Flag priorities....

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

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.

That's a valid question. Why are there oaths and pledges? I believe that an oath, whether it's the oath of enlistment, or oath of office, or the Boy Scout oath, serves mainly to remind the individual of the purpose of the organization he is joining, and what he's there for.

The question we're addressing was whether adding "...so help me God" makes the oath-taker more honest. I don't see how it can.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Shem Tovs text is unlike the Byzantine Greek texts today, of his day or any other known Greek text. If he had made a fresh translation it would have rendered one of those forms. In regards to theology the Hebrew text never identify Jesus as messiah or divine. Shem Tov's comments scattered throughout the Hebrew text suggest he did not create it.

This reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Jefferson disallowed the existence of miracles, and cut up the New Testament to reflect that. I can never read his version without asking the question "But how do we know what we can safely remove, add, or change? There is no outside evidence that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the texts, so removing just the miracles is just cherry-picking what you don't like."

There is some evidence that suggests the Greek texts we have today were translated from original Hebrew source. Not the other way around. Jerome, Eusebius, Origen and Epiphanes allude to it in their writings. Papias came right out and said it. "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each (Greeks) interpreted them the best he could"

If that's the case, then nothing in any of the Gospels can be taken as fact. We might as well use the Gospel of Judas.

The point I was trying to make is that modern Christians largely also support their country of origin, and support taking oaths of allegiance without thinking about it. Since the Gospels we have are the ones they put their faith in, I would argue that they are the ones that count.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

None of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Since the book you cite was written in 1385 changes to the Gospel can only be counted as "after the fact" and are altered to meet the beliefs of the translator. That makes them invalid as proof for a discussion of the original text. A better argument might be to question how much of the quotations in the Gospels were said by Jesus at all.

Most of the NT was written by highly educated Greeks decades after Christ. There are no known Aramaic gospels. They are anonymous, the names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were added much later by Irenaeus. There were possible 100's of different good news letters spread out among the nations and many like the greeks came up with their own based on passed down oral traditions and stories. They often differed greatly. Numerous NT books are pseudepigraphical works. As you know, books, letters, and later bibles were highly chosen and edited to fit the doctrine of the period. Almost all biblical factual scholars admit, if an original exist, we could never get back to it to know. But we do know the gospel story greatly evolved from Christ being maybe a great teacher guru of the day to God himself later.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The question we're addressing was whether adding "...so help me God" makes the oath-taker more honest. I don't see how it can.

See my previous post. To a believer in God, and it's not just Christians we're talking about here, invoking their Deity when making a false statement carries with it the extra repercussion of eternal damnation or at least invites some other negative divine reaction. That ought to have at least some effect on a believer. I do agree however that Atheists and liars probably don't need to be saying anything about God at all when taking an oath.

[Platapus]

Here is an interesting historical tidbit

As late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia excluded the testimony of those professing a disbelief in God, and, in a dozen or so additional states, the testimony of nonbelievers was subject to attack on the ground that one's credibility was impaired by irreligion or a lack of belief in a deity.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

See my previous post. To a believer in God, and it's not just Christians we're talking about here, invoking their Deity when making a false statement carries with it the extra repercussion of eternal damnation or at least invites some other negative divine reaction. That ought to have at least some effect on a believer. I do agree however that Atheists and liars probably don't need to be saying anything about God at all when taking an oath.

This is why almost all religions came up with a doctrine of terrible eternal torture. This is why great philosophers helped define and scope doctrines for numerous religions and agreed total fear of the afterlife punishment keeps people morally in line and under religious rule. Even Christianity itself hardly embraced eternal hell in the sense it's taught today, except for some outer branches, but under the Roman church, it became a set doctrine as language was redefined once again to make it like all the torturous pagan hell's that existed previously.

Once you have the themes indoctrinated into the public, you add them into the legal system for even more control of the uneducated masses. This actually has proven to have much positive effect in early civilizations where class played such a role and the masses were poor. It kept them in fearful compliance, ready to war and accepting of their place in society, because the divine books said so.

You would think in America where we have separation of Church&State we wouldn't be using such in govt in this modern age. But even most agnostic Politicians still silently agree to the good use of it.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Jefferson disallowed the existence of miracles, and cut up the New Testament to reflect that. I can never read his version without asking the question "But how do we know what we can safely remove, add, or change? There is no outside evidence that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the texts, so removing just the miracles is just cherry-picking what you don't like."

People are forever engaging in cherry picking what they like. Heck the entire Bible (including all of the versions and variations) is nothing but cherry picking.

It's a huge problem in science too with researchers cherry picking their data or methodology, and how they construct their reports with all the generally meaningless references and citations, in addition to how they choose to interpret their 'results'.

We only like to pay attention to what we like, and can go to great lengths to convince ourselves of the truth of our actions as we quietly sometimes subconsiously discard that which disagrees with our position.

Originally Posted by August

See my previous post. To a believer in God, and it's not just Christians we're talking about here, invoking their Deity when making a false statement carries with it the extra repercussion of eternal damnation or at least invites some other negative divine reaction. That ought to have at least some effect on a believer. I do agree however that Atheists and liars probably don't need to be saying anything about God at all when taking an oath.

I doubt that a truly devout person would be making false statements even without making an oath. However, the number of truly devout people in the world is very very small indeed! For the rest of us, we are all very good at relativisting our actions and excusing ourselves as we fall into the delusion that we did the wrong thing for the right reason.

Of course then you have all those self professing true believers, who are utter frauds. The are the ones that thump their books at others; ceaselessly they criticize, condemn, and castigate everyone else while loudly proclaiming their own moral and religious righteousness, piety, and humility. I'm quite certain they would have no fear of ever suffering eternal damnation while lying through their teeth, because they are such moral and righteous individuals and god would understand their righteous intents. It's all lip-service after all.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Here is an interesting historical tidbit

As late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia excluded the testimony of those professing a disbelief in God, and, in a dozen or so additional states, the testimony of nonbelievers was subject to attack on the ground that one's credibility was impaired by irreligion or a lack of belief in a deity.

That still goes on a lot, though not so much in the US any more. It still bewilders me when people espouse the belief that morality can only come from religion (usually only their brand of it of course). It is entirely possible to be a very moral person, and divest yourself entirely of religion or even spirituality, just as one can be very spiritual with out being religious.

[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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

That still goes on a lot, though not so much in the US any more. It still bewilders me when people espouse the belief that morality can only come from religion (usually only their brand of it of course). It is entirely possible to be a very moral person, and divest yourself entirely of religion or even spirituality, just as one can be very spiritual with out being religious.

It does raise up an interesting question: Who is more altruistic?

A theist who does good things and expects/wishes for a reward in heaven
An atheist who does good things and does not expect any post life reward?

I remember one person at work trying to convince people that the concept of doing good and battling evil started with Christianity. Yikes!

Any guesses on what religion this person at work was? Anyone? Buelier?

[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.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.

You seem to have a penchant for assigning labels to people, particularly if they don't agree with you, without actually knowing much or anything at all about them or their real beliefs. Don't agree with your politics? Must be a leftist liberal. Don't agree with your religion? Must be an atheist. You don't know me well enough to label me an atheist, agnostic, or any other -ist or -tic. Perhaps it may surprise you that, when younger, I gave serious thought to joining the Jesuits? You have complained in the past of other posters putting words in your mouth; I have a similar dislike and would suggest you do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Catchy phrase, that; I wonder who first said it?...

Since I am not an atheist, I guess I'm not painting all of those of faith as "Thumpers", "religious nuts", "holy rollers", just those who try to impose their particular brand of hypocrisy and self-serving upon those who are honestly reverent and respectful of their faith and the faith of others. Yes, 70% of the population may be Christian, but the vast majority of those are not represented by nor endorse the rabid ravings of the few, much as with many matters in life...

To say "similar disparaging terms are never applied to just a few TV evangelists but to the entire religion" is in itself a broad sweeping statement; the word "never" is exclusive and does not allow for those, like myself, who respect those who are also respectful of other's beliefs and who do not color all on the actions of a few. It is another of your penchants: to paint with a broad and sloppy brush...

I would like to see one thing: myself and a number of other posters in this thread have provided solid annotations, citations, and references dealing with the issue of the topic. So far, all you have come up with is rhetoric and bellicose frippery. Let's have a specific, tangible argument from you. You know, facts...

Originally Posted by Platapus

It does raise up an interesting question: Who is more altruistic?

A theist who does good things and expects/wishes for a reward in heaven
An atheist who does good things and does not expect any post life reward?

I remember one person at work trying to convince people that the concept of doing good and battling evil started with Christianity. Yikes!

Any guesses on what religion this person at work was? Anyone? Buelier?

When I was still in Catholic school, the same subject came up during a religion class regarding original sin and baptism. In Catholicism, as in a lot of other Christian faiths, a person cannot be given entrance to heaven unless they are properly baptized. This concerned me and I posed a question to our teacher, a nun: Suppose there is a place on earth, say a remote island, and the people there have no contact with the outside world. The island is populated by people who have developed a code of conduct virtually identical to basic Christian tenet as found in the Ten Commandments. Let's take the case of one islander, who has, in his or her life, adhered to those tenets and, except, for not being baptized into the Catholic religion, has lived an exemplary life that would have merited entrance to heaven. Does a just and merciful God, who created that person and seemingly intended for that person to live in such isolation, does God deny a very worthy soul eternal rewards merely because a protocol unavailable to the soul was not followed? Does the soul languish in limbo or, perhaps, is otherwise 'punished' for circumstance divinely designed and beyond his ability to change or observe? I never did get a straight answer to that question...

(...and, yes, I was a bit of a pain to the nuns and priests with my questions...)...


<O>

[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.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by vienna

When I was still in Catholic school...

When I was in sunday school, the same question arose. And about still born babies.
Our priest answered that God opens the heavenly door to all those that lived pure even if for only 5min and that the Bible has loopholes and contradictions that God himself sorts out.
He also pointed out there are non-christians more christian than some christians and that we should beware using the name of the Lord for doing sins.

It's a strange day on Earth when the Catholics talk more sense than anyone else.

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

You don't know me well enough to label me an atheist, agnostic, or any other -ist or -tic.

My apologies. I don't keep records on people, all I have to go on is the way you write and it has led me to the assumption that you were an Atheist. If you say that's not true then it's not but you should know you come off as one in your posts, at least the way it looks to me.