Flag priorities....

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I see it the same as with the Pledge. A true patriot may be willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but he doesn't really need it. An imposter will recite it willingly because he wants to look like a true patriot. A true Christian will gladly say "So help me God", but he doesn't really need to. Someone trying to look more honest will recite the words to help his case. How does someone else tell the difference? The words are just words, and like all words can be used for any purpose.

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.

Quite right about oaths, in general. Here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...aths-and-books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._our_oath.html

All the oaths of office etc., are really not binding and have little or no legal repercussions. An oath in court or before a legislative or administrative inquiry, however, is a codified legal procedure with serious ramifications of charges of perjury. That said, how often have we seen persons stand before a court or Congress, knowingly lie their asses off and not suffer one bit penalty? Think of all the tobacco industry execs who swore they knew nothing about the dangers of smoking all the while their office files were full of data substantiating those very same dangers; think of all the defense contractors, lobbyists, and other who wove tales out of whole cloth and never saw the inside of a court on charges of perjury. Some even boast about their perjury: Oliver North lied to Congress while in full Marine uniform (still a sore point to many of his fellow Marine officers), violating not only the oath he swore before his testimony, but, also, the oath he swore as a Marine. He gleefully boasted about lying and how he had gotten away with it and did so with no remorse much as those others I indicated above perjured themselves and showed no remorse. The problem of the oath being meaningless lies not in the oath in many cases, but in the fact there are no repercussions for violating an oath...

On the subject of oaths and religious underpinnings, there have been many cases of Christian evangelist who have engaged in questionable and illegal activities, sworn they were not guilty, and then were proven they were, in fact, very much guilty. The very public "mea culpa" followed by the pleas for forgiveness have been played out many, many times over the years. And let's not forget the whole priest sex scandals where the highest clergy of the Catholic Church have perjured themselves in criminal investigations, but they, like their evangelist brethren, have tried to shield themselves behind a façade of piety. Perhaps, if there was a little more rendering unto Caesar, there would be less of their shenanigans...


<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

The problem of the oath being meaningless lies not in the oath in many cases, but in the fact there are no repercussions for violating an oath...

One might say that to a believer invoking the name of God when telling a lie has repercussions that go beyond the grave.

On the subject of oaths and religious underpinnings, there have been many cases of Christian evangelist who have engaged in questionable and illegal activities, sworn they were not guilty, and then were proven they were, in fact, very much guilty. The very public "mea culpa" followed by the pleas for forgiveness have been played out many, many times over the years. And let's not forget the whole priest sex scandals where the highest clergy of the Catholic Church have perjured themselves in criminal investigations, but they, like their evangelist brethren, have tried to shield themselves behind a façade of piety. Perhaps, if there was a little more rendering unto Caesar, there would be less of their shenanigans...

I'm sure you can find examples of all sorts of dishonorable behavior if you look hard enough but that's hardly confined to evangelists. They're just fallible humans like the rest of us and even if they don't sometimes live up to the ideals they espouse it doesn't make those ideals any less worth trying to live up to.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

One might say that to a believer invoking the name of God when telling a lie has repercussions that go beyond the grave.

I'm sure you can find examples of all sorts of dishonorable behavior if you look hard enough but that's hardly confined to evangelists. They're just fallible humans like the rest of us and even if they don't sometimes live up to the ideals they espouse it doesn't make those ideals any less worth trying to live up to.

Repercussions beyond the grave are of little effect in the real, secular world and the addition of a religious element does nothing to determine the veracity, or lack thereof, of an attester in legal proceedings. We might just as well have a witness cross their heart and hope to die or "pinkie swear" before giving testimony or taking an oath; it would have just as much effect and import in real secular life as a religious component...

You are correct: the actions of weak, deceitful individuals do not invalidate the ideals to which they supposedly adhered and demanded others so adhere. This does not dismiss them from any responsibilities for their actions and those who defend them do nothing but cheapen and dilute those high ideals. Again, if there were actual real world repercussions for such actions, there would probably be less instances of such actions...

But we are not discussing the ideals, but, rather, the imposition of a religious element upon secular concerns, which is proscribed by the Constitution, regardless of the adaption and co-opting done in response to very much unnecessary religious prodding. Does "In God We Trust" make the real world value of our currency any greater or less than t would be if the words weren't there? I'm sure the Wall Street money lenders couldn't care less what it said on our currency as long as the money was good. It is a fact that those words were never an official part of our original currency and the inclusion of those words were made due to a religious and not legal expediency. The Constitution does not provide for mottoes, sayings, or any other wording on our currency. In fact, much of the US currency has only recently, in historical terms had the phrase added. Since the founding of the US, the words were in spotty use, sometimes dropped entirely, and it wasn't until 1957 the words were adopted as the official motto of the US in response to Commie hunting frenzies sweeping the nation. Those word, like "Under God", were never a part of the original design and founding of this great nation and are, if SCOTUS ever had the courage to actually address the question, unconstitutional...


http://www.treasury.gov/about/educat...-we-trust.aspx



<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

Repercussions beyond the grave are of little effect in the real, secular world and the addition of a religious element does nothing to determine the veracity, or lack thereof, of an attester in legal proceedings. We might just as well have a witness cross their heart and hope to die or "pinkie swear" before giving testimony or taking an oath; it would have just as much effect and import in real secular life as a religious component...

You see the world through Atheist eyes and I understand that to you swearing to God is no different a pinky swear but don't make the mistake of thinking that a person of faith would feel the same about it.

You are correct: the actions of weak, deceitful individuals do not invalidate the ideals to which they supposedly adhered and demanded others so adhere. This does not dismiss them from any responsibilities for their actions and those who defend them do nothing but cheapen and dilute those high ideals. Again, if there were actual real world repercussions for such actions, there would probably be less instances of such actions...

Of course it doesn't excuse the deceitful but those who defend them do so for many reasons, not the least of which is because Atheists tend to use language that includes their whole group. "Thumpers", "religious nuts", "holy rollers" and similar disparaging terms are never applied to just a few TV evangelists but to the entire religion. So it's easy to understand why some might get defensive in the face of constant and mean spirited attacks upon their cherished beliefs.

While society thinks of itself as more inclusive these days it really is just more inclusive of certain things and far less inclusive of many others. If it gets the religious people on board I have no problem with allowing "In God We Trust" on our currency. They are after all still 70% of the population. BTW neither do I have a problem with letting the south retain some minor connection with their confederate history with the occasional display of the stars and bars or by naming a few military bases after their famous generals.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Atheists tend to use language that includes their whole group. "Thumpers", "religious nuts", "holy rollers" and similar disparaging terms are never applied to just a few TV evangelists but to the entire religion.

You use that phrase on "Atheists". Did you notice that your paragraph does exactly the same thing, lumping all non-believers into a single group?

So it's easy to understand why some might get defensive in the face of constant and mean spirited attacks upon their cherished beliefs.

And those same constant and mean-spirited attacks have been made by certain (not all) religious types against non-believers since the attacks on Jefferson accusing him of being an atheist (which he wasn't), and probably long before that.

While society thinks of itself as more inclusive these days it really is just more inclusive of certain things and far less inclusive of many others. If it gets the religious people on board I have no problem with allowing "In God We Trust" on our currency. They are after all still 70% of the population.

Are 70% of Americans Conservative Evangelical Protestants? I have heard the same people who claim Christian solidarity when talking about "Christian America" deride Catholics as not really being Christians. I've heard those same people dismiss others who believe in God but support freedom of choice as "Liberal Christians". Evangelical Christians like to talk about America being founded as a Christian country, but in fact then, as today, people claiming to be religious where highly disparate and actually believed many different things.

This is also "cherry-picking". There are "religious" people who also dislike having religious slogans on our money. While the statement itself may seem innocuous enough, if you ask any Evangelical Christian he'll tell you it doesn't mean some nebulous supreme being but the God of the Christian Bible specifically.

BTW neither do I have a problem with letting the south retain some minor connection with their confederate history with the occasional display of the stars and bars or by naming a few military bases after their famous generals.

In front of your own house? On your own property? Neither do I. In front of State buildings, which supposedly represent the whole population? I'm of two minds. On the one hand if it were my state I'd be trying to get it removed. On the other, if other states choose to keep flying the Stars & Bars I consider that to be their business, decided in-house and locally. They can bend to pressure, but should not be forced by outside influences to one action or another.

Just the same as I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not, even though I'm personally against it. Freedom is a tricky question, but it has to be honored in all circumstances.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Are 70% of Americans Conservative Evangelical Protestants? I have heard the same people who claim Christian solidarity when talking about "Christian America" deride Catholics as not really being Christians. I've heard those same people dismiss others who believe in God but support freedom of choice as "Liberal Christians". Evangelical Christians like to talk about America being founded as a Christian country, but in fact then, as today, people claiming to be religious where highly disparate and actually believed many different things.

Heh from what I read Protestants can hate each other as much as anyone else. Reminds me of an Emo Phillips routine.

There are "religious" people who also dislike having religious slogans on our money. While the statement itself may seem innocuous enough, if you ask any Evangelical Christian he'll tell you it doesn't mean some nebulous supreme being but the God of the Christian Bible specifically.

So? They aren't usually the ones ragging on the concept of religion itself.

In front of your own house? On your own property? Neither do I. In front of State buildings, which supposedly represent the whole population? I'm of two minds. On the one hand if it were my state I'd be trying to get it removed. On the other, if other states choose to keep flying the Stars & Bars I consider that to be their business, decided in-house and locally. They can bend to pressure, but should not be forced by outside influences to one action or another.

I pretty much agree although it's outside pressure that is mainly driving the current attempts to destroy all vestiges of the confederacy now apparently including town monuments and even the little flags that decorate the graves of their war dead on Memorial Day. It's this kind of over reach which increases resistance to even the small step of removing it from statehouse flag poles. I guess it's kinda like how the Federal Government use of troops to suppress the south solidified resistance even among southerners personally opposed to slavery.

I sometimes wonder what today's race relations would have been like if slavery had been allowed to die the economic death it was headed toward anyways instead of the earlier end that generated over a hundred years of racial hatred and tension.

Just the same as I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not, even though I'm personally against it. Freedom is a tricky question, but it has to be honored in all circumstances.

Exactly.