Jump to content

Using God in Official National Stuff


A Cyan Stone in Mustard

Recommended Posts

Is it too late to bump this?

Why? Everything that could be said has been said basically. God is still part of the American/Canadian "anthems" and culture because the majority of people still accept it for what it meant back then and what it means today. It is only vocal, radical athiests who want any mention of God to be stripped from government but since currently a very small majority of folks think that way, nothing will come of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Everything that could be said has been said basically. God is still part of the American/Canadian "anthems" and culture because the majority of people still accept it for what it meant back then and what it means today. It is only vocal, radical athiests who want any mention of God to be stripped from government but since currently a very small majority of folks think that way, nothing will come of it.

I don't really think I'm a "radical atheist;" I just reckon in a secular state it's a bit hypocritical if you make it out that a god is relevant to patriotism (tbh it's not), and this is made out by putting it in national anthems and stuff. It's really easier for people who think as I do to just ignore it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

words

Statistics don't matter to a 3 year-old, cultural posturing and language use does. The first five years of life are the most important developmental time; it's where humans develop almost all their habits and cultural ideals. If you let someone that young think that woman cant be doctors, or are less good at it, then that will affect how they treat doctors, how they treat woman, and how they treat themselves.

 

My entire job is helping children learn, and I do not think that speaking slightly differently is a wasted effort. I already speak differently in other contexts, and training yourself that way is not as hard as you are making it out to be.

 

Even if it was, saying that using a different word costs exactly as much time and resources as growing more food is a severe fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it was, saying that using a different word costs exactly as much time and resources as growing more food is a severe fallacy.

No it does not require the same time and resources. I still don't think goverment-time and taxpayers money should be spent on it. I respect what you do, but I personally don't see the use of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction: you must not be from America because we *still* persecute the Blacks in 2014.

 

I came here to point out that white people are bad.

 

I also would like to point out that white people killed Native Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because "a lot" of people do not believe in God doesn't mean that the they are all radical atheists that loathe to mention or even acknowledge a higher intelligence. Many people still believe in "a God" and even those who do not believe are ok with mentioning God.

 

 

What is the problem with an "unbeliever" being taught to memorize/recite various patriotic anthems that make mention of God? Shouldn't they be focusing more on their national heritage rather than the word "God"? As an American, I find it embarassing when a fellow citizen is offended by our national heritage.

 

It just seems so strange how radical activist atheists get in such a fuss about being "forced" to acknowledge "God" in various civil matters. On one hand, they would find it very offensive if you called their atheism a "religion" (with science as their "god"). But on the other hand, they certainly act like religious zealots, demanding religious liberties and becoming offended when having to acknowledge beliefs other than their own.

just on that point about being proud of your heritage and those good god-fearing founding fathers. you practically deify the people who came and exploited the indigineous people before genocidally stealing their land. you celebrate the acts of people who were a-okay with slave ownership. carry on.

 

as an atheist i have no problem acknowledging and coexisting with faith. i would prefer that the state i lived in didn't still retain the assumption that i believe in a god. on the whole it's not a big deal, there's just no real reason to keep these kind of things in place. why swear an oath on the bible, what value does that bring to the oath that I swear if I don't recognise it as a holy text; if I'm actually statistically unlikely to view it as such? (in the UK, at least) For the same effect you could make me swear on the koran, or T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland, or just nothing at all. sorry if i'm being too "radical" with all this, i know it's pretty incendiary stuff.

 

And then what implicit message does it send to ask me to swear on the bible? it says that this text *is* holy as far as the state is concerned, or else why not just any old book. so then where does that fit with separating church and state? not very well, if you ask me. again, not a huge problem, not the one thing i'd change if i was granted such a wish, but not really something that makes sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just on that point about being proud of your heritage and those good god-fearing founding fathers. you practically deify the people who came and exploited the indigineous people before genocidally stealing their land. you celebrate the acts of people who were a-okay with slave ownership. carry on.

 

as an atheist i have no problem acknowledging and coexisting with faith. i would prefer that the state i lived in didn't still retain the assumption that i believe in a god. on the whole it's not a big deal, there's just no real reason to keep these kind of things in place. why swear an oath on the bible, what value does that bring to the oath that I swear if I don't recognise it as a holy text; if I'm actually statistically unlikely to view it as such? (in the UK, at least) For the same effect you could make me swear on the koran, or T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland, or just nothing at all. sorry if i'm being too "radical" with all this, i know it's pretty incendiary stuff.

 

And then what implicit message does it send to ask me to swear on the bible? it says that this text *is* holy as far as the state is concerned, or else why not just any old book. so then where does that fit with separating church and state? not very well, if you ask me. again, not a huge problem, not the one thing i'd change if i was granted such a wish, but not really something that makes sense to me.

 

Aaaand accusations of genocide against native americans. I can practically tell the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its because everybody was either Christian or persecuted back then

.....What.

 

Maryland was the primary Catholic colony, they were persecuted most other places in the New World.

 

Pennsylvania was mostly Quaker, but they were tolerant.

 

New England was pretty much Protestant. (No, Protestant does not equal Catholic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...