigma against crimes carried out under such motivations.

[JoeyKnothead]

Why should someone who kills their spouse because they were cheating on them get less of a sentence than someone who kills a person because they don't like an attribute about that person?

I have not advocated for such.

I didn't indicate or think you were.

The legislation itself is a crime if you think it through, especially in light of the First Amendment. Effectively, it's saying that speech or thought that is not agreed with can garner additional punishment beyond any given crime itself.

I think it is fair to say that if the First Amendment only protects speech that we all favor, it's meaningless.

What I meant was that I have not to this point advocated for hate crimes legislation, but pointed out the irony in a group calling itself "stop hate crimes" seeking to block legislation that seeks to do just that.

I do contend however that speech that incites folks to violence should be considered a crime.

"People 'X' are worthy of death" is to me no different than saying "Kill people 'X'". I make no distinction between a god saying it and a human saying it.

[Artheos]

The First Amendment is not, and never has been, a complete absolute. Intimidation, perjury, libel and slander are not acceptable speech; the community and the law have always had the prerogative to defend themselves against threats, disruption and social disorder.

As regards hate-crimes, the benefit to extra legislation to punish hate crimes that I can see is that it is an expression of the conviction that the rule of law has to protect marginalised groups from systematic abuse and alienation. I think there is a definite qualitative difference between a Nazi killing a Jewish lawyer out of hatred and a client killing that same lawyer over a personal quarrel. The first is an assault on the liberal norms of the society as well as on the group security of Jews as a religion and as an ethnic community. The second is definitely wrong and a crime, but it is only an assault on the society as a whole to that personal extent. (Since we do make distinctions between first-degree, second-degree and third-degree murder based on intent and motivation, I don't see how intent can't have a role to play in the law in this regard.)

If nothing else, the aim of hate-crimes legislation would be to provide a stigma against crimes carried out under such motivations.

I believe the degrees of murder in current law have to do with intent related to harm, not motive beyond establishing that they did commit the crime. In other words, degrees measure things like premeditation, unplanned intent and in some cases intent to do something illegal other than kill resulting in death. Manslaughter is typically around no intent to do anything illegal resulting in death.

I disagree with the idea that there is a difference in crime based on thought. I feel that intentional harm to kill another person with premeditation should always receive the same amount of punishment regardless of why the criminal engaged in the act. Same with the other degrees.

I do contend however that speech that incites folks to violence should be considered a crime.

I somewhat agree, but only in the sense that it is a direct call to action. E.g. go kill this person, or this kind of people. In this case, I can imagine a more severe punishment based on the number of people affected, not the particular attributes of those people.