Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So help me dog (or god, whatever!).
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 31 of 35 (518757)
08-07-2009 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Perdition
08-07-2009 12:45 PM


Re: Jury Duty again!
Perdition writes:
I was sent a Jury Duty mail when I was still 17, about 3 months before my 18th birthday, so I had to tell them I wasn't old enough and haven't received one since. I would really like to be in a jury, I would find it very interesting.
Wow. What if you had to write them again and notify them that now you are old enough...LOL.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Perdition, posted 08-07-2009 12:45 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 35 (518759)
08-07-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ragged
08-07-2009 3:09 PM


Ragged writes:
quote:
The way I see it, the "so help me God" thing is nothing but a relic from the past.
If that were the case, then there would be no problem with removing it from the oath.
The problem is that if you were to try to do so, you would catch holy hell from the sectarians screaming about how you were trying to destroy the country.
This is the great double-think of the court system claiming that it's a "secular" phrase. Well, if it really doesn't mean anything, then there's no reason not to banish it in order to ensure that there isn't even the appearance of establishment. But given the reaction of people upon hearing that there is a consideration of removing it, it clearly isn't a "secular" phrase but is actually considered a direct invocation of god...clearly an unconstitutional act which means it needs to be banished.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Ragged, posted 08-07-2009 3:09 PM Ragged has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Ragged, posted 08-07-2009 9:32 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Ragged
Member (Idle past 3552 days)
Posts: 47
From: Purgatory
Joined: 10-26-2005


Message 33 of 35 (518762)
08-07-2009 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rrhain
08-07-2009 8:13 PM


Rrhain,
The phrase can have a religious meaning, certainly. It all depends on your point of view. Some view it as religious, some get offended by it, some just take it as court procedure. The point is that no matter what you call it, the phrase has a specific secular purpose, to make a person aware of his/her responsibility. The only reason they still use words "so help me God" is because that's what has been done for centuries. Taking word "God" out will not make any difference. Believers will keep believing that they are under God, non-believers will keep non-believing. It will not change the degree to which the notion of god influences the government, composed of the people, some of whom are believers.
It is my opinion that any attempt on removing it is bound to fail. There are just too many believers out there. Plus old traditions are hard to change, especially when God is involved. In fact trying to remove it only adds oil to religious fervor and gives extra strength to religious movements. It allows them to point fingers and play "catch the antichrist". That only leads to more of the same. The only way "God" can be taken out of everything governmental is if God stops being such an important aspect of people's lives. And that can only happen gradually, through education and such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2009 8:13 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by kjsimons, posted 08-08-2009 10:06 AM Ragged has not replied
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2009 7:32 PM Ragged has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 34 of 35 (518798)
08-08-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Ragged
08-07-2009 9:32 PM


In more enlightened areas of the country they have already removed god from all court and public office oaths, it's just mostly in the less enlightened ares (aka the bible belt) that they keep adding god in everywhere they can. Just this week in Kissimme, FL (just south of Orlando) the city commission introduced a motion to add "In God We Trust" to the city logo. They said they were doing it for "patriotic reasons", as I guess only believers can be patriots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Ragged, posted 08-07-2009 9:32 PM Ragged has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 35 (518840)
08-08-2009 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Ragged
08-07-2009 9:32 PM


Ragged responds to me:
quote:
It all depends on your point of view.
That's the entire point. If people think you're invoking god, then it really doesn't matter how louldy you try to claim you aren't. Therefore, in order to avoid the appearance of establishment, it needs to be removed. Nobody can consider the government to be invoking god if it remains silent on the subject.
quote:
The point is that no matter what you call it, the phrase has a specific secular purpose
No, it doesn't. It is there precisely for sectarian reasons. That's why they let people who have religious objections to saying something like that swear under threat of perjury. If it were truly secular, then nobody would be confusing it for an invocation of god.
What you're arguing is that the word "god" doesn't actually mean "god."
quote:
It will not change the degree to which the notion of god influences the government, composed of the people, some of whom are believers.
But that's the point behind the establishment clause: You aren't supposed to look to the government for support of your religious activities. If a person's faith is truly so fragile that it cannot live without constant reminders from everywhere, government actions included, then that person is in worse shape than he thinks and the government needs to stop coddling him.
quote:
It is my opinion that any attempt on removing it is bound to fail.
Indeed. It's already gone through the court system and while the Newdow case was officially rejected on grounds of standing (claiming that he, as the non-custodial father of the child, didn't have the right to file suit on behalf of his daughter), the arguments presented in the case clearly show the inability to see past their own theistic trappings: The word "god" somehow doesn't actually mean "god."
Again, if it really doesn't mean that, then get rid of it in order to avoid the appearance of establishment (which is actual precedent). But clearly most people think it really does mean that because look at their reactions upon hearing that it might be removed. Therefore, it really is establishment and is patently unconstitutional.
There really is no way for the government to invoke god, no matter how trivially, without violation of the establishment clause.
quote:
The only way "God" can be taken out of everything governmental is if God stops being such an important aspect of people's lives.
Huh? For more than 100 years we never had "In God We Trust" on the money. The country seemed to function just fine without it. The Pledge of Allegiance didn't have the words "under god" inserted into it until the 1950s when the administration was trying to make a distinction between Americans and those "godless Soviets." All of these insertions of god into governmental work are recent.
What's so difficult about going back to the way things were?
And if the people whose faith is so delicate that it cannot survive without having god engraved on the money get upset, then so be it. We are not here to placate them.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Ragged, posted 08-07-2009 9:32 PM Ragged has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024