How far should the US take separation of Church and State?

[syntax252]

anti? read his name: atinymonkey.

a. tiny. monkey.

 

You are right. I was misreading it. I will edit my post.

[syntax252]

Ad hominem doesn't have to attack me directly, all it has to do is label your opponent's view as one coming from the "most fanatical of religious zealots". That's a personal attack, thus ad hominem[/i'].

 

Well I think you are wrong about that. An attack of one's views is what a debate is all about. As long as one attacks another's point of view it is not ad hom, because it does not satisfy the "hominem" part of the ad hom label. From merriam Webster:

 

Main Entry: [1]ad ho·mi·nem

Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m

Function: adjective

Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person

Date: 1598

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

 

So, you can see that an ad hom is an attack on the person and not the person's position.

 

What you're doing now, what you do with your cutesy smileys, what you do in almost every post you make, THAT'S red herring. You attempt to divert attention from the valid points your opponents make and keep harping, ad nauseum, on points he never brought up.

 

And who are you to determine who's points are "valid" and who's are not? Could one not argue that what you accuse me of doing is precisely what you are doing?

 

I like the Pledge without the reference to God. I believe in God. I believe in separation between Church and State.

 

Well, I don't like it without "under God", so why is your preferrence more important than mine?

 

You've said you're thankful we don't live in a country ruled over by religious factions. You've said lines must be drawn far sooner than other people might draw the line. How do you think religious states start? They don't pop-up overnight. They start with the inclusions of little bits of religion where they don't belong, like in secular schools. They start with indoctrination of children, whose minds are more malleable.

 

They start here, now.

 

I said that I would draw the line on atheist fanatics far sooner than others might, not that the line must be drawn sooner.

 

We live in a secular society that has existed, and served us very nicely for some 230 odd years. it is only recently that atheist fanatics like Newdow and others have tried to use the courts to mold America into their view of what America should be. The fact that they are meeting with resistence should be of no surprise to anyone. As I have said many many times before in this thread, it is the job of the courts to judge whether the pledge--in it's current form--is unconstitutional.

 

So far, they have not, and it ain't.

[Newtonian]

Only the very most fanatical secularist would object to that and they should not be paid any more attention than is paid to the very most fanatical of religious zelots.

Firstly i think you misinterpreted syntax's post.The part of the post you picked him up on, was a statement reflecting his opinion that fanatical secular/religious should not be paid attention to.As such he didnt direct it at you personally.I cannot understand your thinking he did.

Ad hominem doesn't have to attack me directly,

I thought an ad hominem was a personal attack

eg

Syn " I believe we should say under god

Phi " Ha,you would your a gay priest"

Syn "what about the arguments i put forward,to support my position"

Phi "It doesnt count,like i said your a gay priest.

Anyway right up to post 215,I thought common sense had prevailed.Now its gone silly again so i wish you all well.

[Phi for All]

I thought an ad hominem was a personal attack

"That's what you think?! Only the most fanatic zealot would think that!"

 

Ad hominem, personal yet indirect.

[Cadmus]

it is only recently that atheist fanatics like Newdow and others have tried to use the courts to mold America into their view[/b'] of what America should be.

As you read about how the words under god were inserted into the pledge in the first place, do you consider that those who inserted a reference to god over the objection of those who did not want it to be religious fanatics?

 

Why do you conisder Newdow to be a fanatic for wishing to remove the forced exposure of his kid to the word god on a daily basis?

 

It is one thing for you to desire that his kid be forced to endure a religious reference in a public school on a daily basis, but for you to label him a fanatic for not agreeing with you is quite extreme, in my opinion.

[syntax252]

As you read about how the words under god were inserted into the pledge in the first place, do you consider that those who inserted a reference to god over the objection of those who did not want it to be religious fanatics?

 

Nooooooooo, because they were not asking anyone to engage in any prayer. All they were doing was pointing out that in America we consider a referrence to God to be one of out freedoms--unlike in communist countries.

 

 

Why do you conisder Newdow to be a fanatic for wishing to remove the forced exposure of his kid to the word god on a daily basis?

 

I consider him to be fanatic because only a fanatic would consider the issue to be important enough, even if he thought it was offensive, to take a case to the US Supreme Court, when at the same time, other religious referrences are rife in this country.

 

It is one thing for you to desire that his kid be forced to endure a religious reference in a public school on a daily basis, but for you to label him a fanatic for not agreeing with you is quite extreme, in my opinion.

 

The reason that it is of no consequence to be "forced" to "endure" a religious referrence in a public school, is because the USA is full of referrences to religion in our every day lives--as I pointed out about a page ago....

 

Do you think the good doctor would consider the Declaration of independence to be off-limits to school kids also? Or that "in God we trust" should be taken off our money? Or that churches should be somehow disgised as hardware stores so that these kids would not have to look at them?

 

Either the answer is "yes" or it is "no." In either case, it exposes him as a fanatic zelot.

[syntax252]

"That's what you think?! Only the most fanatic zealot would think that!"

 

Ad hominem' date=' personal yet indirect.[/quote']

 

Welllllllllllll, not quite.

 

Waht I really said was:

"

Only the very most fanatical secularist would object to that and they should not be paid any more attention than is paid to the very most fanatical of religious zelots."

 

If you are going to quote me, do try to be precise....

[Cadmus]

Nooooooooo, because they were not asking anyone to engage in any prayer. All they were doing was pointing out that in America we consider a referrence to God to be one of out freedoms--unlike in communist countries.

Here we are in disagreement. I do not think that the people who inserted these words in the pledge of allegiance, over the objections of those who did not want their kids to be subjected to such exposure on a daily basis, did so only to point out to those who desire not to expose their kids to the words under god on a daily basis that they are being forced so that they can recognize how free they are.

 

I consider him to be fanatic because only a fanatic would consider the issue to be important enough, even if he thought it was offensive, to take a case to the US Supreme Court, when at the same time, other religious referrences are rife in this country.

Children are subjected to such a formalized vocalized reference to god on a daily basis in a captive audience in these other religious references. Are you attacking him because he did not take all such references to the supreme court at the same time, but perhaps only choose what he considered to be the most egregious and immediate threat to the well-being of his child? For that, he is a fanatic?

 

The reason that it is of no consequence to be "forced" to "endure" a religious referrence in a public school, is because the USA is full of referrences to religion in our every day lives--as I pointed out about a page ago.

Are you suggesting that all religious references are equal in their potential threat to children, such that being pressured, even if only slightly in your opinion, to a daily vocalization of god is identical to prayers in the congress that the child is most likely not aware of?

 

Do you think the good doctor would consider the Declaration of independence to be off-limits to school kids also? Or that "in God we trust" should be taken off our money? Or that churches should be somehow disgised as hardware stores so that these kids would not have to look at them?

Many people in this country think that schools should not promote religious concepts. The law seems to agree. Are you suggesting that since money has a reference to god schools should have no expectation of expemption.

 

Either the answer is "yes" or it is "no." In either case, it exposes him as a fanatic zelot.

Wonderful argument. Either yes or no, with no option for qualifying your conditions, and either way you consider him a zealot. I think that you must recognize that some people do not consider this extremely fair-minded of you.

[syntax252]

Here we are in disagreement. I do not think that the people who inserted these words in the pledge of allegiance, over the objections of those who did not want their kids to be subjected to such exposure on a daily basis, did so only to point out to those who desire not to expose their kids to the words under god on a daily basis that they are being forced so that they can recognize how free they are.

 

Well do you have any case referrence data to back that up?

 

Children are subjected to such a formalized vocalized reference to god on a daily basis in a captive audience in these other religious references. Are you attacking him because he did not take all such references to the supreme court at the same time, but perhaps only choose what he considered to be the most egregious and immediate threat to the well-being of his child? For that, he is a fanatic?

 

No, as a matter of fact, I am not attacking him at all. Hell, I feel sorry for him. But it is apparent that he is transfixed on this one issue--is it not?

 

Are you suggesting that all religious references are equal in their potential threat to children, such that being pressured, even if only slightly in your opinion, to a daily vocalization of god is identical to prayers in the congress that the child is most likely not aware of?

 

Yes.

 

Many people in this country think that schools should not promote religious concepts. The law seems to agree. Are you suggesting that since money has a reference to god schools should have no expectation of expemption.

 

You will have to define "expemption" Merriam Webster didn't have a file on it.

 

Wonderful argument. Either yes or no, with no option for qualifying your conditions, and either way you consider him a zealot. I think that you must recognize that some people do not consider this extremely fair-minded of you.

 

Well then, go ahead and qualify an answer if you wish and I will take a look at it.

[Newtonian]

Cadmus,ezzmus anyother muss.

Religious reference have not,do not,could not ever be a potential threat TO CHILDREN.

The role of religion is to teach moral guidence.

I honestly think people here are being caught up in their own agenda.

What everyone is ignoring, is the fact that there is not a public outcry of religious indoctrination from our teenage society.Its the parents who are making a big issue out of this.

I ask you were ever you were born,has any poster here actually went home as a kid and said "oh by the way dad who is god"

Or more pertinent,I have never in all my life witnessed a child of two atheist parents.Coming to school and saying"my grandma is dead,but its ok she hasnt gone to the imaginary heaven.She is just going to get eaten by worms and end up fertiliser"

 

Please people have a sense of reality.

[Cadmus]

Religious reference have not,do not,could not ever be a potential threat TO CHILDREN.

How quaint.

 

What everyone is ignoring, is the fact that there is not a public outcry of religious indoctrination from our teenage society. Its the parents who are making a big issue out of this.

Are you suggesting that you believe that no child has ever complained about the phrase under god in the pledge?

[Tetrahedrite]

Cadmus' date='ezzmus anyother muss.

Religious reference have not,do not,could not ever be a potential threat TO CHILDREN.

The role of religion is to teach moral guidence.

[/quote']

Ha.....indoctrination is not the same as "teaching moral guidance". Teach "moral guidance" at home if you so wish, but leave the schools free from any type of religion. Schools are a place for logic.

[Phi for All]

Cadmus,ezzmus anyother muss.

This is completely unnecessary.

Religious reference have not,do not,could not ever be a potential threat TO CHILDREN.

Jim Jones, please read.

The role of religion is to teach moral guidence.

No objections. Keep it in church.

What everyone is ignoring, is the fact that there is not a public outcry of religious indoctrination from our teenage society.

Sorry, I'm not always thinking of you. I'm thinking of my six-year-old daughter.

Please people have a sense of reality.

Is it too much to ask that separation of Church and State be just that? Cadmus made an excellent point earlier. When the words were added in 1954, what real justification was there to mix Church and State? Weren't there outcries then? If the kids have the right to change it any way they want to when they say or don't say it, then why is it taught to them in first grade with the religious phrasing?

[Newtonian]

Cadmus as well as others have posted good issues,sorry for getting hot under the collar.

Phi pointing to Jonestown,heavens gate etc etc,is not relevent to the discussion.I could quite easily link to satanic cults,which had started out as a few atheists getting together.

Until we have mass demonstrations by our school children to remove these words from the pledge,i will consider it only hysterical ,bias claptrap from a tiny minority of anti-establishment goofies.

Which if the words were removed ,would probably argue for the actual pledge to be removed next,or we want the words back etc.

Everyone has a right to an opinion,however nobody has provided sufficient evidence thats its an infringment of human rights or harmfull to the mindset of children.In fact i think if schools gave a ballot im sure the children would prefer it the way it is.With a minority reflecting your own views(which is why its voluntary,and they dont have to say the word G)

I think to deny the rights of the significant many,just because a few misguided individuals dont like it.Is not a reason for reformation,do you not agree.

[Newtonian]

Ha.....indoctrination is not the same as "teaching moral guidance". Teach "moral guidance" at home if you so wish, but leave the schools free from any[/b'] type of religion. Schools are a place for logic.

Who told you schools are for logic.

School is an institution for the education of children,to instruct and impart knowledge and discipline in preparation for life,in the big bad world.It has nothing to do with logic

[atinymonkey]

I could quite easily link to satanic cults,which had started out as a few atheists getting together.

 

I'd be interested how you know so much about feudal Europe, it's rites and customs. Perhaps you could lead with the pagan introduction to Christianity and the resultant formation of such cults as Satanism in the more western areas of Europe. I'm very intrigued how you link atheism to a religious movement the core of which resides in the Catholic faith and pagen sprites.

 

Seriously, do tell.

[syntax252]

Cadmus as well as others have posted good issues' date='sorry for getting hot under the collar.

Phi pointing to Jonestown,heavens gate etc etc,is not relevent to the discussion.I could quite easily link to satanic cults,which had started out as a few atheists getting together.

Until we have mass demonstrations by our school children to remove these words from the pledge,i will consider it only hysterical ,bias claptrap from a tiny minority of anti-establishment goofies.

Which if the words were removed ,would probably argue for the actual pledge to be removed next,or we want the words back etc.

Everyone has a right to an opinion,however nobody has provided sufficient evidence thats its an infringment of human rights or harmfull to the mindset of children.In fact i think if schools gave a ballot im sure the children would prefer it the way it is.With a minority reflecting your own views(which is why its voluntary,and they dont have to say the word G)

I think to deny the rights of the significant many,just because a few misguided individuals dont like it.Is not a reason for reformation,do you not agree.[/quote']

 

 

Well I certainly agree, Newtonian and I would add this.......

 

As far as the constitutional issue is concerned, I think we can all agree that that at least, is a matter for the courts to decide and that we will all have to live with what they decide.

 

As to the "harm" caused to children by exposure to a couple of words in the pledge of allegience, I think that is absolute baloney, particularly in a world where all manner of violence, sexual perversion and corruption in governments are everyday events, paraded before children of all ages.

 

Who, except a fanatic zelot would take a court case to the SCOTUS to remove 2 words from the pledge, when at the same time there are many more harmful things assailing the minds of our children every day of the week?

 

This is a case of an Atheist fanatic, who is using his own child to further his warped idiological point of view.

 

If Newdow was concerned for the welfare of his daughter, does anyone here think that he would have created all this publicity, placing his daughter in the spotlight of public attention? How do we think the little girl is handling this attention? Do we think that she enjoys being "the girl who's father is suing the government to remove the word God from the pledge?" I don't think so.

 

I certainly wouldn't do that. Would anyone here do that to their child?

[Phi for All]

Cadmus as well as others have posted good issues,sorry for getting hot under the collar.

Passionate subject matter.

Phi pointing to Jonestown,heavens gate etc etc,is not relevent to the discussion.

Hey, you made a generalized statement about how religious references coudn't EVER be a threat to kids. It was wrong, admit it.

Everyone has a right to an opinion,however nobody has provided sufficient evidence thats its an infringment of human rights or harmfull to the mindset of children.

Red herrings again. I for one never said it was harmful or infringed on anyone's rights. I said it was a violation of the separation of Church and State because school is State and Sunday school is Church. The words should not have been added in 1954. The Pledge of Allegiance is strong enough without them. I can easily see why some people don't agree to pledging to God, which is implied in a pledge to a country under God. It's no more complicated than that, please don't add your claptrap. And you can skip the whole voluntary angle. It's taught to 6-year-olds who don't have much of a grasp on that concept.

I think to deny the rights of the significant many,just because a few misguided individuals dont like it.Is not a reason for reformation,do you not agree.

No, I do not. Are you now implying that Christians have a right to promote their religion in public schools because they are in the majority?

[syntax252]

Red herrings again. I for one never said it was harmful or infringed on anyone's rights. I said it was a violation of the separation of Church and State because school is State and Sunday school is Church. The words should not have been added in 1954.

 

Would you agree, or do you disagree that that is a decision for the Supreme Court?

[Phi for All]

Would you agree, or do you disagree that that is a decision for the Supreme Court?

Why didn't you ask that in the beginning, syntax252? We could have saved ourselves thirteen pages of your ObfuscaFest.

 

Those who can, do. Those who can't, debate it on Internet forums.

[syntax252]

Why didn't you ask that in the beginning' date=' syntax252? We could have saved ourselves thirteen pages of your ObfuscaFest.

 

Those who can, do. Those who can't, debate it on Internet forums.[/quote']

 

Well, I think I have brought that up several times during this "debate."

 

If you will go back over my posts, you will find that to be true, and that there have been no responses to it.

 

Edited to add:

 

In checking my posts, I found 4 that referred to the courts being the final arbitrators of the issue of the words "under God" in the pledge--posts 77-222--227--242.

 

Why didn't I bring it up before?

[Phi for All]

If you will go back over my posts, you will find that to be true, and that there have been no responses to it.

Since we are discussing a potential SCOTUS decision, I think everyone thought, "Duh, syntax, of course they have the final say, golly, we were just discussing it here in a thread called "How far should the US take separation of Church and State?"

 

We sure didn't mean the decision should be left up to us.

[syntax252]

Since we are discussing a potential SCOTUS decision' date=' I think everyone thought, "Duh, syntax, of course they have the final say, golly, we were just discussing it here in a thread called "How far should the US take separation of Church and State?"

 

We sure didn't mean the decision should be left up to us.[/quote']

 

So, you agree that you don't really know whether the words are unconstitutional or not? That you are just guessing about it?

[Phi for All]

So, you agree that you don't really know[/b'] whether the words are unconstitutional or not? That you are just guessing about it?

One more time, and that's it. I think having the words "under God" taught to school kids in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the separation of Church and State. Period.

 

Argue rights and constitutionality and majority rules with someone else.

[Sayonara]

And somewhere else.