VisorCentral.com - Ohhhhhhh, say can you seeeeeeee. . .

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Ohhhhhhh, say can you seeeeeeee. . . (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=18551)

Posted by Cerulean on 09-25-2001 10:34 PM:

star spangled banner is too difficult to sing .. i think there should be a new song made thats easier to sing .. just think about all those poor souls that have to sing it for various events and just totally screw it all up .. yuck.

We should just come up with a new song .. something that reflects the US today ... maybe we could throw in a reference to the Visor .. that would be cool.

Posted by Soul Raven on 09-25-2001 11:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Yea. Right. That's what I'm saying.

And that's what I'm saying.

(Using strong language to agree <sigh> Isn't this fun?)

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Go find it. I'd like to see it. I remember studies where they asked if you believe 'in A god' or 'in a higher being' which is not the same as asking if they believe in god.

Well, I was going on the assumption that it was. Someone who knows Islam please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "Allah" an arabic word for the English "God"? I suppose a more accurate way of saying what I was trying to get out is "A majority of Americans believe in a higher power". Really, if we're going to have a good argument here, we really need to disagree on something.

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
America the state is only hampered by religion, in that its primary duty, the protection of its people and their freedoms is at odds with the idea of a state-sponsored religion or belief in a higher power.

I don't want to give you impression that I am advocating a state-sponsored religion: I'm not. I like the way I worship and I don't want the government to tell me different, and it's no good having the government agree with me, because I can practically guarantee that 99% of you out there don't worship like I do. It just seems people sometimes confuse "freedom of religion" with "supression of everything but non-religion". Atheists out there are perfectly free to worship (er, not worship) any way they see fit. Why do my rights to worship in such a manner as, oh I dunno, saying a prayer before a baseball game, get supressed because an atheist can sit still for 2 minutes while everyone else has their head bowed and eyes closed? I grew up in an area where practically everyone worshipped in the same manner. We did have one Indian in a high school of over 1,000, and when it was his turn, he prayed Hindu-style while the rest of us bowed our heads and closed our eyes. And I don't know how you can think that a government would be hampered by religion. Granted, I don't know many politicians who live their religion, but that's more to do with human nature, I think, than religion.

quote:
Originally posted by homer
not loose sight of the fact that we are a democracy

We're a republic, actually.

Well, work is done, and I have many errands to do. Hopefully this post seems unfinished, because it is. I will try to finish it up later this evening.

__________________
Soul Raven - "Sm� hjerne, stor gl�de"
Wherever you go, there you are.

Posted by homer on 09-26-2001 01:25 AM:

quote:
Why do my rights to worship in such a manner as, oh I dunno, saying a prayer before a baseball game, get supressed because an atheist can sit still for 2 minutes while everyone else has their head bowed and eyes closed?

That's a personal right. You are free to pray when and where you want. That's fine. What people get upset with are things like teaching creationism in school and dedicated prayer times in school. This is forcing a christian viewpoint on society. Not allowing any religion is state issues in not the same a suppressing them...only keeping them seperate.

quote:
And I don't know how you can think that a government would be hampered by religion.

Uh, take a look at the Taliben.

quote:
Well, work is done, and I have many errands to do. Hopefully this post seems unfinished, because it is. I will try to finish it up later this evening.

Good...the debate just got warmed up

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by ernieba1 on 09-26-2001 03:03 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Cerulean
star spangled banner is too difficult to sing .. i think there should be a new song made thats easier to sing .. just think about all those poor souls that have to sing it for various events and just totally screw it all up .. yuck.

You know, that was my thinking. Most kids don't understand what it means until maybe 3rd grade. And after they find out, they think, "That's what it means? Whatever. That's weird."

Also, this post isn't really a debate about the seperation between church and state (or it wasn't meant to be, at least), so either finish up the debate, or move it to a new post (actually, I think there already is one) so that this thread doesn't get locked.

__________________
-Bernie

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
-Dan Quayle

Posted by Yorick on 09-26-2001 03:11 AM:

pardon me Bernie.

quote:
Originally posted by Soul Raven
And I don't know how you can think that a government would be hampered by religion.

Spanish Inquisition.
modern-day Ireland.
Taliban (as noted).
Israel/Palestine.
McFly! hello!

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by VTL on 09-26-2001 07:06 AM:

I wholeheartedly agree that religious freedom and tolerance are founding, bedrock principles of this country - one of the things that distinguish our country from Afghanistan under the Taliban.

However, that important principle occasionally gets twisted, from freedom of religious practice to freedom from religion. Government, in its zeal to avoid entanglement with religion sometimes comes across as hostile to religion.

That usually well-intentioned motive is sometimes exploited by anti-religious zealots - as frightening in their own way as religions zealots - to try and remove any reference to religion in the public square. Remember when folks jumped all over Bush during the campaign for citing Christ as his favorite philosopher? He could do a lot worse.

A good example is that awful quote from Gloria Steinem someone mentioned earlier. Of course, she used to also say she needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. Last I heard she got married. I won't be surprised if she has a deathbed conversion on the God issue too.

Posted by ernieba1 on 09-26-2001 01:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
pardon me Bernie.

Whoa, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude or anything, I posted that a little too late at night, I guess (isn't that everyone's excuse for a bad post?).

I just also want to mention that at some sporting events they already do sing America the Beautiful in a addition to the Star Spangled Banner.

__________________
-Bernie

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
-Dan Quayle

Posted by Yorick on 09-26-2001 02:35 PM:

Originally posted by ernieba1
Whoa, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude or anything,
hey, I just didn't want you getting upset with me for continuing the religion bit.

Originally posted by VTL
Of course, she used to also say she needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. Last I heard she got married.
Doesn't mean she needed a man, more that she wanted one. And felt it was the right thing to do.
Yes she got married. She also said that " feminism is about the ability to choose what�s right at each time of our lives.�

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/D...inem000906.html

I won't be surprised if she has a deathbed conversion on the God issue too.
I don't see how that follows.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by homer on 09-26-2001 02:43 PM:

quote:
However, that important principle occasionally gets twisted, from freedom of religious practice to freedom from religion.

Isn't that the same thing? We're free to practice any religion...including no religion.

quote:
Government, in its zeal to avoid entanglement with religion sometimes comes across as hostile to religion.

I don't know if I would agree with that. I don't think our Gov has ever been hostile towards religion (oh, well, except for the Waco incident...)

quote:
That usually well-intentioned motive is sometimes exploited by anti-religious zealots - as frightening in their own way as religions zealots - to try and remove any reference to religion in the public square.

As long as there are religious zealots pushing for religion in publicly funded arenas, there needs to be anti-religion zealots.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of these people aren't anti-religious...merely anti-religious-mixing-with-governement.

I vehemently oppose organized prayer in school. Yet I am in no way against people praying.

quote:
A good example is that awful quote from Gloria Steinem someone mentioned earlier.

That was me. What didn't you like about the quote? I thought it made a very good point. We often put god's needs ahead of humanity's needs. We should respect all of humanity as much as we respect god.

quote:
I won't be surprised if she has a deathbed conversion on the God issue too.

Huh?

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by BertBert on 09-26-2001 03:03 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer

I don't know if I would agree with that. I don't think our Gov has ever been hostile towards religion (oh, well, except for the Waco incident...)

There is a very god book by Stephen Carter (William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale) titled The Culture of Disbelief (subtitled: "How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion") that details numerous examples of governmental hostility towards religion. His main argument is that the government's "hostility" toward religion has mainly been in the form of marginalizing it -- by not taking into account the religious beliefs (of all kinds) of its citizens. This is not the overt kind of hostility we saw at Waco (which was again an echo of the government's treatment of Mormons, and of Native Americans for that matter) but is just as hostile. Have you ever been treated like you don't matter? It kind of feels like a blow to the face... and that's Carter's point.

As an aside, I should note that Carter in his book actually is attempting to form a kind of separation of church and state in which the state respects religious devotion but does not sponsor a particular religion -- he doesn't attempt to fuse religion with the state.

__________________
BertBert
Mark 12:28-31

Posted by homer on 09-26-2001 03:42 PM:

quote:
His main argument is that the government's "hostility" toward religion has mainly been in the form of marginalizing it -- by not taking into account the religious beliefs (of all kinds) of its citizens. This is not the overt kind of hostility we saw at Waco (which was again an echo of the government's treatment of Mormons, and of Native Americans for that matter) but is just as hostile. Have you ever been treated like you don't matter? It kind of feels like a blow to the face... and that's Carter's point.

I see your point. I don't think the government should trivialize anyone's religion, yet I there is a problem with taking into account all religious believes. Ultimately, there is a fine line between organized cults and organized religion.

Some factions of the Mormon religion believe in having multiple wives (many underage). This poses a problem. Either our governement accepts their religious believes and allows them, or we don't. This is where the separation of church and state is so important.

We should obviously learn from everyone's religion, and, when enacting laws, make absolute effort so as to not trounce upon anyone's rights. However, we also must live in a society with laws of some sort. No matter how universal you try to make the laws, it will always conflict with someone's religious beliefs in one form or another.

Basically, the governement can't play favorites. Which it would be doing whenever a God (or any God) is brought into the language of politics.

If we sing God Bless America, then we need to sing L. Ron Hubbard Bless America as well...

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by BertBert on 09-26-2001 04:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
We should obviously learn from everyone's religion, and, when enacting laws, make absolute effort so as to not trounce upon anyone's rights. However, we also must live in a society with laws of some sort. No matter how universal you try to make the laws, it will always conflict with someone's religious beliefs in one form or another.

Basically, the governement can't play favorites. Which it would be doing whenever a God (or any God) is brought into the language of politics.

When it comes to the national anthem and such, I think that those references to God have gotten so far removed from any expression of actual faith in or worship of God that they are now more an expression of sentiment -- like references to Grandma, apple pie, or baseball -- than a declaration of religion. So it seems like those kinds of "messages" are pretty harmless when you take their present-day context into account.

When it comes to making laws, though -- as you say, here's where it gets difficult. Do you restrict the practices of a religion because those practices are trumped by a "higher morality" enacted into law? Take for example the western Native Americans who use peyote in their religious rituals, or some of the radical elements of the Assemblies of God found in Appalachia who handle snakes and drink poisonous chemicals in their worship, or even the Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow themselves to undergo blood transfusions. All these are religious groups who either could experience, or actually have experienced, government suppression of their particular beliefs based on a higher good as defined by the government. And the next question would be, where does that higher good come from? A better question still would be, where does ANY sense of good come from?

Tough questions -- the first inclination is to pretend the questions don't matter. And unfortunately, that has been the government's stance for a very long time. However, with the recent terrorist attacks and other religion-related events of Bush's presidency such as the stem-cell research debate and the program for faith-based initiatives, I think the government is being forced to think long and hard about the role of religious faith in everyday life. I think it's safe to say that no matter what stance gets taken next, the US government will not think of religion as being a non-issue any more.

__________________
BertBert
Mark 12:28-31

Posted by septimus on 09-26-2001 04:51 PM:

Ok. Chiming in:

Religion and Government: I think it isn't especially difficult to draw a bright line between the two, and to define government's role and religion's role. But that ain't my discipline, and I ain't going to try and pin it down here.

Anthems: Keep ours. It's admittedly awkward tune is, I think, meaningful. Better than taking on a tune that is also used by other national antherms. It is interesting, however, that it is a song dedicated to a symbol of our country, rather than to the country itself. In fact, I think there are all kinds of interesting things going on with the flag. It's kind of our backup symbol. We sure as hell aren't going to patriotically post pictures of the twin towers. I think that it is fitting that our national anthem is dedicated to a symbol rather than to the nation itself. It focuses attention on the ideas of America rather than just jingoistically saying we're great.

God in Anthem: Damn straight, bertbert, the word "god" is just a word to me. Just a way to swear better. Just sentiment in anthems. To others, it's much more important, and good for them. But their connotations don't make me want to expunge the word.

Jingoism: Yep. I said it. It's coming, it's here.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Soul Raven on 09-26-2001 06:04 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Go find it. I'd like to see it. I remember studies where they asked if you believe 'in A god' or 'in a higher being' which is not the same as asking if they believe in god.

This CodeBlue/Nmida virus has been keeping me busy for the last little while, but I had enough free time to find something

OK, I know I have already stated that I think we were both trying to say the same thing, that most people belived in some higher power, and were not necessarily all Christians (or called themselves Christians). I thought it would be fair, though, to look up some studies:

From USA Today:
http://dunamai.com/survey/surveypreface.htm

OK, 96%, but they only surveyed 604 people? In a country of, what, 300 million? Ack! That's no good.

A lot of stuff on families, a little bit on religion:
http://newfederalism.urban.org/nsaf/adults_d1.html

A little better. Only 59%, but this is attending worship services "a few times a month", not just a belief in a higher power.

And the Gallup website:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010329.asp

This is the best I could find. I mean, you gotta believe the Gallup people, right?

"Belief in God or a universal spirit. This percentage has been very high in the U.S. over the last six decades -- consistently in the mid-90% range." Of course, it continues with: "However, considerably fewer (eight in 10) believe in a personal God, that is, a God who watches over humankind and answers prayers. And even fewer of these believers, six in 10, express complete trust in God." Still, I think it's safe to say that we are a religious, if maybe not specifically 'god-fearing' people (which never made sense to me, isn't God supposed to love us? Of course, I have been scared of my mom, and I am relatively sure she loves me. Oh well).

Another Gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indreligion.asp

Religion being at least 'fairly important' is consistently in the mid-80's.

OK, more viruses to hunt down. <sigh> You tell people not to open attachments from people they don't know, but do they listen.......

Oh, this had some stuff on religion and the beginnings of the United States. It's a good (if somewhat long) read:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

__________________
Soul Raven - "Sm� hjerne, stor gl�de"
Wherever you go, there you are.

Posted by homer on 09-26-2001 06:12 PM:

quote:
When it comes to the national anthem and such, I think that those references to God have gotten so far removed from any expression of actual faith in or worship of God that they are now more an expression of sentiment -- like references to Grandma, apple pie, or baseball -- than a declaration of religion. So it seems like those kinds of "messages" are pretty harmless when you take their present-day context into account.

I think I would have to agree with that.

quote:
ll these are religious groups who either could experience, or actually have experienced, government suppression of their particular beliefs based on a higher good as defined by the government. And the next question would be, where does that higher good come from? A better question still would be, where does ANY sense of good come from?

That's a very good point. And a good question.

My personal believes that 'good sense' comes from common sense. Denying your child the benefit of a blood transfusion based on your religious believes isn't necessarily a good thing. Basically, blindly following ANYTHING (religion or government) isn't a good thing. For a lot of people religion is simply the easy way out. I don't HAVE to think, because my religion thinks for me. That's where things get dangerous...when we don't question these things.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by BertBert on 09-26-2001 06:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Denying your child the benefit of a blood transfusion based on your religious believes isn't necessarily a good thing. Basically, blindly following ANYTHING (religion or government) isn't a good thing. For a lot of people religion is simply the easy way out. I don't HAVE to think, because my religion thinks for me. That's where things get dangerous...when we don't question these things.

What if the decision to deny your child a blood transfusion WAS a thoroughly thought-out, reasoned decision made in an effort to balance compassion for your child with consistency to a set of beliefs that you believe (by faith, by reason, or a combination) to be true? In other words, what if such a decision wasn't blindly made?

My point is that while there are a lot of people out there who use religion as a means of avoiding questions about the world and life in general (read: religion = mythology), there are others for whom their faith provides an avenue of inquiry and whose faith is in harmony with good thinking. (Names that come to mind are Blaise Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Reinhold Neibuhr, and Jonathan Edwards.) Acting on religious convictions is not necessarily an indicator that a person has believed something rather than thought about something. Even the exercise of "common sense" is a sort of religious activity -- in doing so we exercise faith that our "common sense" is indeed sensible (and common!).

__________________
BertBert
Mark 12:28-31

Posted by homer on 09-26-2001 06:47 PM:

quote:
What if the decision to deny your child a blood transfusion WAS a thoroughly thought-out, reasoned decision made in an effort to balance compassion for your child with consistency to a set of beliefs that you believe (by faith, by reason, or a combination) to be true?

Well, if it is fully reasoned, then fine. But often these decisions aren't fully reasoned. They take the religious side of the argument, but never balance it with the scientific or political side.

quote:
Acting on religious convictions is not necessarily an indicator that a person has believed something rather than thought about something.

Oh...of course not. I did not mean to imply ALL people are like that. Most people balance religion into their everyday lives, not live by it to the point ignoring all other reason.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by scc4fun on 10-02-2001 05:41 PM:

I like The Star Spangled Banner.

Posted by Techie2000 on 10-02-2001 10:45 PM:

The song "Proud to be an American"

Posted by Yorick on 10-02-2001 11:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Techie2000
The song "Proud to be an American"

By ...?
hopefully not that awful Lee Greenwood song ...

Disclaimer: I grew up with country music, and still have an appreciation for it. Patriotic or not, it's not very good.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:47 AM.

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page