[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
To believe there is no God is irrational, I think. To make irrationality part of the national concioussness is even worse.
Actually, to believe in the supernatural (like a christian God, for example) is to be irrational. Look it up.
Still, even though my atheism is strong in me, I can’t see what the big fuss is about. “Under God” is a part of our history and a tradition. The whole point of saying the Pledge of Allegiance is to pay respects to our traditions, isn’t it? So we are going to change our traditional thing because why?
There isn’t a good reason to. No atheist will have his rights denied if he says “Under God” once or twice. I see it as a metaphorical reference to our national humility (if there is any left), and what better way to say that than to declare that you are not almighty?
I find myself saying “lighten up” to religious folks sometimes, and I think it’s our turn now as atheists to do the same. Lighten up anti-“Under God” people, you are being assholes here.[/quote]
Loth,
Based on our differences on other political threads, I’m floored by your post. It shows you do have an objective bone in your body! (LOL I’m just messing with ya.) Good post. It makes sense.
…You really think that men can’t come up with a (better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible? …[/quote]
Pook,
Maybe you could enlighten those of us who have severe history education deficiencies and let us know which successful civilization(s) has come up with a “(better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible”.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Considering laws like the PATRIOT ACT, the DMCA and UCITA; increases in police powers; detention without counsel or right to a trial; the near ubiquitous presence of closed-circuit TVs in public places; the soon to be required “National ID Card” and similar initiatives, maybe “one nation under God” should be replaced with “one nation under surveillance.” [/quote]
With the exception of “detention without counsel or right to a trial” (I don’t recognize that as a problem for American citizens at this juncture, just foreign terrorists/combatants), I agree with all of the above!
Now that’s not likely to happen again anytime soon is it?
…You really think that men can’t come up with a (better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible? …
Pook,
Maybe you could enlighten those of us who have severe history education deficiencies and let us know which successful civilization(s) has come up with a “(better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible”.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
With the exception of “detention without counsel or right to a trial” (I don’t recognize that as a problem for American citizens at this juncture, just foreign terrorists/combatants), I agree with all of the above![/quote]
At this juncture, yes. But once the precedent has been set, what’s to say that eventually Americans won’t be labelled “enemy combatants” or “terrorists” and imprisoned without a fair trial?
Another side of this issue is that America is always proclaiming itself to be the “beacon of freedom” or the world. It should hold itself to higher standards that tinhorn dictatorships, especially for non-citizen.
Is it really that hard to make the cases against those people? If so why? And should they be detained?
[quote]Now that’s not likely to happen again anytime soon is it?
LOL[/quote]
Why not? I’m sure we’ve got a lot more in common that you think. What fun would the world be if everyone was in agreement on every idea?
…You really think that men can’t come up with a (better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible? …
Pook,
Maybe you could enlighten those of us who have severe history education deficiencies and let us know which successful civilization(s) has come up with a “(better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible”.
Points it addresses that the Bible misses (or worse, promotes):
Slavery.
Sexism and racism, requires that there be no discrimination.
Torture.
Fair trials.
Fair punishments, if required.None of that “he shall surely be put to death” stuff.
It does miss the commandment about not boiling a kid in his mother’s milk, though.[/quote]
I looked up your provided link. It’s not a successful civilization(s) that has come up with a “(better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible”. It’s a UN resolution. Good grief. Pay attention to what I said/requested.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
I looked up your provided link. It’s not a successful civilization(s) that has come up with a “(better) set of ethical rule without it being based on the Bible”. It’s a UN resolution. Good grief. Pay attention to what I said/requested.
[/quote]
So the U.N. is not the product of successful civilizations? What is it? An Alien Embassy? I knew that Koffi Anan dude looked a bit reptilian.
You say “UN resolution” like it’s nothing. You went to war with Iraq over upholding a UN resolution, remember? Thousands of your soldiers have died (with more to die yet) for a UN resolution. So don’t pooh-pooh it like it’s a trivial thing. It seems those resolutions are the most important things in the world when you need them to support invading foreign countries.
Why don’t you read the thing an address my points concerning the shortcomings of the Bible instead? Show me just one way in which the Commandments are better (other than demanding worship, of course). I’ll even let you choose any of the differing versions of the commandments you want to use.
Another side of this issue is that America is always proclaiming itself to be the “beacon of freedom” or the world. It should hold itself to higher standards that tinhorn dictatorships, especially for non-citizen.
[/quote]
I don’t care whether America proclaims itself as a beacon of freedom or not. If a non-citizen is a terrorist/combatant I don’t want him to have nor does he deserve the same rights that I have. If that hurts his feelings, or yours, or some French politician bastard, I don’t give a flying fuck. The American constitution and Bill of Rights applies to American government and American citizens. If I had my way we’d shove the beacon of freedom right smack dab up the ass of every terrorist.
You say “UN resolution” like it’s nothing. You went to war with Iraq over upholding a UN resolution, remember? Thousands of your soldiers have died (with more to die yet) for a UN resolution. So don’t pooh-pooh it like it’s a trivial thing. It seems those resolutions are the most important things in the world when you need them to support invading foreign countries.
[/quote]
You’re off on a tangent which is fine, I guess, but not relevant to the point at hand. I asked for an example of a civilization that has applied a better set of ethical rules and you gave me a U.N. resolution.
Now if a civilization had actually implemented this resolution as it’s code of law and had a track record that would be a different thing. Having said this, it might just work out great but that’s not what I was looking for. I was looking for past or present, not future.
As soon as one group is able to get the courts to endorse their religion, all religions will be endorsed or there will be something akin to civil war.
Islam is a system that combines state and religion together. Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion.
I can hear it now, how can you compare this religion to that religion?
Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps things like witch hunts will ring a bell? Perhaps persecution due to the pursuit of science will ring a bell? Perhaps the teaching of intelligent design in science class will ring a bell?
Danger Will Robinson.
Freedom of religion means that the state cannot endorse any particular religion above another… and it should mean that those who are not religious are able to live free from the religion of another.
[quote]DPH wrote:
better is completely arbitrary…[/quote]
No, it isn’t.
Would you say that forbidding slavery is better than allowing or condoning it (or ignoring it completely)?
Would you say that forbidding discrimination is better than allowing it?
I can commit a huge number of despicable acts, all without breaking any of the 10 Commandments. If another set of rules prevents me from committing those acts, it is objectively better.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DPH wrote:
better is completely arbitrary…
No, it isn’t.
Would you say that forbidding slavery is better than allowing or condoning it (or ignoring it completely)?
Would you say that forbidding discrimination is better than allowing it?
I can commit a huge number of despicable acts, all without breaking any of the 10 Commandments. If another set of rules prevents me from committing those acts, it is objectively better.[/quote]
wether you like it or not ‘better’ is arbitrary, not objective…
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
I don’t care whether America proclaims itself as a beacon of freedom or not. If a non-citizen is a terrorist/combatant I don’t want him to have nor does he deserve the same rights that I have. If that hurts his feelings, or yours, or some French politician bastard, I don’t give a flying fuck. The American constitution and Bill of Rights applies to American government and American citizens. If I had my way we’d shove the beacon of freedom right smack dab up the ass of every terrorist. [/quote]
Then that shows that all your guiding principles are just PR bullshit. It is harder to play by the rules when your opponents don’t; but no one ever said that leading by example was easy. I just wish the American people would love their country enough to expect it to live up to it’s lofty standards. Talk is cheap. It’s on what you DO that you get judged by the world. What you’re doing now is giving every terrorist recruiting fuck some free ammo for their anti-US propaganda. They can simply point at Gitmo and show the double standard the US uses for anyone who’s not a citizen.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
You’re off on a tangent which is fine, I guess, but not relevant to the point at hand. I asked for an example of a civilization that has applied a better set of ethical rules and you gave me a U.N. resolution.[/quote]
Ok, then. The civil and criminal laws of just about every democratic country on the face of the Earth are more complete and emcompassing then the 10 Commandments. Even those nations who started from the 10 Commandments to write those laws had to add a bunch of new ones and also add exceptions since the Commandments themselves are way too simple to be justly applicable in every situation.
I know of no current successful civilization that uses the 10 Commandments as the entire governing law. Can you name one?
[quote]pookie wrote:
DPH wrote:
wether you like it or not ‘better’ is arbitrary, not objective…
What’s your definition of “better”?[/quote]
my idea of a better society is probably very similar to yours…
however, the phonecians sacrificed babies…to them, they thought this was ‘better’…the romans (a pretty damn successfull civilization) had gladitorial fights to the death…to them, they thought this was ‘better’…
what is ‘better’ is going to be different to every successful civilization…