The Pledge Hits Home
I consider myself lucky to have one of the most intelligent groups of readers in the atheist blogosphere. So, I’m turning to you all with a little problem. I want your input and your suggestions.
My wife just became a preschool teacher at a public charter school at the beginning of this school year. She was told to say the Pledge of Allegiance each morning, but she believes it to be unconstitutional (duh). Rather than start a confrontation, she just excluded the Pledge from her classroom. I think she made the right decision. There’s no reason to stir things up unless pressed.
Everything was just fine until her boss came in to observe her class. During the subsequent meeting, she told my wife to start saying the Pledge. We were just discussing how she should handle this. The only thing we agree on is that the words “under god” will not pass her lips under any circumstances.
Her original idea was to simply leave out the offending pair of words. These are very young children who have never learned the Pledge before, so they won’t know the difference. I pointed out that this approach is a time bomb. One of the kids will go home and say “Mommy, I learned the Pledge of Allegiance.” When the child recites the altered Pledge, an angry phone call to the school will soon follow. When they speak to my wife about it, and she refuses to use the revised Eisenhower version, she will probably be fired. At that point, we have no choice but to call the ACLU, and there will be reporters in my driveway within 24 hours.
I suggested that she speak to her boss right away and tell her that she’s not going to include the prayer clause. By the way, my wife is not “out” as an atheist at the school as of yet (though she did say before being hired that she’s “not religious”), and all of her coworkers are monotheists. My guess is that she’ll be told to skip the Pledge entirely or that she’ll be fired on the spot. If the former, problem solved (though this is unlikely since the curriculum they use requires the Pledge). If the latter, however, we have no evidence as to why she was fired, and we have no case.
So, what do you think we should do here? I know some of you will say that we should become the next Michael Newdow and take the atheist cause to the Supreme Court. I would really rather avoid that option. So, barring anything that will get our pictures in the paper, how should we handle this?
~I AM~
October 12th, 2006 at at 8:49 pm
I never attended a preschool, so I’m not quite sure how they function academically. If there is any form of homework involved, she could ask her students to ask their parents what the Pledge is. Subsequently, she could have a different student each day lead the class in recitation of the aforementioned mindless oath of faith.
October 12th, 2006 at at 9:18 pm
I second the idea of having a student lead the class every day. Of course in order to do that, they need to learn it in the first place. Can preschoolers read yet?
I think your wife may have to compromise her values in order to avoid dealing with the consequences. It is unfortunate, but I don’t know if standing up for yourselves is worth it in this case.
One could argue that not standing up for yourselves on the small issues is what lets these problems continue… but if you do you will take a hit.
I think you should include “Under God” but then add “subversive” material to the curriculum in other areas. Maybe Darwin can balance out Eisenhower?
October 12th, 2006 at at 9:25 pm
Hi I AM!
I just addressed the Pledge on my new blog as well.
My son started kindergarten last month and I told the teacher privately that when it is my son’s turn to lead the class in reciting the Pledge, he will skip the words “under God”.
Of course, your wife’s dilemma is much more serious, she being the teacher. Unfortunately, the best option for her, in my opinion, is to simply teach the Pledge as it currently is. Once the kids have it memorized, she can have a different student lead the class each day. That way, she can get around having to say it personally. Even better, she can make memorizing the Pledge a homework assignment the kids can do with their parents so that they get up to speed even faster.
As I argued on my blog, there are some battles worth fighting and some that are not. I assume your wife needs the job to help pay the bills, and if she were fired, not only will it hurt your cash flow, your wife would be unlikely to begin a new teaching job until next September, unless she can find work as a sub.
BTW, both my son and daughter were taught the Pledge in preschool at the day care center they attended, and which my daughter still attends.
From an atheist perspective, I know my advice is probably not what you are hoping to hear. But at the same time, I don’t feel I have the right to encourage you to take legal action so I can vicariously benefit from a struggle you and your wife would have to fight.
Best wishes to you and your wife in whatever decision you make in this matter. Do what you believe is best for the both of you.
October 12th, 2006 at at 9:26 pm
Oops, I should have read Seth’s message first!
October 12th, 2006 at at 9:37 pm
Although not entirely the same situation my family faced a similar problem earlier this year.
On my son’s first day of first grade he returned home with a colorful yellow flyer entitled First Grade News. It was mostly a standard welcome letter, enthusiastically describing the general curriculum, required school supplies and acceptable snacks. In the midst of this however, the following paragraph loomed:
**Our class will say the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. If you do not wish your child to participate in this, please send me a brief note. He/she can stand quietly during this time.**
Here’s my “brief note”:
———-
Dear Mrs. Singerman,
This note is regarding your First Grade News flyer sent home with Liam yesterday, specifically the paragraph regarding the Pledge of Allegiance.
I was very surprised to see that the students will have a daily recitation of the Pledge. As someone who attended Shaker schools from kindergarten through twelfth grade, I do not recall ever having such a requirement.
As non-believers, the problem our family faces is not that our son is forced to recite the Pledge. The problem is that due to our core beliefs he is *prevented* from reciting it.
Clearly the language in the Pledge speaks to the majority, however it is exclusionary to those members of other religious communities or none at all, and as such effectively bars those outside the “Judeo-Christian” tradition from pledging allegiance to their country. From this, the value of their citizenship, whether as Americans or simply of the classroom, is degraded. The Pledge therefore defines them as outside of the community, as people who cannot express their patriotism without violating their most profound beliefs.
Although a student’s option to “stand quietly during this time” certainly appears reasonable on the surface, I would ask you to please step back and consider this exclusion in light of the core American principles on which the Pledge is constructed. If we are truly to be “one nation, indivisible,” we must carefully consider the impact of our edicts on minorities. To do otherwise creates a religious requirement for loyalty and tells non-believers that they cannot be fully American.
Our history is one of broadening the definitions of Americanism and historically the Shaker Heights School System has been a pioneer in matters of integration and inclusion. I’m sure you can see how our ongoing commitment to these principles is tested when we are dismissive of students who, though not like ourselves, share in the American experience.
———-
The result? My son’s teacher asked me to come in to discuss the situation and she was very understanding. We agreed that an alternative act of patriotism would be appropriately inclusive of all the kids and now each morning they participate in a completely non-religious “Flag Ceremony” and everyone’s happy.
Sometimes we atheist types expect the worst (understandably). My advice to you is to be open and honest and see what happens. You might be surprised at the results. I was.
October 12th, 2006 at at 11:10 pm
Teach both. First the real one, then some history, then the evil one, and last, why it is not nice for the majority to bully any minority. Just a thought. How does one communicate with this age group about anything?
October 12th, 2006 at at 11:16 pm
If she works in a school where the requirement of that school is that the children learn the pledge, she has no option but to fulfill that part of the contract, unless she decides to speak to the principal and explain that she sees it as unconstitutional; or she can decide to go ahead with the pledge and work actively outside her work environment to have the “pledge requirement” changed.
October 13th, 2006 at at 5:23 am
I second this suggestion. I don’t think preschoolers are going to get the “Under God” bit of the pledge, but your wife might sow the seeds of skepticism. This could have a far bigger impact than refusing to recite the pledge.
If the children’s parents get wind of the issue over the pledge, you can be sure they’ll try even harder to beat religion into their kids. Your wife can advance her own values better with a quieter, less openly confrontational approach.
When I was a kid, I went to a kindergarten where the teacher one day taught us the difference between fact and opinion. This lesson turned me into a little skeptic and has never left me.
October 13th, 2006 at at 5:39 am
Either play ball and suck it up. Quit. or Fight. If you don’t need the money, I say stir up some shit, and flee before it gets too bad.
October 13th, 2006 at at 5:40 am
Obviously it is up to you and your wife to make your decision. If your financial situation is more important than taking a stand at this point, then that should take precedence. It isn’t really the “moral high road,” but sometimes its what you “need” to do. (This isn’t meant as a put down – I’ve made similar “financial” situations when I didn’t think it was the “right” thing to do.)
If it is not financially imperative that your wife keep her job, here’s what I would suggest. Have her go in to talk with her principal with you as a witness and/or with a tape recorder running. Have her explain that she is willing to say the pledge but not the words “under god.” If he vetoes that option, then offer some alternatives – another teacher can lead the pledge until the kids know it and then one of the kids can lead it. Or the principal himself can lead it, etc. If the principal still insists on the kids saying the pledge, I would also add the caveat that she wants to ensure that kids whose parents find the pledge unacceptable can request that their child not have to say it (like Chaz’s experience above).
Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, you will have documentation of the conversation – either multiple witnesses or a tape recording. If she gets fired as a result of standing up for her religious views, call the ACLU and sue the bastards. The more awareness we raise as atheists about the discrimination we face in this society, the sooner the discrimination will end. I vote that she take a stand!!
October 13th, 2006 at at 6:29 am
You say that this is a “public charter school”. Does this mean that your wife is a city or county employee? Is there an EEO/EEOC officer who she, as an employee, is supposed to approach if there is a problem with sexual or religious harassment? Perhaps a quiet consult with this person would be helpful. If the system is corrupt, your wife’s anonymity might not be protected, and she could be fired. However, if the EEO officer elevates the issue without violating anonymity, that could take care of the problem. As much as *you* might not like to become the new poster child for freedom, the school system is probably even less anxious for the expense and publicity of a lawsuit.
October 13th, 2006 at at 7:00 am
I would recommend speaking with a civil rights attorney, but in the meanwhile, following the suggestion of Seth. She could also teach the kids that the original pledge didn’t contain the clause “under God”, and explain the political background (McCarthyism) for the reason of inclusion. I don’t see how her school can “get her” for that…it’s true.
She could also speak candidly with the principal about the issue, and have an attorney contact the principal if you receive counsel that you would have a good case, should the school try to fire her.
It’s a real tough situation. If you really need the money, I would not vote for camera crews and the ACLU. If you don’t…well…you’d have a much better case than Newdow.
October 13th, 2006 at at 10:27 am
I don’t have any advice. But I hope whatever you two decide to do works out for the best for you.
I’m trying to remember, did the “under god” thing replace a something that was previously in the pledge, or was it just added to the sum of words?
October 13th, 2006 at at 10:39 am
I’m trying to remember, did the “under god” thing replace a something that was previously in the pledge, or was it just added to the sum of words?
The original version was “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
October 13th, 2006 at at 1:24 pm
As a certified teacher for K-12, and now working as a substitute, it is my opinion that preschoolers are way too young to understand the meaning of this attempt to indoctinate. In their minds reciting the pledge is no different than the reciting of familiar nursery rhymes, which is how the young ones take it. If you begin to explain the history of the pledge about when “under gawd” was added to a three or four-year-old, he or she isn’t going to know what the hell you are talking about. Unfortunately, when teaching in the public school system, teachers are forced to do a lot of things against our own opinions and values. (“peer mediation” when a child is being bullied and kissing the bully’s butt is my biggest pet peeve) I am agreement with the person who said that if your wife needs the job or doesn’t want to lose it, she will end up having to go along and play their little games. If the job doesn’t matter, and if I didn’t care if my peaceful life were disrupted, I would fight against the god part of the pledge being said in secular public schools.
(Being a sub I can get away without doing the pledge and if caught would just say..oh, I forgot, sorry…then “forget” again. LOL!)
October 13th, 2006 at at 2:44 pm
I know exactly what she’s going through. Okay, maybe not exactly, but pretty close. At my high school, there is a nursery school that I’ve chosen to work in. And the very first day the other girls came in, I knew I was in trouble. Every one of them was wearing a gold cross necklace, and I walked in holding The End of Faith. I haven’t recited the Pledge in over a year, and I haven’t said the words “under god” since 8th grade. I took this course because I am interested in becoming a teacher, however I am quickly realizing that many parents don’t want an atheist teaching their kids.
So far, I’ve been too “busy” with other things to say the pledge with the other girls, but in two weeks, I’ll be circle head(which means I will be the one helping them say it). I’ve tried everything. I suggested that we sing a patriotic song instead or perhaps a poem. But they won’t hear of it. Maybe your wife could try one of these ideas?
However, if not, I suggest that she just say the pledge. Perhaps it is a bit *insulting*, but it isnt worth losing a good job.
I hope this works out for both of you.
October 13th, 2006 at at 5:57 pm
As someone else said above, “some things are worth fighting for, and some are not.” It is up to you to decide what things fall into which category.
October 13th, 2006 at at 10:56 pm
Chaz makes some good points. Be honest. Be open. If the others at the school are even just a little bit reasonable they’ll listen.
October 14th, 2006 at at 4:32 pm
The importance of one’s ideals and morals are ALWAYS more important than a job or social position. If you’re willing to get kicked around, spat on, and ridiculed, you shouldn’t have the courage to have the opinions in the first place.
October 14th, 2006 at at 8:30 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t do the Pledge even if “under God” wasn’t in there. These kids aren’t old enough to give informed consent to a pledge. Forced recitation of the Pledge only acts as indoctrination. It is no different than taking them to church every Sunday and brain-washing them with the fear of God. To me, the Pledge represents a chauvinistic world-view and encourages everything that is wrong with America. You might as well end it with “USA, USA, Number 1, Number 1″.
I feel for your wife. She goes into a profession like teaching because she wants to contribute to the development of the next generation and instead her school is more concerned about indoctrinating its students. At the least, she could contact the ACLU or similar legal organization and find out what rights she has (or doesn’t have). But I don’t think anyone else can answer for her as far as what she should do, that’s a decision that only she can make.
I’m sure I’m not the only one that will be waiting to find out what happens next.
October 15th, 2006 at at 3:23 am
Maybe she could try to talk to her boss and show her concern (a fake one) that telling a preschooler to say the pledge is an insult to the pledge and the country, because they do not understand what it means to pledge allegiance to their country. Ask her to use a simile like, “It’s like asking a kid to ….”.
October 16th, 2006 at at 4:10 pm
Two thoughts: (1) Officially, the pledge is what it is right now, “under god” included, no matter how much your wife objects to it. She could teach preschoolers the pledge in that context, as it exists right now, and not as she (and many of us) would like it to be. (2) Although the battle to take “under god” out of the pledge should be fought, a preschool classroom isn’t the place to fight it, because it can’t be won there. Standing on principle there will probably get her fired and/or ostracized, but it won’t get “under god” out of the pledge.
October 18th, 2006 at at 1:41 am
If you have opted to work for an organisation the core values of which you disgaree with I suspect you may need to swallow your pride or lose your job. I am a republican (small r) in an organisation headed by the Queen of England. I swear my obedience to her as long as she is leader, but my opinion is that she shouldn’t be.
Why not have a large blank piece of paper in the classroom headed ‘under God?’ Write down or draw everything anyone says that contributes to an understanding of what that means, serious or facile, right or wrong.
October 18th, 2006 at at 9:24 am
Why not have a large blank piece of paper in the classroom headed ‘under God?’ Write down or draw everything anyone says that contributes to an understanding of what that means, serious or facile, right or wrong.
ST – This might be a good suggestion for older children, but pre-schoolers are too young to analyze something like that. Talking about it and emphasizing the god part by drawing pictures, etc. would actually bring the subject directly to their attention. If the subject is not brought up, preschoolers most likely would not even pay attention to it.
From my experience, at the pre-school level and even a little older at the kindergarten/first grade level, the Pledge is just like another nursery rhyme to memorize even though it is the early start of indoctrination for patriotism and gawd worship.
It seems the issue here are the concerns about the non-believer being forced to say the pledge when it is against their principles. What if the teacher were Jehovah’s Witness? Because of their religious beliefs, JWs are against pledges to flags, country and such. Are teachers who are Jehovah’s Witnesses forced to lead the pledge in the classrooms they teach in? I don’t know the answer to that myself and is why I am asking.
October 18th, 2006 at at 10:16 am
Just say ‘wonderdog’ instead.
October 18th, 2006 at at 1:16 pm
I agree with Stardust. As someone who has taught in a preschool I doubt that the preschoolers will really grasp the concept. In fact, they’re more likely to imitate your wife and whatever reactions she displays while reciting the pledge. Perhaps she could bring up with the administration how the recitation is age-inappropriate for her students and offer an alternative activity (perhaps involving something patriotic without the blatant religious overtones.)
Any public school, charter or not, is likely to have students with varying religious beliefs. Does the school have a policy for families who do not want their children exposed to religion in school? Does the school in any way support or prohibit the celebration of religious holidays in the classroom? If such a policy exists the application of it for staff could be discussed.
I, too, taught in a setting where I was not “out” as an atheist, though I never tried to hide it. It always amazed me how many people assumed I was a Christian, even thought they knew I never attended church.
October 18th, 2006 at at 6:15 pm
Perhaps she could bring up with the administration how the recitation is age-inappropriate for her students and offer an alternative activity (perhaps involving something patriotic without the blatant religious overtones.)
Anna, this is the biggest problem I have with this issue of having little one’s recite a pledge — that they have no understanding or idea about what it is supposed to mean. And since they have no clue about what they are saying, it is only empty indoctination.
Any public school, charter or not, is likely to have students with varying religious beliefs. Does the school have a policy for families who do not want their children exposed to religion in school? Does the school in any way support or prohibit the celebration of religious holidays in the classroom? If such a policy exists the application of it for staff could be discussed.
Depending on the religions background of the families of the students in the district, this could be productive, or it could backfire and make the non-xian or atheist the “oddball heathen” who is out to take their Jeebus away. These things are commonly considered in most school districts in the Chicagoland area where I live and adjustments and accomodations are made for student diversity.
Just say ‘wonderdog’ instead.
Caradoc- funny. I might try that one.
October 19th, 2006 at at 4:48 pm
The problem you wife is having started the day she took the job. As many a “closeted” person discovers, hiding your beliefs creates problems. If your wife knew about the pledge thing as she was taking the job, she should have brought it up then. Maybe she doesn’t get the job, but she hasn’t created a harder situation for herself. If she found out afterward, she should have addressed it, not dodged it. Now, she’s in deep and trying to find a way out. –end lecture–
Yes, I know you realize all that stuff, but it bears saying.
The reason I bothered is because it leaves you in the position to get advice like you’ve been getting. Some of which is of the pick your battles variety. Here’s my problem with that. I do understand that you can’t win every fight, BUT if it involves your core principles, you have to try. If you’re not willing to stand up for your beliefs why bother believing anything?
The whole idea of this isn’t worth fighting is also the reason we now need to fight the “under god” clause in the pledge and remove “IN GOD WE TRUST” from money. At the time, no one thought it was worth fighting about. And the theists erode one more tiny piece of religious freedom.
I know this isn’t really advice. On the advice front, I agree that you should consult a civil rights lawyer. And talk to the boss. And if that doesn’t
October 19th, 2006 at at 7:09 pm
Glintir, the reason why I argued that it is not a battle worth fighing is because it cannot be won. Atheists and agnostics are less than 10% of the population. The moderate religious middle will side with the fundies because “those damned atheists are trying to erase god from our culture blah blah blah.”
The battles we should be fighting now include the ones mentioned in my blog posting, such as defending reproductive freedom and access to birth control, opposing discrimination of gays, defeating attempts by the religious right to replace or complement the teaching of evolution in public schools with intelligent design. These are also battles where we can be on the side of the majority and have a good chance of winning.
Atheists can win battles when they fight for issues that have sufficient support from the majority. We have less chances of success trying to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency. Of course, this is all just my opinion.
October 19th, 2006 at at 8:40 pm
Glintir, the reason why I argued that it is not a battle worth fighing is because it cannot be won. Atheists and agnostics are less than 10% of the population. The moderate religious middle will side with the fundies because “those damned atheists are trying to erase god from our culture blah blah blah.”
The battles we should be fighting now include the ones mentioned in my blog posting, such as defending reproductive freedom and access to birth control, opposing discrimination of gays, defeating attempts by the religious right to replace or complement the teaching of evolution in public schools with intelligent design. These are also battles where we can be on the side of the majority and have a good chance of winning.
Atheists can win battles when they fight for issues that have sufficient support from the majority. We have less chances of success trying to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency. Of course, this is all just my opinion.
Glintir and TommyKey…
The only choice for the wife is to follow her principles(?) and refuse to say the pledge of allegience so that she can be exposed as a subversive athiest. Tell her to be honest about her hatred for the people who’s children she is attempting to teach, and her attempts to subvert Christian teachings…….That way, she can start her new job at Walmart, almost immediately….
By doing this, the transition from unfit teacher to Walmart employee can be seamless. Please don’t let her be a convictionless wimp…Let her say, “I hate Christ!”
October 19th, 2006 at at 10:00 pm
Troll! Troll! Troll in the dungeon! Thought you’d like to know.”
October 20th, 2006 at at 1:39 am
Just to say that some of us ‘religious’ people are with you on:
‘…defending reproductive freedom and access to birth control, opposing discrimination of gays, defeating attempts by the religious right to replace or complement the teaching of evolution in public schools with intelligent design.’
Interesting discussion.
October 20th, 2006 at at 10:03 am
I agree with Bruce. Preschoolers pledging their allegiance to a country is completely inappropriate. They don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, and would just as quickly pledge allegiance to Hitler.
Rejecting the pledge on these grounds seems like it would be easier do (not to mention that it’s the most offensive part). You’d probably be able to muster more sympathy from the community than if they could simply label her an ‘atheist’.
Maybe she could speak with other teachers who she thinks might feel similarly (if she knows them well enough yet) and that way she could bring it up and know that she has some support in the schools.
October 20th, 2006 at at 10:14 am
Thanks ST!
October 20th, 2006 at at 11:15 am
The only choice for the wife is to follow her principles(?) and refuse to say the pledge of allegience so that she can be exposed as a subversive athiest. Tell her to be honest about her hatred for the people who’s children she is attempting to teach, and her attempts to subvert Christian teachings…….That way, she can start her new job at Walmart, almost immediately….
I know I should not feed the trolls…however, I must say that Xian trolls are so quick to talk about hatred …it’s the first thing that comes to their mind. Why is that? hmmmm…
Could it be because they are indoctrinated liars who started being brainwashed with mythological bullcrap lies as preschoolers?
October 21st, 2006 at at 12:20 pm
Personally I disagree with saying the pledge of allegiance all together; something about it just seems totalitarian–it’s something that you would expect from North Korea or the old Soviet Union, not from a free nation. However, as to your wife’s dellimna, it seems like a matter of priority. Which is more important to her, keeping her job as a teacher or sticking to her principals–in other words does she lean more toward pragmatism or idealism? In either case the choice is ultimately up to her, as is ultimately always the case. Good luck.
October 21st, 2006 at at 7:35 pm
Hi everybody. I have been evesdropping on this website for a long time without ever participating in any discussions. Naughty me!
As in all cases, your wife should be truthful to herself, just as all of us should be. If you and your wife wishes to recite the pledge using the original words, then by all means do so any timereciting the pledge is required.
She should write the words on the chalkboard and say them for the pre-schoolers. That helps them to learn to read. Then she should explain that she does not say the words, “under god” because she does not worship a god, but that if the children who do believe in a god want to, they can say those words. The class can then recite the pledge with “under god”, and then again without the words. While reciting the pledge, the teacher can point at the words on the chalkboard. This helps children to learn to read, which is the WHOLE POINT OF GOING TO SCHOOL.
The “learning to read” thing is not intended as a deception. That part, of course, never needs to be explained in class.
If, for any reason, your wife is persecuted for her actions, the issue must be dealt with. The fact that a trial and all the negative attention would be difficult should not stop you. Let me shamelessly use shame on you a little bit here…just as christians do to force religion down the throats of those churchgoers who express doubt…
At the top of your website are the words, “Helping humanity overcome religion.” Why are those words there, if the moment something becomes difficult, you turn to deception, or try to find a way to tapdance around religious persecution?
I hope that does not come across to you in a bad way. I really would prefer that this all comes out clean and easy for you and your wife.
I also think that this entire subject is a ruse to bring people out to discuss the issue, which in itself is a good thing.
There is no such thing as luck, by the way.
Thanks for the nice website and I wish you well.
Jeromy in AZ
October 21st, 2006 at at 9:59 pm
I haven’t read through all of the posts yet, so forgive me if I’m redundant.
I suggest being very straightforward. Teach the official version. Then explain that there is a controversy over whether or not our Pledge of Allegiance should include a proclamation concerning gods, and that if anybody doesn’t believe in gods, they are under no obligation to say “under God”. And suggest that they speak with their parents if they are unsure whether or not they should say it.
I don’t think she’d need to complicate matters (so soon) by explaining that she won’t be saying “under God”, since it will most likely be noticed anyway, but I would certainly understand if she felt she should.
October 22nd, 2006 at at 8:50 am
I suggest being very straightforward. Teach the official version. Then explain that there is a controversy over whether or not our Pledge of Allegiance should include a proclamation concerning gods, and that if anybody doesn’t believe in gods, they are under no obligation to say “under God”. And suggest that they speak with their parents if they are unsure whether or not they should say it.
Chris, as some of us have stated, these are preschoolers (ages 3-5) who won’t know what the heck a teacher is talking about if confronted with this kind of controversy. They have no clue what the word means. Also, the biggest “controversy” in their lives concerns why they can’t have cookies for dinner and why they have to share the crayon box with their little friends, etc.
October 22nd, 2006 at at 4:24 pm
Glintir, the reason why I argued that it is not a battle worth fighing is because it cannot be won.
Okay, first I want to clarify something, I’m not really talking about his wife winning or losing “the battle of the pledge”. This is simply one place she needs to make a choice. And what I was getting at, and you’re missing, is that the “battle” begins at moment one. By waiting until the issue was forced, she left herself with few options. If she had addressed it up front, she would have more room to work now. To continue to use the battle analogy, she let the opposition get the better ground by refusing to set the field herself.
That said, At this point she may well need to compromise her principles. But that doesn’t mean that at least trying to put a fight isn’t worth it. Let’s be honest, expressing her opinion and making a fuss won’t get her fired. Refusing to back down at all might. So, she makes her point, makes her stand, lays out the alternatives, and falls back if she needs to. That’s my opinion. (Which I failed to make, by hitting post too early.. sorry).
As for not fighting pointless battles, if you NEVER fight pointless battles you lose ground. I’m not saying be a martyr every time you can, but sometimes, if it’s important enough, you fight when you know you’ll lose. Take a look at whichever Senator it was that tried to impeach Bush. He did it not because he’d win but because he wanted it on record. HE wanted to say he’d tried. He hadn’t just rolled over. And it’s not like he has to give up all other options and causes because he took up this one.
I don’t know. Perhaps I’m Quixotic. But I’ve comprimised my principles enough in my life through fear.. of failure.. of confrontation.. of ridicule.. that I won’t do it anymore. Without what I believe in, what am I?
Not much I’m afraid.
October 22nd, 2006 at at 4:35 pm
By doing this, the transition from unfit teacher to Walmart employee can be seamless. Please don’t let her be a convictionless wimp…Let her say, “I hate Christ!”
A) Getting fired as a teacher make you a WalMart employee? Wow, I didn’t know get fired invalidated degrees.
B) If she gets fired as quickly as you’re making it out to be, then the lawsuit looks to pay off nicely. Meaning the WalMart job is just to kill time.
C) If you’ve got a brain, you can avoid being fired in a situation like this.
October 23rd, 2006 at at 5:32 pm
I suggest a lesson on the origins of the Declaration. I believe it was written by a Communist Party Member as an oath of allegiance to the State, and for 40 years did not include a mention of any deity.
October 24th, 2006 at at 4:49 pm
[...] I AM over at The Evangelical Atheist has had an unfortunate dilemma forced upon he and his family over the Pledge of Mindlessness, er, Allegiance. [...]
October 25th, 2006 at at 10:12 am
Boy i bet you wish you could have something happen in your insignificant nothing little life that would warrant a call to the ACLU. Your wife should either suck it up, or get into a different occupation. And to tommykey, who is going to make his child omit the words ‘under god’ during his turn to lead the class; You are no better that someone who baptizes a baby. You are going to single your child out and subject him to the spitefulness of his little friends all so that YOUR beliefs aren’t infringed upon. Are you worried you will be kicked out of your local atheist group just because you let your little child say the word ‘god’?? You should be ashamed. Explain it to him/her let them decide. If he/she isn’t old enough to decide then what makes you think they are old enough to stand up for what YOU believe in in the face of their peers?? I am no zealot but you people make me sick. Atheism is becoming a religion of it’s own, right down to the persecution of others and the lobbying to take away the rights of others to pursue their religious beliefs; just like the churches/synagogues/mosques etc. do. gag!!
October 25th, 2006 at at 10:26 pm
jim
What an angry, angry person you seem to be. Sucking it up or finding another job are the only two options you can think of? Where would this country be today if our founding fathers and those with vision and determination to make things better had taken that attitude? Tommykey is going to show his child that it is okay to be different…that he doesn’t have to be one of the sheeple. My husband and I raised our children to not be afraid to be different or have differences of thoughts and opinions. They are now strong adults with positive attitudes and optimistic that they can make a difference and stand up for what they know is right even if that makes them unpopular sometimes. That’s how new ideas come about…INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, not by being a lemming. You say you are not a zealot, yet you sound like a zealot…and an angry one at that! You seem angry because some atheists dare to speak up, dare to uphold the separation of church and state and for trying to restore the pledge to it’s secular content. It’s not the atheist who wants to take religious beliefs away from people. The atheist just wants to prevent religious zealots from imposing their beliefs on the rest of our SECULAR society and government. It’s complacent people like yourself that is the real problem and hinders progress.
October 27th, 2006 at at 9:25 am
I never attended a preschool, so I’m not quite sure how they function academically. If there is any form of homework involved, she could ask her students to ask their parents what the Pledge is. Subsequently, she could have a different student each day lead the class in recitation of the aforementioned mindless oath of faith.
You know, for a bunch of self avowed atheists, you sure come off as funadamentalist religionists, except that the god you worship is yourself and all religious people are heretics. You are worse than the holy rollers that ran around knocking the privates off of classical sculptures centuries ago. Tell you what, while we are trying to censor and eliminate the word god in every form from human language, let’s go out and scratch through the word or image in every book, poem, or art work of any kind from every period of history.
Oh, and let’s not forget all the other words that describe or are used for god in every language. Logos is a good example. God is called “the Word” so let’s also refuse to say the word “word”, oh, but logos can also be translated as “reason”, so we better eliminate “reason” from our vocabularies as well.
Better yet, let’s have a huge bondfire and burn every religious book, masterpiece, or symbol that could possibly offend a non-believer. That will show them how correct and important science and intellecualism is and how irrational and ignorant religion is.
Are you likewise going to deny or ignore any and every mathematical or scientific discovery made by a Christian? I mean get a grip. You fear religious indoctrination, but turn around and want to indoctrinate everyone into atheism. You are as much a religionist as Jerry Falwell, Gandhi or the Pope.
Who cares if the word “god” is in there. If you don’t believe in God then why fear Him so much? If there really is no God, then the word has no power or meaning. Did you recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a child? Did it prevent you from becoming an atheist? If the author wrote it that way, leave it. If your wife doesn’t like it, tell her to quit.
October 27th, 2006 at at 10:10 am
I’d just like to apologise on behalf of the liberal, chattering classes everywhere (Christian or otherwise) for the singular lack of respect this discussion has generated. Back at the beginning someone asked a reasonable question to stimulate discussion and get advice. Now it feels as if people are virtually throwing things. Let’s step back, breathe deeply, be slow to anger (as it says in the Bible) and see if we can work out how we can all be happy together.
October 27th, 2006 at at 10:51 am
You are ridiculous Casca. Get a grip.
No one here is talking about censoring or eliminating references to god or ignoring scientific or medical discoveries by people who were also Christian.
What we are talking about is how we as atheists conduct ourselves in a society where the majority is Christian. How are any of us here indoctrinating people into atheism? We’re just a group of ordinary people who communicate with each other on this blog, and you make us out like we’re some kind of evil cabal trying to take away people’s religious beliefs.
And Jim, what vitriol. And I thought I was one of the moderate voices on this topic. First off, for all I know, my son does say “under God” when he recites the pledge in class. I am not there to hear it. And if he does omit it, then I seriously doubt his classmates will tease him for it. I merely omit it when I practice it with him at home on rare occasions. What he does in class is up to him.
But you seem to believe that people should always engage in mindless conformism just for the sake of fitting in and not rocking the boat.
Atheism is not a religion you blockhead, it is simply a disbelief that some divine entity popularly known as God created the universe. It’s really funny that on the one hand, Christians always like to mock atheists as being so few in number, and then they turn around and cry that we are trying to destroy religion because of how powerful we are.
October 27th, 2006 at at 11:34 am
> If the author wrote it that way, leave it.
The author didn’t write it that way; it was changed in the fifites to add “under God”. If you want us to say it as the author wrote it, then there is no problem (except perhaps for turning pre-schoolers into thoughtless ‘Patriots’, but that is not a religious issue).
> If your wife doesn’t like it, tell her to quit.
If this job is provided by the government, as it seems to be, then she shouldn’t be required to quit. Our government is not allowed to promote a religion even voluntarily, much less fire any employee who doesn’t belong to the state religion. If our government violates the rules set forth in its founding document, then it has no legitimacy. It has only power by threat of violence, and deserves no respect.
October 27th, 2006 at at 12:38 pm
‘Tommykey’, you been in a pre-school/kindergarten class lately?? Didn’t think so. and ‘Casca’, thanks for making a more intelligible argument than i could muster at that moment… I was so shaken by ~i am~ threatening to give the ACLU another reason to take away the rights of the masses at the beckoning of a few extraneous individuals. (see Habersham & Burrow cty’s. GA, Frankfort KY statehouse etc. etc.), Oh and ”Indifferent children’ i have a suggestion for you EMIGRATE!
October 27th, 2006 at at 1:50 pm
Jim – as much as you want to deny it, this country was founded on separation of church and state. If you want your kids to have religious brainwashing, then you are free to do just that in your private religious schools.
As for myself and many others who value the principles this country was founded on, as well as the Constitution of this great land, I would like to see the Pledge of Allegiance restored to it’s original text.
October 27th, 2006 at at 2:18 pm
Of course I know that kids get made fun of in kindergarten and elementary school you blockhead! Thank you for being so concerned about my son’s welfare, but as flawed as I am, I think I am doing a pretty good job.
Again, I will repeat what I wrote in my last post:
What we are talking about is how we as atheists conduct ourselves in a society where the majority is Christian. How are any of us here indoctrinating people into atheism? We’re just a group of ordinary people who communicate with each other on this blog, and you make us out like we’re some kind of evil cabal trying to take away people’s religious beliefs.
It’s really sad that Christians get all bent out of shape because atheists communicate our thoughts to each other on a blog, as if the simple act of doing so is tantamount to a threat to religious belief.
October 27th, 2006 at at 2:33 pm
stardust, i think you missed the point. Not sure when i denied this country’s founding principles, or stated that i wished for my children to be brainwashed. I think your zeal caused you to see that in what i said. Seems like most people on this site see only that^^^ in anything even remotely sane anyone adds to this thread. I am not religious as a said before, and i do believe it is a little silly to have changed the words of the pledge (although i can comprehend why it was done). People on this site refer to it as the pledge of “mindlessness.” and Accuse others of being “conformist.” Are we supposed to agree with nothing anyone says, and have no sense of nationalism just to spite the establishment? Sounds like you people are so bitter about the PAST doings of the church (who’s hands are “tied” behind their back with respect to the influence they can legally have) that you wont even for a minute stop to think that some regulation and conformity is positive??? I believe the pledge should be restored to it’s original condition as well, however i do not believe that a 5 year old should have to stand up for it when he/she has no ability to do so. Further i do not believe that atheists will make that happen by trying to eradicate religion. You will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the bible bashers and unite them (at the same time creating ‘victims’ out of them). The same way our actions in Iraq and the middle east have strengthened the resolve of the Muslim Horde. Soon your beloved ACLU will have to live up to it’s stated mission and start protecting the rights of even religious people who are being denied their freedom of religion. Wouldn’t that make heads explode. Did you know that the line of the constitution which reads “…and we hold these truths to be self-evident” was originally slated to refer to said truths as god given? We can thank Thomas Jefferson for that one. This is a classic example of the true existence of separation of church and state. And with but very few exceptions (e.g. TWO words of the pledge), the Atheist papacy really has nothing to bitch about. Especially if you compare the USA to other countries. If you wish to stand on the fact that this country is founded on the separation of church and state, then you must recognize it’s existence. It’s a real bummer when you have to face it and I’m sure the dulling effect it has on your collective teeth makes it a real conversation killer. So in order to have some kind of validation (something to complain about) people on this site must sensationalize everything and take it as a personal persecution when someone in the world chooses to believe in something. Face that fact and calm down, Or EMIGRATE!
October 27th, 2006 at at 2:40 pm
tommykey, you are stupid and should be banned from the keyboard. I qoute:
“It’s really sad that Christians get all bent out of shape because atheists communicate our thoughts to each other on a blog, as if the simple act of doing so is tantamount to a threat to religious belief.”
take a look at your motto “helping mankind overcome religion.” Let’s put that in a different context; i wish i could remember the exact scripture from the 2nd crusade but i cant right now. It was strikingly similar “..helping civilization overcome the Muslim threat…” Do you still see ‘helping mankind overcome religion’ as so benign? Well as a result of your own ‘brainwashing,’ you probably do. I don’t.
October 27th, 2006 at at 3:47 pm
First off knucklehead, I am a guest here. This is not my blog. And secondly, so what if I AM subtitles his blog “Helping Mankind Overcome Religion”? Why does that threaten you? I am sure there are many Christian blogs that read “Helping to spread Christ’s truth to the world” or similar slogans along that line. If they want to say that, what the heck do I care?
And you are a guest here too jim. You’re like the asshole uncle who ruins every family gathering by getting drunk and pissing on the roses in the backyard or cursing at someone at the dinner table. Take your own advice and emigrate the fuck out of this blog if you don’t like us! I am through with you at any rate.
October 27th, 2006 at at 3:54 pm
You are ridiculous Casca. Get a grip.
No one here is talking about censoring or eliminating references to god or ignoring scientific or medical discoveries by people who were also Christian.
Resorting to name calling is a very intellectual thing to do. In fact on this site and others I have read, self-proclaimed atheists respond with brilliant insights, such as “christians are stupid”. Many of the above comments suggest that I am’s wife say it and then try to tell the kids why they should not say it, or suggest inserting some “subversive” material into other parts of the class. Also, it seems that some of you are so filled with hate for a god you do not believe in that you can’t even spell the word god.
Apparently you conduct yourselves poorly, or at least as hypocritically as many of the religionist you like to complain about. Re-read the posts. Atheism is not in and of itself evil any more than religion is in and of itself evil. And if it were up to you, you would take away peoples right to public religious expression, while preserving your right to it – if not you specifically, then others on this thread and on threads like it.
…
One definition of religion is this: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. By this definition, it could very well be considered a “religion” however displeasing that terminology might be to you, and perhaps to those that profess some other religion. No one is claiming any such power for you. Faith can’t be taken away, but can only be disowned. I have no problem with you being atheist and not believing in God. What I do have a problem with is the snobbery and faux elitism expressed by so many of you in your taunts, insults, and generalisations about the mental capacities of religious people.
October 27th, 2006 at at 4:17 pm
Oh please Caca. I wrote that you were ridiculous. That hardly qualifies as calling you names. But it accurately reflects the hysterical tone of your arguments. I did not call anybody stupid, but I did call Jim a blockhead and a knucklehead because I don’t care for his vitriolic tone.
There are many religious people in the world who are undoubtedly way smarter than I. I am sure that a Bible believing Christian who also happens to be a heart surgeon is much more intelligent than I am, especially when it comes to performing heart surgery. But if that same heart surgeon is going to tell me that I am going to burn in hell for all eternity if I do not accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, I am not going to be like “Well, you’re a heart surgeon and you are smarter than me, so I must by bow to your superior intelligence and become a Christian.”
I find it rather interesting that you and Jim are directing your strongest criticism towards me when I am probably among the most moderate voices posting here. Rather than being confrontational over issues like the pledge by filing law suits like Michael Newdow, I have taken a position of finding a way to accomodate ones personal beliefs while respecting the majority’s belief. What is so terrible about that? Maybe because you feel more threatened by moderate and reasonable atheists?
You don’t like our “snobbery and faux elitism” Casca? Well gee, I don’t recall anybody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to visit this blog. Don’t visit atheist blogs and you won’t have to be annoyed by us.
October 27th, 2006 at at 4:18 pm
Sorry for the spelling error. OF course I meant Casca. I’m not Senator George Allen of Virginia you know.
October 27th, 2006 at at 5:00 pm
jim wrote: “I believe the pledge should be restored to it’s original condition as well, however i do not believe that a 5 year old should have to stand up for it when he/she has no ability to do so.”
jim – And most people here hold the opinion that a 5-year-old (preschoolers are 3-5) should not be indoctrinated with a political pledge when they don’t even know what the hell it means.
To get back on track, the question was how I AM’s wife should handle the saying of this pledge when it #1 contains words that she will not be sincere about when saying them (especially to a roomful of young developing minds), and #2 having the words “under god” in the pledge of our secular nation clearly violates the separation of church and state. Too many people are complacent and don’t even think about the words they say in these patriotic “liturgies.” To just “suck it up” and go with the flow…”don’t rock the boat” is not being true to oneself. They changed the pledge once by a lot of noisemaking, they can change it back again with a lot of noisemaking.
October 27th, 2006 at at 5:03 pm
I am no zealot but you people make me sick.
jim…if you are no zealot, and people here make you sick…why are you still here?:roll:
October 27th, 2006 at at 5:07 pm
I dispise this discussion. It’s so sad that we have to keep having this over and over. It’s a brainwashing pledge that had christian brainwashing added for political gain.
I’m sorry you are facing this in your family. I hope that it works out for you, and if you decide to fight you have my backing. I would gladly donate financially to your legal defense fund. This is crap.
Ian
October 27th, 2006 at at 8:28 pm
And the TKO! Nice work Casca! It’s been a great ‘intelletcual’ discussion but i think i will take tommys advice and Emigrate. I believe in leading by example.
Tasteless Joke of the day…
Q: What do you get when you have a dyslexic athiest?
A: Someone who runs around trying to convince everyone that there is no dog.
October 27th, 2006 at at 8:53 pm
Hey, I Am, if you ever feel like giving us an update, we’d all be quite delighted.
October 27th, 2006 at at 9:07 pm
Also casca if you can forgive the bad joke shoot me an email. I got a few Questions for you. thanks
casca.10.hxadecmel@spamgourmet.com
October 28th, 2006 at at 9:26 am
To take Jim’s argument even further, if my family lived in a small town where everybody went to church, then according to Jim’s line of reasoning, even though I am an atheist, my family and I should attend church every Sunday because otherwise the rest of the townfolk might ridicule or despise us.
October 28th, 2006 at at 3:02 pm
To take Jim’s argument even further, if my family lived in a small town where everybody went to church, then according to Jim’s line of reasoning, even though I am an atheist, my family and I should attend church every Sunday because otherwise the rest of the townfolk might ridicule or despise us.
Tommykey – that’s an excellent analogy. “Don’t rock the boat” or “go with the flow” is a cowardly way to live. There are times we do go along with things, but there are other times we need to speak up and make our voices and opinions heard.
October 28th, 2006 at at 7:44 pm
Is that from Descartes or “Jahweh?”
Thanks for sharing!
October 29th, 2006 at at 2:02 pm
How about just say the pledge and get over yourself. I mean that in a kind way. Even though I am a believer in Jesus Christ and believe that the Christian worldview is the only one that makes sense, on the other hand my allegiance is not to a flag or country either. In some ways we agree. The general “God” of the pledge is not the one who exists in actuality.
But still, when we are at work, whatever our work, there are generally some hoops to jump through to make it through the day. If you want it to be just like you want it to be, then you would have to start your own school and hire exclusively atheist teachers. If you want to influence others with your philosophical position (which did I mention seems to me to be totally illogical), then it is usually best to do so one-on-one, a person at a time.
October 29th, 2006 at at 6:17 pm
The general “God” of the pledge is not the one who exists in actuality.
Sorry…but in ACTUALITY, god, gods, and goddesses exist only in imagination and fantasies of your own mind.
If you want to influence others with your philosophical position (which did I mention seems to me to be totally illogical
No matter what atheist site I visit, xians cannot make one damn comment without bringing their proseltyzing into it.
then it is usually best to do so one-on-one, a person at a time.
Then why do xians need megachurches, televisions stations and mass revivals?
October 30th, 2006 at at 8:12 am
> you would have to start your own school and hire exclusively atheist teachers
Actually, all that we need are schools that don’t teach any religion, then our teachers can be of any (or no) faith. I have yet to see proof that a Christian can’t teach math or reading.
October 30th, 2006 at at 12:12 pm
“Actually, all that we need are schools that don’t teach any religion, then our teachers can be of any (or no) faith. I have yet to see proof that a Christian can’t teach math or reading.”
Agreed. It is up to believing parents and the Church of Jesus Christ (not a school system) to train its children in truth. However, many things are removed from public schools as religious when in fact they are historical. Study of the history of the Bible, for example, must be done in order to provide a context for understanding many cultures, including Western culture.
October 30th, 2006 at at 1:04 pm
Conversely Dollar, the Bible must be examined through the lens of history, rather than viewing history through the lens of the Bible.
Bible believers get the mistaken impression that the Hebrews were at the center of everything important going on in the Middle East during the time frame of the Old Testament. But the truth is that the Hebrews and the OT made very little impact. The Egyptians and the successive states of Mesopotamia were where the real influence lay in terms of the development of writing, the spread of civilization, religion and so forth. For most of their history, the Hebrews, a confederation of semi-nomadic tribes, were conquered by their neighbors, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, Alexander the Great etcetera.
The Bible itself does not matter in the history of Europe until Christians in the Roman Empire reached a critical enough mass so that Christianity became the official religion of the empire. Before that, the Romans managed to achieve certain things, ya know, like aqueducts to bring drinking water to Rome, well paved roads to connect the various parts of the empire, public baths which promoted hygiene. Little things like that. And what did we have with a Christian Europe after the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire? The roads and the aqueducts falling into disrepair, frequent bathing being considered sinful and filth considered a virtue, the disappearing knowledge of Greek learning which ended up being retransmitted to Europe via the Muslims in the later Middle Ages. So, if you want to examine the importance of teaching the Bible and Christianity to Western History, you have to include the bad with the good.
October 30th, 2006 at at 1:12 pm
It is up to believing parents and the Church of Jesus Christ (not a school system) to train its children in truth.
And which of the numerous versions of the “truth” of xian mythology might your’s be? The “truth” about religion for me is that once you weed out the violence and bad stuff, you might find a few good parables and texts to live by, but overall it is full of violence, baby killing, genocide, incest, contradictions, inconsistencies, and bizarre mythology, etc. Take a course in world mythologies and if you allow yourself to, you will be able to see that the xian religion, and the muslim religion and all the rest are as strange and bizarre as ancient Greek, Roman, Macedonian, Celtic, Asian, Mayan, Aztec and all other mythologies.
However, many things are removed from public schools as religious when in fact they are historical. Study of the history of the Bible, for example, must be done in order to provide a context for understanding many cultures, including Western culture.
Many things removed from being taught in the classroom ARE INDEED religious in nature and is why they have been removed. The bible is a complex and complicated book as I said before, full of inconsistencies and contradictions…a few fairly accurate historical facts, many inaccurate and even bizarre historical claims (like a whole-earth flood, magical partings of a whole sea, humans being swallowed by whales and surviving, etc. Those religious elements are NOT historical and should be removed.
I must agree with you though that it is a good thing for people to read the bible no matter what your religious or non-religious background. In a debate, one must know the subject one is arguing about or discussing. It is true that in order to understand much of what has happened throughout history, we must know where the mentality came from which fueled the Inquistition, the Crusades, Witch burnings, wars, changes in power structures, cultural attitudes and beliefs, etc. It helps to know what the bible says when studying Art History in order to analyze and understand great works of art…also music. A required course for earning my Bachelors in English from a state university was Bible as Literature in a Social Context. BUT World Mythology was also a required course, and that course is a real mind opener. Along with anthropology, world religions, archaeology, geology and other similar courses go hand in hand for a well-rounded education.
October 30th, 2006 at at 3:11 pm
Tommykey,
You make very good points, but there is underlying fallacy / ad hominem attack in your comments. You say in discussing the Bible, we must take the good with the bad, but then you go on to discuss what those who apparently adhered to the Bible did in Europe. There is a distinction that must be made between the Bible itself and what those who hold to it do. The Bible must be evaluated on its own terms in order to determine whether it is true or not.
As to the Hebrews, what you say about their lack of significance is true. In fact, that is a huge part of what God repeats to them, namely, though they are small and otherwise unknown, yet He chose them to be His own people.
But my point is really neither of these. My point related to the fact that the Vulgate and the King James Version of the Bible had signficant literary and political influence and in order to understand those developments, the Bible itself must be considered. That does not mean it has to be believed or even liked, but any school that simply ignores the influence of the Bible will be short-changing the students, just pretending rather than teaching.
October 30th, 2006 at at 3:35 pm
But if you are going to argue that the Hebrews were God’s chosen people, you have to be able to back it up with something more than “Because the Bible says so.”
If the Hebrews had the most advanced and powerful civilization and were never conquered, you would say that it is proof that they are God’s chosen people. But the fact is they were none of those things, and yet still you expect us to believe that they are God’s special people.
October 30th, 2006 at at 9:03 pm
Where is I Am??!!! I find I am not quite whole without my fix of the Evangelical Atheist himself.
Oh and… what’s up with jim? Just wondering… could anyone be more of a dick?
October 31st, 2006 at at 7:06 pm
Dollar,
I hear what you’re saying about the Bible as an item of ancient influence and how it shouldn’t be ignored because it was historically significant. But I think thats a strawman. An honest examination of what the Bible and it’s adherents have wrought on humanity would be an eye-opening event.
Maybe we should try.
There are lots of Christian lurkers out there, anyone want to take a challenge of who can name more good things the church is responsible for vs. the bad?
I’ll go first, here are 3 easy ones.
1) The fight against the use of condoms in AIDS ravaged nations.
2) Witch burnings
3) The Inquisition
Come on this will be fun, and i won’t even count the muslums against you, just the followers of Jesus.
oo oo oo even better. You name all of the evil Atheists and thier crimes. We’ll even take Stalin. Let’s measure the blood, and see who has the “moral” high ground.
October 31st, 2006 at at 8:25 pm
T,
Your argument is understandable, after all not all “Christians” have lived life as defined by the Bible. But I would never say that all Christians live perfect lives. The bumper sticker says it fairly well, “Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.”
The mixing of political desires and and certain versions of “Christianity” have led to many awful acts – no doubt and no reason to deny it. The point I would make is that Christ must be judged on HIS own terms, not on the (mis)conduct of His followers. Judas is a case in point. Following and leaving. My contention is that Jesus Christ is God and that this proposition must be evaluated based upon evidence, not on the errors of adherents (or supposed adherents). Even still, your challenge leads me to think of all the wonderful activities Christians have engaged in through the years. So many hospitals. So many millions sent to the devestated Gulf Coast. So many volunteers to help them as well. On and on. Even in my own church, people helping others in need, loving the needy and lonely.
But those kind and merciful activities do not prove the truthfulness of the worldview. Biblical Christianity as a system must be judged based on its logic, internal consistency, and explanatory power. It is in these areas that I am convinced that it is true.
Good dialog. Thanks.
October 31st, 2006 at at 9:02 pm
Your argument is understandable, after all not all “Christians” have lived life as defined by the Bible.
But if I may jump here for a moment and point out, for starters, that in fact people have used the bible to justify the three things that Dull Blade has listed. People use the bible to justify anything they want to justify because it is so full of contradictions that anyone can cherry pick something for his or her own use:
Be fruitful and multiply
Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 – from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.
Gen. 28:3 – Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.
Gen. 38:8-10 – Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
October 31st, 2006 at at 9:06 pm
Another point to add to my above comment…so gawd forgives people for doing something bad that he himself ordered them to do in the first place via his magical book???? hmmmm Seems like a catch-22 to me! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
October 31st, 2006 at at 9:41 pm
Hey, did anyone ever tell you guys that fighting on the internet is like being in the special olympics? Even if you end up winning the argument… you’re still a retard.
I *was* going to argue though, I would side with Jim. Forgiving the fact that he’s a Packer’s fan he’s a pretty smart guy. Here’s my 1 cent, I won’t even make you sit through 2:
I am an atheist, I dunno if Im a hard atheist or a soft atheist or a semi-turgid atheist, but I do know that I’ve made a fundamental decision, thats my story and Im sticking to it. With that compelling exposition in mind Ill continue. When I was in high school (note: high school), I would pick a intellectual argument with a jewish midget nun if I thought I could scare her in to forgetting about Blue Eyed Anglo Saxon American Johnny Jesus. Over the years, and Im not that far on, I realized something: I live in a country where people (like you all) can come home at night, eat more food than a family in Sudan eats in a week in one sitting, fire up your Dell, crack a beer or pour a glass of wine, and piss and moan about the great struggles in life… like the recitation of two little words in the Pledge of Allegiance that offend your beliefs.
So, to quote the author of the original entry:
“There’s no reason to stir things up unless pressed.”
Simple fact of the matter is, if youre working for a school, you arent representing *you*, you’re respresenting the ethics, policy and process laid down by your managing body (high school, superintendency, college, Armed Forces). So if you wanna quit your job and spend the day on the street corner objecting to the Pledge of Allegiance, go for it but don’t expect to be able to do it on the dime of the people who employ you.
As for your children, I hate to tell you but while the pledge offends the value system you expect them to adopt, they aren’t cognisant of that value system yet and you have no way of knowing if the pledge offends the values *they* intend to adopt unless you let them discover those values independant of your bias.
To that point you can rest assured that if we have any faith in the expanse of implication contained within Darwin’s great work, the entirely-too-committal ’sacatheist’ (lol sacreligious?) words in the Pledge of Allegiance ought be as ineffective a meme on the minds of your progeny as it was on their progenitors.
Pick your battles, this one’s kinda weak.
PS – Come on people the Pledge of Allegiance is a show of citizenship, not a baptism, you dont have to love god to love your country; I sure dont.
October 31st, 2006 at at 9:50 pm
btw : I am aware that not only is there no such thing as a jewish nun, but also that if she was Jewish she wouldnt have any problem forgetting about Blue Eyed Anglo Saxon American Johnny Jesus
that is all
November 1st, 2006 at at 9:16 am
Stardust, you are simply quoting random texts out of their context. You are not pointing out contradictions so much as showing your misunderstanding of the whole message of the Bible. God has reasons for doing all that He is doing. Onan was struck dead not for withdrawal, but for his rotten heart that led to a disobedient action (for example. And all the other supposed “contradictions” you list could be explained by simply studying the context).
When I finally discovered that there are no actual contradictions in the Bible I was amazed.
November 1st, 2006 at at 10:55 am
When I finally discovered that there are no actual contradictions in the Bible I was amazed.
Pretty sure this qualifies as a ‘contradiction’…
“Thou shalt not kill.”
vs.
” If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people”
-Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (King James Version)
But I could be wrong….
November 1st, 2006 at at 11:43 am
Stardust, you are simply quoting random texts out of their context.
ahhhh…there is that standard excuse I was expecting. Taken “out of context”. How ironic to accuse others of what Xians do all of the time.
And all the other supposed “contradictions” you list could be explained by simply studying the context).
(“Explained” by a dumbass pastor’s personal “interpretation” to his individual flock of sheeple to make whatever point he wishes to in order to control the herd.) Like I said, the bible contains something for everyone. It is able to be twisted and turned according to anyone’s “interpretation” and for whatever purpose you wish to use it for. Put it in the hands of a bunch of superstitious people and it is no longer a literary text, but a justification manual of multiple-choice excuses and reasons for whatever actions one wishes to promote.
Chaz – You just took those two passages “out of context”
Tubby, glad you could grab your beer after a nice big dinner and waste some time with us.
November 1st, 2006 at at 12:14 pm
Stardust is right, the two passages are entirely out of context. You all should be able to use your common sense to see this as a real problem, not simply an excuse or a desire to control others. In the Ex. 20 commandment, the meaning of the word, “Kill” is murder. Obviously the Bible makes it clear that there are instances of justified killing. Capital punishment is instituted in Gen. 9 for example. So not all “Killing” is excluded in the commandment. The older English of the KJV makes this issue confusing, but a look at the original Hebrews clarifies the issue.
This is the fact of the matter, not a twisted interpretation. Imagine if I took your words and made them say something they did not. For example, you said, “The Bible contains something for everyone.” Imagine if I took that line and started promoting the idea that Stardust believed the Bible is the best book in the world and should be forced upon others because he said it “contains something for everyone.”
You would reply: “That is not what I meant!” And you might follow up with, “You know what I meant because you read the whole paragraph, you had a context that revealed the meaning of my words.”
Well, the Bible provides contexts that make the individual words and sentences make sense. When taken in proper context, the Bible contains no contradictions.
November 1st, 2006 at at 12:26 pm
Considering that I am both an atheist and an anarchist, this situation would be DOUBLY tough for me to navigate through!
Personally, I would suggest that your wife teach the entire history of the pledge, and dont even offer to have the morning pledge ritual. If a kid or parent asks for it, then welcome that childs opportunity to recite it each morning -whatever version that they want to recite- but all the while your wife can avoid having to say the “under God” pledge herself.
Honestly this is not an easy situation. But my roommate is a public school teacher, and HE says that its almost impossible to be fired as a teacher if you work for the public school system.
So is your wife really in that much danger of being booted? Im sure that she is also an intelligent woman who can make her points understandable to even the most block headed administrator, right?
November 1st, 2006 at at 12:49 pm
In the Ex. 20 commandment, the meaning of the word, “Kill” is murder. Obviously the Bible makes it clear that there are instances of justified killing. Capital punishment is instituted in Gen. 9 for example. So not all “Killing” is excluded in the commandment.
Thank you for claifying this, Dollar. For a while I thought the 10 commandments were directives from an almighty creator for all men to follow, thanks to you I now see they’re just simple guidelines which can be ignored based on one’s personal interpretation. But now I know: I shouldn’t
killmurder people unless they did something which I see as deserving of it… like asking me to join their religion or working on a Sunday or touching the skin of a dead pig (man, I’ve got a lot of football players I need to kill.)“The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.” -Isaiah 40:8
Got it.
Guess there wasn’t room for footnotes on those granite slabs…
November 1st, 2006 at at 2:42 pm
Stardust is right, the two passages are entirely out of context.
Dollar – You know I was joking with Chaz and not agreeing with you. Didn’t you see the Mr Winky at the end of the sentence? Why do so many xians not understand humor and sarcasm?
I am right when I say that you manipulate the text and passages to whatever you wish them to be. That is why the bible is such a dangerous book.
Guess there wasn’t room for footnotes on those granite slabs…
Good point, Chaz.
November 1st, 2006 at at 2:47 pm
Imagine if I took that line and started promoting the idea that Stardust believed the Bible is the best book in the world and should be forced upon others because he said it “contains something for everyone.”
Actually, the bible DOES contain “something for everyone”…but I would say it is the most dangerous book in the world for that reason, and this book should NOT be forced upon everyone and should be read with a great deal of skepticism and critical analysis.
November 1st, 2006 at at 4:36 pm
“Dollar – You know I was joking with Chaz and not agreeing with you. Didn’t you see the Mr Winky at the end of the sentence? Why do so many xians not understand humor and sarcasm?”
What is the problem? Did I take your words out of context? Sorry about that. The context (Mr. Winky) made it clear what you meant.
Hey, all I ask is that people show the same respect to the Bible that they expect others to show to them when in the midst of the communication process.
By the way, I used tongue-in-cheek / sarcasm in my last post. Did you not catch it? At any rate, this is an ad hominem argument that you have presented and offers nothing in the way of determing truth. Whether a person is funny or not has nothing to do with whether their beliefs are true or not.
Just for the record, I am enjoying our talk a lot.
Chaz, you whole last point is filled with sarcasm and no substance. You know that words can mean different things in different contexts. This does not make them subjective, but rather subjected to the context. You know that the book of Exodus as a whole provides for certain types of capital punishment, but not for premeditated murder. With all due respect, it is part of being a grown up to see the different meaning and nuances that words can have.
Your hyptheticals about “joining a religion” or “killing football players,” are nothing more than red herrings desing to draw attention away from this fact.
November 1st, 2006 at at 5:08 pm
In the Ex. 20 commandment, the meaning of the word, “Kill” is murder. Obviously the Bible makes it clear that there are instances of justified killing. Capital punishment is instituted in Gen. 9 for example. So not all “Killing” is excluded in the commandment.
Thank you for claifying this, Dollar. For a while I thought the 10 commandments were directives from an almighty creator for all men to follow, thanks to you I now see they’re just simple guidelines which can be ignored based on one’s personal interpretation. But now I know: I shouldn’t
killmurder people unless they did something which I see as deserving of it… like asking me to join their religion or working on a Sunday or touching the skin of a dead pig (man, I’ve got a lot of football players I need to kill.)As much as I hate agreeing with anyone who believes deeply in sky fairies…
Murder is defined as an unlawful killing (very short definition) or a flock of crows. Since “God” isn’t outlawing crows, the first definition applies. And, as evidenced by the tremendous tool, Kent Hovind, Xians are above man’s law. They only concern themselves with “God’s” law. And the sky fairy says you can kill people who don’t believe in him, or are gay, or a host of other things. So, technically this isn’t a contradiction. It’s proof that “God” is an asshole.
It’s also proof that Dollar is going to hell. Cause he’s defying “God’s” law by not killing oh.. let’s say.. 40% of the people he meets every day. I’m guessing it’s because… well.. not it’s not the commandment, we ruled that out. And it’s not because he isn’t allowed, “God” said he could. He must be afraid of jail. Which means in “God’s” eyes he is a chicken shit.
Course, I’m more generous than that. I figure he’s a swell guy with a sense of morality. Instilled by genetics and social pressure. That results in his NOT killing people for stupid reasons just because a book says so.
So ends my off topic rant.
November 1st, 2006 at at 6:23 pm
What is the problem? Did I take your words out of context?
No, you just didn’t interpret them correctly.
Hey, all I ask is that people show the same respect to the Bible that they expect others to show to them when in the midst of the communication process.
Show the same respect to the bible that you show to “them”??? What are you comparing here?
I cannot respect your ancient text as being anything more than a collection of jumbled works of literature compiled into one handy little volume, written by a bunch of flat-earthers who relied heavily on hearsay for their sources.
November 1st, 2006 at at 7:56 pm
Chaz, you whole last point is filled with sarcasm and no substance. You know that words can mean different things in different contexts. This does not make them subjective, but rather subjected to the context. You know that the book of Exodus as a whole provides for certain types of capital punishment, but not for premeditated murder. With all due respect, it is part of being a grown up to see the different meaning and nuances that words can have.
Your hyptheticals about “joining a religion” or “killing football players,” are nothing more than red herrings desing to draw attention away from this fact.
Just to claify: Not red herrings – Hebrew Laws, directives from God Almighty. Crimes punisible by death according to God’s perfect word as manifested in the Holy Bible.
And to further clarify: I have nothing against the Bible. I respect the Bible as much as I respect any other clumsily constructed book written by Bronze Age goat herders and I have exactly the same amount of respect for the Bible being evidence of God as I do Amazing Fantasy #15 being evidence of Spider-Man.
I see the rules and directives in the Bible as clearly being very valuable to a group of nomadic losers on the brink of extiction who desperately needed to get whipped into shape because they were a couple of centuries behind other civilizations.
And, you seem like a really smart, well educated guy, so I see your attachment to the Bible as any more than the above as very, very sad. But I certainly and sincerely hope it works out for you.
Whatever gets you through the day.
All I ask is that, if you live in my country, please don’t vote.
So anyway… we were discussing the pledge right?
November 1st, 2006 at at 8:10 pm
“It’s also proof that Dollar is going to hell. Cause he’s defying “God’s” law by not killing oh.. let’s say.. 40% of the people he meets every day.”
The Bible is not a loose collection of jumbled works but a remarkable unity of expression and theological depth. You betray in this statement a fundamental misunderstanding of the God revealed in the Scripture and the nature of His message. More directly, you misunderstand the purpose of giving the particular Laws to the Nation of Israel in the OT era. These Laws reveal God’s holy nature and holy requirements. As Israel learned and as we all should learn, we simply cannot live up to the standard. That is the purpose of the Law. The purpose of the Law is not to instruct people to kill each other. Rather the Laws, even the capital punishment Laws, are meant to show the inadequacies of people to live up to God’s holy and righteous requirements.
Paul informs us in Galatians:
Galatians 3:22-24 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
It is clear that the purpose of the Law is to confine people under sin so that they see their need for a Savior. If and when capital punishment was instituted, it was for the divinely sanctioned theocratic government to execute, not individual Israelites. The overriding command to the individual is basically “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself, including your enemies.” (See the whole book of Deuteronomy).
So my point is this – you are unaware of the basic teachings of the Bible and therefore unqualified to comment on their consistency. I would suggest reading it in an unbiased fashion to see its unity of theme and its uncanny logic and internal consistency. It would seem that you are so biased against it that you will not even give it a chance to speak for itself. I suppose I can understand this, if you are making the mistake of mixing the bad conduct of insensitive “Christians” up with the system itself. But if you examine the Bible, the worldview it postulates, the teachings of Jesus, and so on, on their own terms, and with and open and unbiased mind, you will see its remarkable character, veracity and life-changing power become evident.
November 1st, 2006 at at 8:48 pm
Back to I Am’s problem. His wife should let the students recite the Pledge so that she can keep her job (the words don’t mean anything to the kids anyway), and to counterbalance it, I AM should put a bumper sticker from http://rageonapage.com on his car.
November 2nd, 2006 at at 6:32 am
So my point is this – you are unaware of the basic teachings of the Bible and therefore unqualified to comment on their consistency.
Dollar — This is a pretty arrogant assumption. How do you know that YOU aren’t the one who has it all wrong and haven’t studied the bible in a truly unbiased way? I have a Masters in Literature and from what I have studied and have analyzed for myself, the bible has no flow, no real order, it’s facts are inconsistent, sources conflict — especially in the gospels and New Testament. It has been edited and edited, parts taken out, things lost or twisted in translation.
But if you examine the Bible, the worldview it postulates, the teachings of Jesus, and so on, on their own terms, and with and open and unbiased mind, you will see its remarkable character, veracity and life-changing power become evident.
You believe this because you want to believe it. You “see” what YOU wish to see, or what you have been assimilated to see. One could do the same thing with Dr. Seuss books, or more seriously Mein Kampf or Mao’s Little Red Book. I have read the bible through twice, and examined it part by part for a number of years while examining my faith and religion. Most atheists do not become atheists overnight. It is a continual process of critical thinking and analysis of the religion that we had been indoctrinated with since childhood. For me, the “life-changing power” came after I realized xianity is just another mythology and after more than 30 years of delusion I freed myself of religious superstition.
clementine — LOVE the bumber stickers, especially the one that says “Keep your faith-based god out of my reality-based life” and “KEEP THE FAITH OUT OF GOVERNMENT!” Just have to hope the loving fundies don’t trash your car! (That happened to a relative of mine…the back of his car was all spray-painted because of his Darwin fish.)
November 2nd, 2006 at at 7:55 am
stardust-What a wonderfully Christian thing for those folks to have done to your relative’s car. I haven’t had that problem yet. Fingers “crossed.”
I also came to atheism through a long process that started after witnessing the destruction of the WTC from lower Manhattan. To believe in a supernatural being, especially one that is GOOD, goes beyond wishful thinking. It is a form of insanity.
November 2nd, 2006 at at 5:02 pm
stardust-What a wonderfully Christian thing for those folks to have done to your relative’s car. I haven’t had that problem yet. Fingers “crossed.”
A belief system cannot be judged as to its truthfulness by the (mis)conduct of its adherents. I trust Jesus Christ, not His followers. Agnosticism cannot be judged as true or false just because there are some mean agnostics out there. This is a logical fallacy and though I sympathize with the relative whose car was vandelized, it really does not aid the discussion at all. It is more like this TV political ads where candidates sling as much mud as can be slung in 30 seconds.
I also came to atheism through a long process that started after witnessing the destruction of the WTC from lower Manhattan. To believe in a supernatural being, especially one that is GOOD, goes beyond wishful thinking. It is a form of insanity.
Though I can understand the heartache of seeing 9-11 occur, I would simply say that the problem of evil and suffering has been sufficiently dealt with on a philosophical and theological level. For example, read this: http://www.arcapologetics.org/articles/article09.htm. It may not seem like a good God would allow evil, and we certainly cannot understand all the how’s and why’s, but nonetheless, He can be logical justified in allowing it and being good at the same time. I would encourage you to think logically rather than emotionally.
November 2nd, 2006 at at 5:04 pm
I messed my quote up on the last post
. The paragraph that beings, “A belief system cannot be judged…” is mine. Sorry bout that.
November 2nd, 2006 at at 6:33 pm
It may not seem like a good God would allow evil, and we certainly cannot understand all the how’s and why’s, but nonetheless, He can be logical justified in allowing it and being good at the same time. I would encourage you to think logically rather than emotionally.
This gawd of xian mythology is NOT good. He is a baby killer, murderer, and a huge dick (See I AM’s “God is a Dick” series)…just like many of the gawds of other mythologies are dicks.
Xians claim gawd made everything…then this gawd made evil. Therefore, again…he is a dick.
Logic and reason tells me that god, gods, goddesses are all human inventions from imagination of desperate minds looking for a way to outsmart death. Death cannot be physically avoided, therefore humans have created a fantasy in order to cope with it. Xians are death obsessed (or I should say obsessed with avoiding death.)
Dollar, I would encourage you to really study World Mythologies. Also, I would encourage you to think rationally about why you believe in this sky daddy of yours. It’s because you want the impossible…everlasting life. If it were not for the fantasy of everlasting life, it is my bet that you would have nothing to do with these gawd beliefs.
November 2nd, 2006 at at 10:41 pm
Though I can understand the heartache of seeing 9-11 occur, I would simply say that the problem of evil and suffering has been sufficiently dealt with on a philosophical and theological level. For example, read this: http://www.arcapologetics.org/articles/article09.htm. It may not seem like a good God would allow evil, and we certainly cannot understand all the how’s and why’s, but nonetheless, He can be logical justified in allowing it and being good at the same time. I would encourage you to think logically rather than emotionally.
Well, I read this ridiculous article, and I can say that there is nothing logical about it. It doesn’t matter how logical an argument is if it starts with such massively unproveable assumptions as “God exists,” or that “every human being is a sinner and sinners deserve eternal punishment in Hell.” If the premise doesn’t hold up, then any argument that follows certainly won’t. And using the Bible as “empirical verification” is just as logical as using the Iliad, Canterbury Tales or Harry Potter. I am truly amazed at the hoops you people jump through to justify your absurd beliefs. It must be as stardust says: you don’t want to face the fact that some day you are going to die. Why else would you believe such nonsense?
To say that God is omnibenevolent but allows evil “in order to bring about a greater good” is just stupid. Why can’t God, being omnipotent, just bring about the greater good and skip the evil? It’s like saying that a doctor who poisons people and then cures them just before they die is kind and loving because he has caused them to better appreciate being healthy.
Could you imagine any loving mother wanting evil things to happen to her children, or not stepping in to prevent them from harm? So how can you justify the idea that God, who is supposed to be way more loving than any mortal mom, infinitely loving in fact, can just sit back and watch while his creations suffer?
I’ll tell you why. BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD. Jesus, get a clue.
And while 9/11 was certainly an emotional, traumatic event, my rejection of religion came after a long, thoughtful, logical process. And besides, who are you to tell me that I should be more logical? Just how logical are all the swaying, muttering masses that can be found in any Sunday morning megachurch service?
And where is the logic in believing that a supernatural god who lights people on fire and uses his magical powers to keep them alive while he continues to pour gas on them for eternity is actually a loving being?
Logical my ass.
And, oh yeah, I agree with I AM and stardust. God is a dick.
November 3rd, 2006 at at 8:20 am
Oops, the quote at the top of my last post is not mine, it’s Dollar’s. Sometimes it’s hard for a Luddite like me to do these things.
November 3rd, 2006 at at 8:53 am
Wow. You folks are really angry. I recognize that I will never be able to pursuade you otherwise in your beliefs. I would like to, because I believe Christianity is true and makes sense of reality. But it seems impossible given your biases against it. However, I bet there are folks reading our conversation here who see your logical fallaices (name calling, red herrings, and straw men where you mis-characterize the true teaching of Christianity) and your constant and unfounded attacks on a God that you obviously do not understand, nor allow to defend Himself, and perhaps these readers are seeing things rightly. I hope so anyway.
Speaking about the problem of evil, I have to say that your arguments are most certainly founded in emotion. After all, most atheistic philosophers have long left behind the problem of evil, realizing that from a logical perspective, God and evil could co-exist. You dismiss the “Greater goods” argument and mock it, when in fact the smartest people in your own camp have excepted it as rational and have moved on to greener fields.
It seems to me that you are simply angry – at religion, Christians, God, I’m not sure. And I do sympathize. I get angry too. However, in order to arrive at truth, our emotions must be set aside and we must look at the data with an unbiased eye. Again, I realize that those responding to me will probably never do this. But those of you just reading for info, do you see what I mean?
November 3rd, 2006 at at 9:50 am
> You folks are really angry.
Most of us don’t walk around being angry. We just get frustrated and testy when people try to push their beliefs on us, especially when tired, discredited arguments are presented anew.
> you mis-characterize the true teaching of Christianity
I think that you are eliding two concepts: the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of Christianity. The teachings of Jesus (as we know them) are actually pretty nice and would make the world a better place (which would not require a belief in his divinity). The “teachings of Christianity” would be what is taught by the lives lived by Christians; not such a pretty sight.
> your constant and unfounded attacks on a God that you obviously do not understand
Nor do Christians even claim to understand. They wave their hands and chant, “God works in mysterious ways”. They classify acts that in any other situation would be called “evil” as “benevolence”, because God is defined as being “benevolent”, so it must be so.
> nor allow to defend Himself
Your god is free to step in and defend himself anytime he likes. The notion that I could stop him is quite funny.
> we must look at the data with an unbiased eye
Many of us (myself included) used to be Christian. We had belief (maybe weak, maybe strong), and then we looked at data which, even to a an eye that was biased in favor of Christianity, held those beliefs to be unsupportable. We have walked a mile in your shoes. They were a poor fit for our feet, and not well adapted for the ‘road’ that we call reality, either.
November 3rd, 2006 at at 10:38 am
“After all, most atheistic philosophers have long left behind the problem of evil, realizing that from a logical perspective, God and evil could co-exist.”
Is this true? I somehow doubt it. The only way I could see this as true is if they have given up worrying about a logically contradictory definition of God that the POE rests on. Could you provide a source for this claim?
Thanks
November 3rd, 2006 at at 10:40 am
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html
I doubt it because these are all relatively new formulations of the argument from evil.
November 3rd, 2006 at at 11:27 am
I’m not angry Dollar. It’s more frustration. To give you some perspective, imagine if a dear friend or loved one made all of her decisions based on readings she got from a psychic. You would probably think she was nuts, and you would try to argue with her that there were no independent studies to support the accuracy of self-proclaimed psychics, that her beliefs were totally irrational and so forth. But no matter what you said, she still proclaimed her belief in the powers of the psychic and kept on making visits and basing her decisions on the psychis readings.
For atheists, we feel the same way about people who are deeply religious. We are more frustrated than angry that you have constructed this mental prison for yourself wherein the only source of moral truth is a collection of texts called the Bible, and that the Creator of the Universe got a virgin woman pregnancy 2000 years ago and that one had to accept the product of that union as necessary in order to have salvation in the after life.
November 3rd, 2006 at at 12:28 pm
There is no more logic in deciding there is no deity than in deciding that there is. They’re both individual interpretations of the given data. The fact is that humans seem to be pre-wired to believe in a spiritual force of some kind. One wonders what the reason for this might be if there were no spiritual reality, but one cannot logically prove its origin or purpose either way. In this case, being set either way is to take a fundamentalist position. The logical conclusion is that one cannot reach a conclusion while alive. If you can’t consider that your opinion might be wrong, then you are no more logical than the Islamists who fly planes into buildings.
This discussion is a perfect example of why God or Not didn’t work. Atheists in general are no more logical in their positions than anyone else, and they’re nasty about it. There never was much discussion, and no one was swayed by anything they read as far as I could tell. Why should a theist deal with the ridicule and derision of someone jumping up and down yelling “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re, wrong!”
I AM — this is a difficult situation, and only your wife can decide for herself. I can tell you that in the past I have faced similar situations and I refused to participate, but I paid a price for it. As for the children, this is pure brainwashing. They aren’t old enough to understand a loyalty oath – they’re just empty words to them. Having children that small say the pledge is tantamount to sending them to Jesus Camp.
For my part, if I say the pledge, I leave out the “under god” when I say it. I would not, under any circumstances, teach it to a child. No one below the age of 16 or so has the capacity for abstract thought required to make an actual allegiance to an abstract concept like a country or democracy any way. If it’s a public or government school, reciting it with a reference to deity is definitely unconstitutional.
November 3rd, 2006 at at 5:48 pm
Wow. You folks are really angry.
I cannot be angry at something that does not exist. I cannot be angry at mythology. How does pointing out that the god of xian mythology is a dick just as many gods in other mythologies. That is just an observation and analysis of the various myths.
What I DO get angry about is that people cannot just believe what they do and not try to interject it into MY life and our secular government. I do get angry being woken up on Saturday mornings by obnoxious, pious evangelicals.
November 3rd, 2006 at at 5:53 pm
How does pointing out that the god of xian mythology is a dick just as many gods in other mythologies. should read “How does pointing out that the god of xian mythology is a dick just as many gods in other mythologies are dicks make me an angry person?”
Sorry … long day
November 4th, 2006 at at 2:47 am
Why not discuss it with the Principal or Administrator (whatever) and ask that he/she either recite it over the intercom system or have someone else do it? That way, the school requirement is met and the children and teacher only have to stand and recite it as they see fit or according to how the parents raise their children.
Your wife (as a teacher) has no right to introduce subversive material in any way, shape or form and if material is not part of the curriculum, then she has no right to introduce it. My former schools had it recited over the PA system and there were many teachers and students who did not recite the “under God” portion. Anything else, is up to the parents.
The main dilemma is that your wife need not feel forced as that is indeed unconstitutional. Likewise, it is an infringement of others’ rights to deny them the opportunity to express their patriotism even if it includes a deistic utterance. She does not have to recite it that way and her rights are not infringed even by hearing it as she can “tune that out”.
Cheers.
November 4th, 2006 at at 8:02 am
It sickens me that we even need to be having this discussion. It is a testament to the power of religion in this country that I AM’s wife is faced with the dilemma of losing her job if she doesn’t participate in something that is clearly unconstitutional.
Listen, I know we’re supposed to be civil and nice and never criticize religion because doing so means that we’re being “disrespectful. But I’ve realized that Dollar is right. Part of the reason that I am now an atheist has to do with emotion. And the main emotion I feel right now is definitely anger.
I know that many of you say that you are not angry–just frustrated. Well, I am not in that camp. I am A-1, pure-and-simple 100% angry. Angry because religion, an irrational belief in ancient fables, not only forces us to do things that are unconstitutional, but has been the cause of horrendous suffering, war and murder throughout history, and is now threatening our very existence. With 27.000 nukes lying around our planet, it is only a matter of time before some religious wingnut gets a hold of one and does something truly awful in the name of his god.
Right now, Shiites and Sunnis are slaughtering each other in Iraq because they can’t agree on who succeeded Mohammed after he flew off to Heaven on a winged horse. The 9/11 hijackers rammed planes into buildings full of innocent people to fulfill the wishes of their god. Suicide bombers ply their evil trade for the same reason. India and Pakistan have nukes pointed at each other because of their incompatible religious beliefs. The Vatican and the US government have cut funds for the distribution of life-saving condoms in Africa because of irrational religious beliefs. The most promising technology for the alleviation of suffering, stem-cell research, is stifled for religious reasons. Muslims in Sudan have killed two million Christians and animists in southern Sudan, because, you guessed it, it is Allah’s will. Politicians have wasted valuable time discussing an amendment to the Constitution that would actually discriminate against one group of people because these civil servants believe it is what God wants (or at least what their all-important Christian fundamentalist base wants). Millions of people in this country, perhaps even our president, think that Global Warming is a wonderful thing, because it may bring on the second coming of Christ.
Enough already. Enough! Religion is a goddam irrational embrace of myth, pure and simple. And I’m tired of being polite about it. Anyone who believes in an invisible, unknowable supernatural being that lives up in the sky and listens to you when you talk to him is suffering, as Bill Maher puts it, from a neurological disorder. And while you moderates aren’t as destructive as true believers, your rituals and worship continue to legitimize the same books that give the crazies their justification for their violent, oppressive and intolerant acts. If this offends your sensibilities, well. I’m sorry, but 2000 years of misery, oppression and war at the hands of religious believers offends my sensibilities.
Too much tragedy has occurred in the name of blind, numbheaded religious superstition. Somebody’s got to start speaking up about it. In this age of high-tech weapons of mass destruction, the stakes are simply too high. Sorry if you don’t like me “yelling” at you that you are wrong. But here’s the thing: YOU ARE.
November 4th, 2006 at at 8:37 am
You are conflating all religions with Yahwist religion, Clementine. My religion doesn’t do any of the things you listed. The real danger comes from patriarchy, and biblical mythology is just used to reinforce it.
November 4th, 2006 at at 9:10 am
I know that many of you say that you are not angry–just frustrated. Well, I am not in that camp. I am A-1, pure-and-simple 100% angry. Angry because religion, an irrational belief in ancient fables, not only forces us to do things that are unconstitutional, but has been the cause of horrendous suffering, war and murder throughout history, and is now threatening our very existence. With 27.000 nukes lying around our planet, it is only a matter of time before some religious wingnut gets a hold of one and does something truly awful in the name of his god.
clementine – I 100% agree with you. While I cannot be angry with a gawd that doesn’t exist or a book of ancient mythology itself, I AM angry that people try to interject their irrational beliefs and delusions and some magical book and hocus pocus into MY life and our secular government (as subtle sometimes as “under gawd” in the pledge) and try to force me and others to live by it. I do not want any part of this gawd crap in my life, and it’s in my face every single damn day.
My husband had to go to a court hearing for some unscrupulous xian self-proclaimed “reverend” who was suing my husband over an accident that was determined previously to be this crook’s complete fault. (My husband won in the end, but it was a big hassle since it was 800 miles away in Philadelphia–it’s a long story.) During the swearing in part of the court hearing, my husband was asked to repeat “to tell the whole truth, so help me god” He replied, “I agree to everything else except the ‘god’ part”…then he repeated the oath and said “I swear to tell the truth on MY GOOD NAME AND RECORD.” For a second everyone was silent…the judge and others looked at my husband as if he were from outer space! Then they said no more and continued with the hearing. His lawyer later told him that he has had atheist/agnostic clients who had never done that before.
(The xian reverened con-artist, on the other hand took the “gawd pledge” and outright LIED on the stand…but caught himself up in his web of lies and his gawd didn’t help him when he unintentionally let it be known he has been collecting disability benefits from the city…it was great how he hung himself.)
November 4th, 2006 at at 4:49 pm
“from a neurological disorder.”
This is a name-calling logical fallacy. Think about how many millions of very smart people there are who are Christians. (Please believe me when I say that I understand not all Christians are smart). But there are so many high IQ Christians out there. Consider the brilliant mind of Al Mohler. Or Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame philosopher). Or William Dembski. Or C.S. Lewis.
The list goes on and on. All I am saying is that if Christian folks are all suffering from neurological disorders, then that includes a large number of smart people all suffering from the same disorder. This is just simply not the case.
Truth is, many intelligent people consider Christianity to be the most logical, internally consistent, and best explanation for the existence of the universe as we know it. It is no disorder. It is no mere opinion.
Again, the (mis)behavior of the adherents does not have any bearing on whether the system itself is true or not. It sounds like so many of you are angry at Christians. But really, what does that have to do with the belief system itself. Just because people are imperfect and misinterpret and misuse a faith (admittedly this happens constantly) does not negate its truthfulness or falsity.
So go ahead and be angry and frustrated. Hey, I understand exactly how you feel. When Christians foul up, I see how it damages our credibility (I’ve been known to foul up quite often myself). However again, a belief system needs to be examined on its own terms, not base on the conduct or psychological condition of the people who believe it.
November 4th, 2006 at at 6:38 pm
Hey, I understand exactly how you feel. When Christians foul up, I see how it damages our credibility
Having absolutely zero evidence of this invisible sky daddy has already ruined your credibility. All you have is the faith in your own mind, as a child believes in Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.
November 4th, 2006 at at 7:10 pm
then that includes a large number of smart people all suffering from the same disorder.
It’s called brainwashing. Just look at Hitler and WWII to see what lemmings most people are. What about all of the millions of followers of other religions that you don’t believe in, like Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist and the hundreds of others?
Most people are sheeple. Most people, if not all, are very disturbed and distressed by the knowledge that every living thing will sooner or later cease to exist.
Xianity sells a delusional crutch, which is at most offers a way to psychologically cope with the reality of death, and life’s problems — a fairy tale dream of everlasting life, an invisible friend you can talk to, a genie in a lamp for many. If that is what many people need to deal with the reality of death and the hardships of life, I am not heartless enough to take that crutch away from them. However, it is not enough for those who believe in the crutch to just believe it and keep it to themselves. They must try to give everyone else a crutch. You just have to accept that some of us just don’t need a crutch and can walk and stand tall wihtout the crutch of our imaginary friend.
November 5th, 2006 at at 12:40 am
All I am saying is that if Christian folks are all suffering from neurological disorders, then that includes a large number of smart people all suffering from the same disorder. This is just simply not the case.
Neurological disorders and intelligence have nothing to do with each other. The obsessive, antisocial behavior of geniuses like Michelangelo, Albert Einstein Marie Curie, Andy Warhol and Bill Gates has been attributed to a neurological disorder called Asberger’s Syndrome, a form of autism. Stephen Hawking’s well known neurological disorder is Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.
All the intelligent people you’ve talked about suffer from a neurological disorder called religion. The Christian variety occurs usually among people who were taught as children, by all-important parents and religious authorities, that the myths of the Bible are actually true. They are taught, at a time when their minds are still developing, and when they are unable to think for themselves, that a man once had a conversation with burning shrubbery, that the same man lifted up a magic god rod and parted an ocean, that a guy survived being whale bait, that a woman was zapped into a salt statue, that another man gathered millions of animals from all around the world and put them on a single boat with only one window, and that yet another guy walked on water, became a zombie, and died for our sins. Upon reaching adulthood, few of these indoctrinated children ever examine the evidence to determine whether any of these beliefs actually hold up to scrutiny. Most atheists have undertaken this work, and that is why they are now atheists. But theists just continue to believe all these ancient, outrageous stories even though there is no evidence to support them, and indeed, much evidence to debunk them. And that is why they suffer from Steeple Syndrome.
Again, the (mis)behavior of the adherents does not have any bearing on whether the system itself is true or not. It sounds like so many of you are angry at Christians. But really, what does that have to do with the belief system itself. Just because people are imperfect and misinterpret and misuse a faith (admittedly this happens constantly) does not negate its truthfulness or falsity.
The misbehavior of these few adherents is actually the proper behavior of true believers. If you truly believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, then you WILL hate gays, you WILL stifle condom use because it promotes evil sex, and you WILL relish bad news because it will bring on the Rapture. If you believe that the Koran is the literal word of God then you WILL kill nonbelievers. The Bible and the Koran tell you so. These people are actually on more solid theological ground than you are. They don’t ignore much of the Bible the way you do; they embrace it. But, as Sam Harris says, moderates, such as yourself, give cover to the extremists by continuing to insist that these books (which most moderates haven’t even read) have merit and by chastising anyone who has the temerity to point out that they don’t. You and your millions of moderate friends are the giant moderate moat that protects the castle of extremism.
November 5th, 2006 at at 3:30 am
I was raised by my parent who were teathers, and were keen to work with their secular philosophies. The memories of my parents when I was ten year old, they participated in the protest walks against the government and involved strikes to get the freedom of what to teach, how to teach encourage me to be a tenacious freethinker. To show children teachers and parents attitudes based on their philosophy is the significance of the true education. We care the children’s future.
November 5th, 2006 at at 8:49 am
“Having absolutely zero evidence of this invisible sky daddy has already ruined your
credibility. All you have is the faith in your own mind, as a child believes in Santa
Claus or Easter Bunny.”
If you continue to think there is zero evidence, then you have not examined it. To not believe in some type of creator is to believe in some form of abiogenesis which you should be able to comrehend, is ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong here, I understand that a careful weighing of evidence is needed, but for you to use the word “zero” is to prove how blind you are to the obvious.
“You just have to accept that some of us just don’t need a
crutch and can walk and stand tall wihtout the crutch of our imaginary friend.
Just because a person recognizes his need for a crutch does not make him illogical. If I fall and break my leg, it is the most logical thing to go to a doctor and get help. The sad thing is when a person is broken and needy and refuses the help that is offered.
“They are taught, at a time when their minds are still developing, and
when they are unable to think for themselves,”
C.S. Lewis was converted later life from Atheism. He was a famous Literature professor at Oxford. This is one example of many people who were not “taught” or “brainwashed” but came to a knowledge of Christ through adult experience. I’m afraid that your argument, once again, has no grounding and is full of holes.
“The misbehavior of these few adherents is actually the proper behavior of true believers.
If you truly believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, then you WILL hate gays,
you WILL stifle condom use because it promotes evil sex, and you WILL relish bad news
because it will bring on the Rapture.
You do not understand the teaching of the Bible. It tells us that homosexuality is a sin against a holy God, it never says to hate gays. The Bible says nothing at all about condemn use, though it does tell us that God created sex to be only enjoyed by those who are married. And though we look forward to the coming of Christ and we understand that this will involve “bad news,” namely the outpouring of God’s wrath upon a rebellious world, that does not mean we “relish” the horrific events, or that we are ever anywhere commanded to do so. The Bible does teach us that we can still have joy in the midst of trial becuase of who God is and what He is doing.
You have fallen into the logical fallacy of creating a strawman of Christianity and then proceeded to knock down your invention. This is a game and you are not dealing with the actual data.
November 5th, 2006 at at 9:04 am
Dollar. I suggest you study up on the life of C.S. Lewis. He was brought up with religion, and as some do, reverted back to xianity because he obviously needed an invisible friend.
From his bio at Wikipedia:His mother was Flora Augusta Hamilton Lewis (1862-1908), the daughter of a Church of Ireland priest. . . . Although raised in a church going family in the Church of Ireland, Lewis turned an atheist from the ages of 13 to 31.
November 5th, 2006 at at 9:06 am
Just because a person recognizes his need for a crutch does not make him illogical. If I fall and break my leg, it is the most logical thing to go to a doctor and get help.
Why do you run to a mortal, human doctor? Why do you not pray to be healed by your imaginary friend?
The only help anyone is going to get is from themselves, or another mortal, living, flesh-and-blood human being here on this planet.
November 5th, 2006 at at 11:07 am
You do not understand the teaching of the Bible. It tells us that homosexuality is a sin against a holy God, it never says to hate gays.
The god in your Bible commands in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuals should be killed. Just what is your definition of hate?
Am I to understand by this statement that since the Bible doesn’t specifically mention condom use, Christians can’t be held responsible for trying to stop its use in places where it could save lives? The Bible also doesn’t mention anything about abortion. Does that mean that you are not responsible for attempting to keep people from choosing to have them?
November 5th, 2006 at at 11:26 am
though it does tell us that God created sex to be only enjoyed by those who are married.
Married couples use contraceptives (the pill, condoms, etc.) in order to enjoy sex without the worry of unwanted pregnancies. Also, sex among some married folks is not always enjoyable…especially for the woman who is caught up in some archaic belief system that forces her to pop out babies like a rabbit.
BOY are we off topic! LOL!
November 5th, 2006 at at 2:47 pm
Wow, this thread has really exploded.
Dollar, it is one thing to posit that there is some Creator entity (or perhaps more than one) that created the universe and everything in it, it is quite another to argue that the god described in the Bible is a real entity and is the sole creator and source of moral truth in the universe. It is possible that “God” exists but takes absolutely no interest in us whatsoever or judges us based on our conduct and actions. This entity simply created the universe and its energy or essence is in everything in the universe that resulted from the Big Bang.
The conflict between theism and atheism arises becauses theists claim that the God they believe in watches over us ceaselessly and has communicated to various humans throughout history about the rules and regulations they must abide by in order to please this God.
Where this ties into the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is because the proponents of the phrase believe in a particular God, the God of the Bible, and that we as a nation should live by the laws and precepts of this God, hence we are living under the laws of this God and presumably under his grace and protection. By mandating the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in the schools, children are not only pledging their allegiance to this country, but to a particular deity that I do not believe exists.
November 5th, 2006 at at 3:23 pm
To think I thought we lived in a country that has seperation of church and state. How wrong I was. If we are to say under God, in the pledge than let churchs start paying taxes. I wish I was swiss. Let me rephrase. I love my country but fear my government that is run by the religious right who wants to take away the rights of everybody but them selves. They say we are a christian state. Not true! We do not want to take away your religion. We do not say you can not practice it. The fact is there is more than just christianity in this world. You must respect our “dis” belief if you expect us to respect your beliefs. A school is STATE run and should NOT be about religion. If you want religion fine! No one is stopping you. Teach it at home or in your church. God should not be in the class room but in the church!
November 5th, 2006 at at 7:20 pm
I’m not seeing evidence of abstract thinking in either the Christians or the atheists in these comments. You cannot logically have a sense of absolute certainty – if you are 100% certain of your position, you aren’t being logical, you’re being fundamentalist. You can be a fundamentalist atheist just as easily as you can be a fundamentalist Christian. Any creed, or the state of having no creed at all, can be twisted into a fundamentalist position. It doesn’t matter what you believe, it’s how and why you believe it that makes the difference.
Most people stay at a median level of moral and ethical development their whole lives. They take on the belief system of whatever authority makes them feel comfortable. The test of your ethical development is your ability to consider that you might be wrong. It is one thing to think you are right – we all do. It is another thing to decide definitively that you are and to force others who have a different world view to follow your beliefs. Suicide bombers have absolute certainty. If you can entertain the idea that you might not know everything there is to know, you won’t take such extreme measures because you might be wrong.
Fundamentalism is always dangerous no matter who practices it. I would rather deal with a moderate Christian than a fundamentalist “free thinker” who has an absolute position and will consider no other. If you truly value “free thought” you leave others free to think as they choose.
America is unique because our founders used their intellect to determine that people must be treated fairly by government and then left free to live as they choose. We run into trouble when people start wanting to choose for everyone else, or when someone decides that some group isn’t as equal as everyone else. I don’t want unyielding atheists or unyielding Christians making decisions for me, whether those include or exclude religion. Step out of your dichotomy of “god or not” and entertain that there might be something completely different you haven’t considered. You simply might not know everything. What if you are wrong about everything?
November 5th, 2006 at at 10:18 pm
Morgaine, what atheist posting here claims to be 100% certain about everything? For instance, in my last post, I posit the idea that there might be a God or a deity. I cannot be 100% sure that there is no such being. But I am 100% sure that the God of the Bible does not exist.
And who here is preventing anyone else from being “free to think as they choose”? You really are not making any sense.
November 5th, 2006 at at 10:40 pm
When people start throwing around phrases like “neurological disorder,” that sounds pretty certain to me, as well as judgemental and inflexible. You conceded that you couldn’t absolutely deny the existence of a deity, so obviously I’m not talking about you. I read my previous comment over again, and it’s perfectly clear. I used standard English words and good grammar.
I’m only responding when I get emails of posts, so maybe there’s a time differential in the posts that has me referring to an earlier part of the conversation.
November 5th, 2006 at at 11:12 pm
Wow Morgaine. Who here is trying to force anyone to be anything? And comparing us to suicide bombers? That’s way out of line. Atheists simply take the position that it is irresponsible to believe in something just because someone tells you to without offering any evidence to prove it. I think I speak for all atheists here when I say that we know we could be wrong. If you show us evidence that God exists, we will be in the front row every Sunday. How many religious people would take the same position toward atheism?
November 6th, 2006 at at 12:23 am
Plenty of “religious people” have doubts. I’m a religious person, but I don’t believe in Yahweh. There’s a small, vocal group of fundamentalist Christians that have made a deal with the devil (known as the Republican party) that can’t be reasoned with, but they aren’t representative of all “religious people.”
I’ll be the first to say that Yahwist religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are endangering the world, but that’s not about religion, it’s about fascism disguised as religion. Neither Jesus nor Mohammed said anything that could produce the carnage and cruelty that is taking place right now in their names.
I got to know I AM through the God or Not carnivals, and I have to say it was a negative experience for me where the atheists were concerned. I’ve never met an angrier assortment of people in my life, and I live in a red state. You aren’t going to get anywhere with people if you lump all religions in together and make a blanket statement. You aren’t going to get anywhere by calling them brain-damaged or brainwashed. Do you not realize how angry and judgemental you sound? You say you aren’t trying to force anyone to be or think anything in particular, but there’s a clear implication that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is stupid, brainwashed or delusional.
I don’t want that phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I don’t want my money saying “in god we trust” any more than you do. In your case it’s presumptuous, but in my case it’s blasphemous. I’d like to have the objective, secular state we’re intended to have. I wouldn’t want my religion institutionalized in government, either. Comparing someone’s deity to Santa or the Easter Bunny isn’t going to win them over to your side, and it’s disrespectful to the Pagan origins of Santa and Oestara as well.
You can’t prove your position, either. You can only reach a subjective conclusion based on available data, and 9 times out of 10 a person is still going to reach the same conclusion reached by their parents and grandparents before them. If you’re the 1 out of 10 that can move beyond that, that’s great, but it doesn’t entitle you to tell other people they’re stupid if they aren’t at your level yet.
My sincere wish is that atheists will begin to be treated fairly in this society, but it’s hard when those atheists are saying I’m stupid or brain damaged. The crisis we are facing in this world right now is a conflict between two levels of moral development, and people are dying from it. The books are only symptoms of the problem, not the source. Psychological maturity isn’t going to arise from two polarized sides jumping up and down yelling “Is not!” “Is, too!” You play right into the hands of the powers behind the fundamentalists sects when you denigrate all religions equally. That’s neither logical nor smart.
November 6th, 2006 at at 5:42 am
Morgaine – Richard Dawkins said “By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. ” As Clementine asks, “Who here is trying to force anyone to be anything?” This is a free country, one where people can believe whatever they choose, (as long as they choose to believe in some kind of imaginary friend.) Those of us who don’t are lumped in the group of the “most hated group in America.” As for you and your pagan beliefs, if many xians had their way, you would be burned at a stake.
You wrote : “Comparing someone’s deity to Santa or the Easter Bunny isn’t going to win them over to your side, and it’s disrespectful to the Pagan origins of Santa and Oestara as well.”
As for me, and probably others here, I am not out to “convert” anyone or win anyone over. I can respect the person choice to believe whatever, but not when they try to force it on me. If they keep whatever beliefs they have to themselves, and to stop trying to interject it into our lives and secular government, there wouldn’t be a problem. I would not say that chatting amongst ourselves on an atheist site and having atheist blogs of our own is “fundamentalism”. Yet every atheist website I go to it is infiltrated by xian fundies and an occasional muslim troll with threats of hellfire and damnation for disbelief in the existence of something that there has been zero evidence for. Speaking out against attempts to interject religion into my life and into our secular government is not fundamentalism. It might be called “activism”, but since we are not trying to convert anyone, and are merely trying to preserve the principles that this country was founded on, it is quite a different thing that fundamentalism. Atheists, if anything are trying to protect all people’s freedom to worship whatever they choose. This is a diverse culture and for one group to impose it’s beliefs on another is against the principles that this country was founded on.
Just as you have a site for your pagan goddess beliefs, we have a site where atheists can come together and discuss and exchange opinions and sometimes gives us other things to think about. You talk about whatever Pagan goddess you want on your site, but if you come to an atheist site and make claims of an invisible friend, you better bring your evidence for the existence of that “friend”, goddess, etc. It is not up to the atheist to prove your imaginary friends do not exist and we could not do so anyway. So far, no evidence has been presented to evaluate except for what has been written in books by other humans. When you insist on saying something exists with zero evidence, we are going to equate those beliefs to little children who believe in Santa, Easter Bunny for which there is the same amount of evidence for the existence of as your gods, goddesses, devils, demons and other creatures of the imagination.
November 6th, 2006 at at 5:58 am
Morgaine, about the “moderates”…Clementine has addressed this so well in a comment above: “You and your millions of moderate friends are the giant moderate moat that protects the castle of extremism.”
November 8th, 2006 at at 5:26 pm
It seems that she has a problem with her personal beliefs about “God”. Saying the offending words would contravene her principles. So, she doesn’t have to say them herself. But can she not let the kids say the words themselves (ie can they read the pledge off something, or must they repeat what she says?) since it is between the kids and their parents anyway? Or is the problem that she does not want the kids to say the words. If this is the problem, then she is in trouble with the school board.
November 8th, 2006 at at 6:06 pm
But can she not let the kids say the words themselves (ie can they read the pledge off something, or must they repeat what she says?)
Gerry, The problem is, these kids are even too young to know how to read, much less understand the meaning and intentions of a “pledge” to anything.
November 9th, 2006 at at 5:59 pm
A child who says, “one nation under god” isn’t going to spontaneously develop a belief in a world creating, flood causing, city burning psychotic product of primitive shamanic government. Their parents and preachers will have to help them with that. And if they are going to, the pledge will not have made a significant difference.
November 9th, 2006 at at 8:14 pm
But why should they have to say it at all Gadfly?
November 9th, 2006 at at 9:25 pm
But why should they have to say it at all Gadfly?
Tommykey – Exactly…they are practically infants at preschool age.
November 10th, 2006 at at 2:23 pm
But why should they have to say it at all Gadfly?
Actually, I don’t believe they should. He was asking for a non-confrontational solution.
I once recieved an on-campus suspension for not saying the pledge. I was written up by my history teacher, who also wasn’t saying it.
November 10th, 2006 at at 9:15 pm
In today’s news: Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government.
Students at Calif college ban Pledge of Allegiance
November 10th, 2006 at at 9:45 pm
[...] You can read the whole post and comments here: The Pledge Hits Home [...]
November 10th, 2006 at at 10:58 pm
I AM
So what did your wife end up doing? And how did it turn out?
November 10th, 2006 at at 11:29 pm
Whether the pledge is secular or religious is secondary to the fact that requiring a child to pledge “allegience” to any entity is absurd. What does a 5 year old really know about his/her allegiences and where they should lie? I would suggest that your wife assist the school in developing a before-hours program where all of the parents who wish to indoctrinate their children can bring them 20 minutes early and participate in a group brainwashing ceremony, outside of the school at the flagpole (or some other common area). Parents with the sense to exclude their children from this atrocity can simply arrive on-time.
November 11th, 2006 at at 7:06 am
(see ***** for my actual response to the actual first post, the other stuff is just rambling…)
My kids say the pledge at school and at Scouts. I say it with them when I’m there. For the last two years, I literally cried every time I said it. Last night, I did not.
I was mourning our country as I said it before and now I feel empowered by the change in govt.
This is my country. I believe it is a great place, with many, many wonderful people. And many, many assholes. Belief in god does not determine who is wonderful and who is an asshole. It seems to be a random assignment. Being religious does not make one a better person; sometimes it seems to be used to justify nasty, judgmental bullshit. The country has been run recently by Christians who wouldn’t help their neighbor if they were run over a bus. The country has gone back to the Dems, who seem to be more generous of spirit and likely to perform in a little c christian way – and not because they are Christians. So I didn’t have to cry last night.
Under God… this is a country “under God”. Almost everyone is a believer. I am not. I live in a world where that seems not to matter that much. I don’t have to fight to keep my job, or justify to anyone what I do on Sunday (or Sat) mornings. But the Pledge is like a Battle Cry to me. I say it, and I mean that this is a Country Under God, and that today I will see if I can do something to change it to a Country under a Belief in Mutual Respect for Each Other.
I say it and I mean something different than the others who say it. And I feel good every time I say it. When I hear the voices of the children mindlessly saying it – I have hope for a future when they will question what it means. And I know that since I have this opportunity to bond with these kids, 5-10-15 years from now I will have a chance to have a real conversation with some of them about important stuff. They know I am someone they can talk to. For now I just leave it alone.
*****That said – I think even with the preschoolers, I might tell them about a religious group that isn’t permitted to say the pledge. And to just say that under the rules in our country, that’s perfectly okay. And then just go on and have them say it. Knowing that there is a choice would be a wonderful lesson your wife could share with them.*****
On the other subjects raised here yesterday:
believing there is someone/something out there is just insane
you can’t talk (or “logic”) someone out of a fundamental belief, they have to live their way out of it
you cannot make an atheist find God by reason – they believe that the idea is ridiculous – you can’t make something not ridiculous by talking about it
the bible is a book – just a book – full of stories – it is not a rule book for life – so knock it off with the bible already
for all you Christians out there – just SHUT UP and go do something good today – help your neighbor – when you’ve fed as many people as Jesus did – come back and try to convert us – until then, you are not in a position to speak HIS WORD
November 11th, 2006 at at 9:03 am
WAIT, IT JUST HIT ME!
I AM, I solved your wife’s problem,
When she says the Pledge of Allegiance with her class, she should say “One nation, under Cod”. It sounds so phonetically close to God that probably no one will notice. Plus, the cod fishing industry is very important in America!
Whattaya’all think?
November 11th, 2006 at at 4:37 pm
Well, if the before-school program thing flops (or you just don’t like the idea) she could say “an dir gut”, German for “in your head”.
…One nation, in your head, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
As in, America is only indivisible “in your head”. In reality we are torn apart by the divisiveness of the Religious Right. Liberty and justice for all (believers) is an ideal we rarely see realized. There’s a reason they call it the American dream – that’s all it is for most people.
I’m not sure how well the phrase actually translates, since this is a word-by-word translation from a German-English dictionary. Maybe you could check with a native speaker.
November 11th, 2006 at at 11:52 pm
Tommykey, the words “under cod” are actually discriminatory to other fish. Why not “under scrod.”
November 12th, 2006 at at 12:19 am
Well, we’re just going to have to offend the scrods Clementine. We can’t make everybody happy!