reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Alright - post length is starting to get ridiculous - the end of my post packs the most meaning. The rest amounts to back-and-forth that is only
likely to continue as "Nuh-uh, you're wrong! [favorable link]" by all involved parties.
When you can become a tax-free multimillionaire it is quite obviously excessive. That's not subjective, that's quite objective.
These are people that own multiple mansions and multiple luxury cars through telling people to give them money and they get off tax free.
That has nothing to do with government.
Moreover, there is still no objective framework that can be used to determine what is and is not "excessive." What you mean is that most people
would agree that it is excessive - but that is still a subjective opinion, even if it is a common one.
...I was referring to the change that happened in the 50s.
Been around since way before then, buddy.
...no, it refers to a specific deity. Deists don't 'trust' in a deity.
www.religioustolerance.org...
The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus."
Deism is a natural religion. Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or
religious authority or holy text. Because of this, Deism is quite different from religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The latter are based
on revelations from God to prophet(s) who then taught it to humans. We like to call natural religions by the title "bottom-up" faiths and revealed
religions as "top-down."
The opposite of Deism is Atheism -- the lack of a belief in god(s).
Of course - that's Deism as a religion. Deism as a concept is an ambiguous belief in a God or Gods - under which most religions would fall.
Ok, how is Norway not secular?
How is Japan not secular?
How is France not secular?
How is Canada not secular?
How is Switzerland not secular?
Let's start with "how are they secular?"
Religion is something that pertains to and comes from nongovernmental forces.
And how does that work when you elect a Roman Catholic to a seat of government?
From the source you provided:
Doesn't say anything about evil commies.
And it does say that "In God We Trust" was around well before the evil commies.
And from the source I'm about to provide:
It was circulating on coins as far back as the mid 1800s.
...secularism is not an object that can claim anything.
It most certainly is. It is no different than Deism claiming something, Democracy claiming something, etc. It is a set of guidelines that can be
applied to a logical process.
If a sufficient number of people want to establish a state religion, they can go to some other country.
Except, the Constitution gives them the power to do that within our own country.
Further - there is no state religion in the U.S.
The Constitution which clearly puts forth secularism says they have no legal case for it.
There is no case made for secularism within the U.S. Constitution. The only case made is for that of religious freedom, that Congress shall pass no
law regarding an establishment of religion or free practice thereof. Within that context - the State can declare itself Christian so long as no laws
are made to target religious institutions or tamper with the free practice of religion (IE - you couldn't make a law requiring prayer or
what-have-you).
Yeah, because a motto in a traditionally academic language is so horrible.
Because most people are not going to connect with that motto. It's a dead language relegated to the world of pompous academia.
I'm not allowing personal opinion. The simple fact is that motto 1 is legal, motto 2 is illegal. Motto 2 should get stricken from the record.
So you keep saying, but have yet to demonstrate the grounds on which it is illegal.
That's two down.
In Hinduism there are specific names assigned to deities.
That's three.
Buddhism is the belief that God is an internal being, existing as a state of enlightenment as opposed to an ethereal being. Seeking enlightenment is
seeking to become a deity, in essence. The wording still generally applies.
God is a synonym for a deity - therefor, the use of God as a term also qualifies the use of "deity" - which would therefor not require the
individual naming of god(s).
No, it's routinely held that the motto is Constitutional because it gives no preference between religions and that it has lost all meaning.
That doesn't mean that the case is closed.
I could swear there is an echo in here.
Arranging "In God We Trust" as our national motto is the establishment of monotheism, it is a settled arrangement pertaining to definition 1.
This, it is not. However, we are engaging in a battle of semantics. The use of "an establishment of religion" is the form of a noun to mean a
"church," or other religious institution. Even if you wanted to stretch the wording, it cannot be clearly demonstrated that monotheism is exclusive
or preferential.
No, you simply don't understand what secularism is and I can quote the 1st amendment just as well as you can.
You forget what secularism attempts to accomplish. Secularism is not about removing religion from government - it is about creating a government
ruled by logic and functional reason. Since religion revolves around faith and passed-down teachings and traditions to be accepted and followed
"just because" - religion can often be counter-productive to the objectives of secularism.
There's a forest around here, somewhere - but all of these trees are making it hard for me to see.
Enforcing a religious declaration as our motto by Act of Congress is the settled arrangement of religion as a governmental norm.
It is a -religious- declaration? It seems, to me, to be a spiritual statement, or a general statement of beliefs. Again, we aren't invoking a
unison call to confession, hail Mary, etc.
Even taking the concept of deism (which is not a religion - but a set of beliefs) - a statement of trust in God is stating a trust in a higher system.
It is not religious in nature or context, anymore than E Plurbius Unum is a federal endorsement of Federalist agendas (Go look up Federalism vs
Anti-Federalism).
No, you just put out two separate definitions of the same word. Words have multiple definitions. We're talking about the first one, that I
emphasized in my quote
You are not at liberty to exclude a definition of secularism that is not favorable to your position. Many of the original tenants of secularism
(dating back thousands of years) are not about rejecting religion - merely focusing on what can be known and logically deduced.
I know, quite well, what your breed of secularism is. It is the breed that is still trying to see the forest through all of the trees. You're
looking for an atheist government - which is different from a secular government.
The concept of a deity is an inherently non-rational one as it has no basis in the natural world, being something entirely supernatural.
This would make it a spiritual belief.
Trusting in any deity is a specific religious proclamation, as it is not something that would follow from empirical observations.
Simple logic indicates that everything we know and utilize was created by us or some other thing. Making the logical leap that the universe is
excluded from this concept is difficult to call logical, or reasonable.
However, you need to go study the difference between religion and belief systems.
And trusting in a deity exists specifically in there.
That, it does not. You would seem to be in error.
Religion is a set of rules, practices and concepts that govern one's personal life and affairs. These are generally centered around a set of
spiritual beliefs - but 'religious' behavior is not restricted to spiritual beliefs.
You're somehow saying that religion is only that which is doctrine and specific ritual, yet it is far more than that and the definition you
gave specifically contradicts you!
That, it does not.
"In God We Trust" is a statement of belief, not a profession of religion or preempt to a ritual.
Well, you did assert that it was.
It was merely an idea you attempted to place into my mind. I specifically referenced the tendency of secularism as practiced to attempt to remove
religion outside of the bounds of government prior to making the statement in question.
I have put forth factual analysis, you just ignore it.
I'm wondering when you'll realize we're on the same page. Re-read my first post in this thread.
It interferes with my free practice of nonreligion. It establishes monotheism as something governmental.
You've yet to demonstrate that.
Are you forced to say: "I trust in God?" Does it say: "Everyone must believe in God?" Are there legal or financial penalties if you do not
believe in God?
Of all of the things to get upset about - "In God We Trust" is the least of concerns anyone considering themselves to be secular should be up in
arms about.
It is inherently religious. It's a statement inherently true only to religious individuals.
Many people believe in God and do not identify themselves as religious.
We already had a legal one.
That got replaced with another legal one. Get over the butt-hurt, already.
Clearly you don't understand what a straw man, not surprising for someone who invokes logic without having an understanding of it.
You obviously don't understand the origin of the term straw-man - an effigy, of sorts, destroyed in an attempt to prove/disprove one's case. The
"straw man" is knocked over or burned, rather than the person the straw man represents.
Thus, my response was telling you to look in a mirror, and assuring you that you were also on fire.
I speak in very symbolic terms.
Have you any understanding of formal logic on any level?
I'm an electronics major focusing on digital processing. That should answer your question.
I've demonstrated that you don't understand it, I haven't charged or ventured.
The main disagreement, here, is over the "In God We Trust" motto and appearance on currency.
Secularism maintains that the actions of a government should be based on evidence, logic, and reason - and should therefor be isolated from religious
influence.
However, the U.S. is a democratically elected republic of citizen government. A large portion of the population identifies with a major religion.
Further - the whole premise of the nation provides that the people have the power and authority to change the government as they see fit.
This is not an explicit concept of secularism - but democracy, secularism, and science have all generally come with each other.
Now - if people want to make their motto: "In God We Trust" - a rather factual statement when viewing a demographic break-down that shows the U.S.
to be nearly unanimously of the belief in a diety(s) - then what power does a secular belief have to deny that motto?
One must seriously twist the legal system and interpretation of U.S. Law to deem the motto unconstitutional. In doing so - those twisted
interpretations are then established as the standard precedent for legal interpretation. Legal issues in the future will further twist and distort
those already twisted and distorted interpretations.
From a logical and reasonable perspective - this particular concern is not of such value as to merit actions to that extreme. The action would be, at
the very least, unpopular and fuel a number of religiously motivated legislation that would endanger the principles this nation was founded upon.
This is what I mean by not seeing the forest for the trees. This is what I mean by secularism does not work - it can't work as an absolute. People
are inherently ritualistic and spiritual in nature - this breeds religious tendencies (even in you). Facets of those/that religion will ultimately
seep into the government (run by people). These are ideas people hold rather closely - purging them from the government will not be well received.
Addressing the 'leaks' is a sensitive issue that cannot be done via confrontation. Especially not 60 years after those leaks appeared.
When you address things in a confrontational manner, you rapidly create an "Us vs Them" environment and run the risk of using the legal system to
impose your views as opposed to enact justice. And when that happens, we all lose.
You're free to pursue the witch-hunt for phrasing that could be considered religious endorsement. It's merely a short-sighted and limited
application of secularism that will have more harmful repercussions than good.
