YES!
Michael Newdow, go home!
- Thread starter JLam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael newdow
Oh, really? Change the word to 'Allah' and see who complains. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it's the Christian religious groups who complain - and the more fanatical, the louder they'll yell.
jjramsey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,494
But that's just it, it would be a change, not something that had been around for a while and had become part of the largely unnoticed background. Your analogy is a false one.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,865
But can you think of an example where the presence of a bible to swear on would make a difference in a person's willingness to tell the truth?
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,865
That's just it... personally, I think he's right. I just consider it incorrect strategy.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,363
The first ammendment isn't about being offended. It's about government officials using religion to gain power.
And this was added to currency precisely because it was a religious statement with meaning. So your assumption that it's a meaningless colloquialism is 180 degrees incorrect. If it's meaningless, what's the big woop about getting rid of it?
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm
At the time a change is instituted, it's new. (Obviously.) So how long does a "wrong" change have to exist before it's considered acceptable and therefore "right"?
"What people are accustomed to" is irrelevant. What matters is what reason indicates is correct. This government was neither intended nor permitted to let the opinions of the masses determine policy.
Its not a fair comparison. The anti-war movement was a mass movement with a large majority in some sectors of society. More to the point, they were arguing the central point - whether one agrees with their position or not one cannot deny the non-trivial nature of the argument. Nedow's issue is a trivial one that probably has as many atheists against it as in favour of it. It is the wrong battle.
But are they steps in the right direction? Look at the different opinions expresssed in this thread - among atheists. Its like the councils in England that ban the word 'Christmas' because of fear of offending other religions - they actually generate and entrench the suspicion and mistrust of other races that promotes racism.
JLam
Proud Skepkid Parent
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,149
For all the people who make the argument that "In God We Trust" engraved on coins and bills is a very serious problem that causes you harm and is worthy of a big sting, then answer me this: How would your life improve if the phrase was removed from our money?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Has anyone made such an argument, that it's "a very serious problem that causes you harm and is worth of a big sting [stink?]"?
It's a matter of principle. Some people actually stick to their principles, even in the small matters. You can call them idealists, or impractical, but at least you can't call them unprincipled.
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
Well said, TragicMonkey.
Yet, yes, this could end up as "a very serious problem that causes you harm..."
Do you mind if we put "In God We Trust" on all currency? Okay
Do you mind if we put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Okay
Do you mind if we make people swear on the Bible in court and when being sworn into office? Okay
Do you mind if we put monuments to the Ten Commandments in court houses?
Pray in Congress?
Pray in public schools?
Pray at school sporting events?
Teach ID/Creationism in public schools?
Allow hiring based on religious discrimination?
Ban abortions and overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Deny scientific research into stem cells?
Remove science from public schools?
Teach Christianity in public schools?
Start persecuting non-Christians?
Encourage lynching of non-Christians?
Have theocratic governmental institutions?
Yes, I am going down the slippery slope intentionally. Not that this would likely happen easily. Some of these things are being heavily fought against from many fronts, but not all and not all are winning.
Every inch given is another inch toward theocracy...
And remember Rome was once a Republic before it became a lineal dictatorship. And there are still nations today wherein most of these conditions are actually existent!
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
I think we agree, and Tricky said it very well too. I do try to find a moderate response to most things, but the 'extremes' have a place and purpose in keeping moderation from becoming complacency. Ideas should be held in a kind of tension, not comfort. (sorry, I don't know a better way to express that).
A question I ask myself is if Newdow's extremism has value, are people like Jack Chick and Pat Robertson expressions of 'good' extremism too? I come up with an answer of 'no'. Sure I could be wrong, hopelessly blinded by my dislike of liars. But it is 'no' because their extremism is not an engine of change to challenge and expand our understanding. They would tear everything down and replace it with an illusion. Their extremism is more similar to that of suicide bombers.
I can understand the sentiment: 'even though we agree with Newdow's goals we stand against him because we think it it will hurt our larger cause'.
My response to that is that whatever we do, we must build toward our goals from an honest foundation. 'Honesty' in this sense is kind of like product quality: It can't be plastered on after everything is done, but be integral from the beginning.
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
This is ridiculous and illustrates the muddled thinking behind the objection. In England we do not have separation of Church and State, never mind a garauntee of it. We have religious symbols everywhere, from the national flag to the crosses on the Queen's crown (the symbol of the crown being ubiqutous on police and military uniforms, postage stamps, coins, badges of office etc...). We have mottos of religious and semi-religious origin everywhere including on coins 'Dieu et mon droit' (God and my right) and ELIZABETH II D. G. REG. F. D (Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith).
These are seen for what they are - part of the rich cultural, political and religious heritage of the country. I do not expect that we will sliding down the slippery slope towards 'lynching non-Christians' anytime soon. In fact, despite the plethora of religious symbolism we are becoming a more secular society.
As I said - Nedow is fighting the wrong batle. Its not just that there are bigger and infinitely more significant fish to fry (which there undoubtedly are in the US) - bringing the public's attention to causes like this one is likely to damage your ability to fight those more important battles. Furthermore - it is not even clear that this is an atheist vs religion issue since there are many atheists who would (as this thread suggests) prefer to retain such historical peculiarities.
The motto on the coin makes (as has been pointed out) no material difference to anyone. If you justify removing it you open the door (or open it wider) to other sorts of petty intolerance (with regards to religion, atheism, culture and politics) - and that is your real slippery slope.
Last edited:
David Swidler
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 8,297
Well said, hodgy.
The "slippery slope" argument works well in terms of one's own internal struggles (dieting comes to mind), but when it comes to struggles between people and groups it's a lot less productive. It leads to escalation, especially if both sides adhere to it, and I'd rather have a few symbols redolent of religious ideas around - even government-sanctioned ones - than an escalation of this conflict to real unpleasantness.
The "slippery slope" argument works well in terms of one's own internal struggles (dieting comes to mind), but when it comes to struggles between people and groups it's a lot less productive. It leads to escalation, especially if both sides adhere to it, and I'd rather have a few symbols redolent of religious ideas around - even government-sanctioned ones - than an escalation of this conflict to real unpleasantness.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,865
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
I don't doubt that there is some truth in the slippery slope argument but we have to stop the current slide first. We have to start by removing religiously based laws like those against homosexuality, prostitution, gambling and abortion. We are wasting our efforts by complaining about a nearly invisible harm.
More importantly, we are poisoning the well of public opinion. Guys like Newdow, while technically right, are making the atheists, agnostics, and secularists look like chicken little.
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
But you didn't read that very well did you? More than half of those questions are already in practice. And there are dozens more. This isn't about 'mottos on coins', this is about a consistent drive to make a particular religion's point of view into laws and statutes and post-traditions and practice. And they would easily 'slip' in most of them if noone was cognizant and vigilant against their never-ending barrage and push.
President Bush, in his first year in office (before that darned 9/11 distraction) was fervently pushing a religious agenda.
We now have things like:
* 'Don't ask, don't tell' (based on religious and Neanderthalic views on homosexuality - Clinton's near support, but couldn't offend the religious)
* The Defense of Marriage Act (based on an unredressed threat from allowing marriages of two people in a dedicated non-heterosexual relationship)
* Faith-based initiative (sole purpose is to give money, my money, to religious institutions who ALREADY ARE TAX EXEMPT!!!, with no notion of protection from hiring discrimination based upon religion and against indoctrination)
* Banning of most stem cell research (based solely on religious objection with no rationale)
* The quickly passed 'Terry Schiavo Law' (a federal law to protect one person in a persistent vegetative state from being euthanized because it offends the religious right)
* Laws in the works to outlaw euthanasia for terminally ill patients - even if by their own consent and desires. (again, archaic religious views forcing the hand of federal government)
That is the list that I can name offhand.
I agree with KingMerv00 that Newdow is attacking this long list of intrusions by certain religious factions into federal, secular government from the wrong end. Instead of attacking redresses that DO harm people - like those listed above (and they are not slippery slope - they are enacted), he instead jousts at windmills.
The CoE and the religious right fanatical fundamentalists of the USA are very different beasts. To say that this is just tradition or cultural/religious heritage would be incorrect. These intrusions go way beyond these mundane similitudes.
Yes, I can.
But I don't think such situations are common in practice.
The case is such where the presence of the Bible reminds a devout believer that perjury is a sin and he or she might face a supernatural punishment for it after death, and so the person decides to speak truth to avert this punishment.
It used to be the custom in Finnish courts that an accused who refused to confess a crime were sent to have a personal discussion with a pastor. The idea was that the moral authority of the church and fear for divine judgement would make the criminal to confess.
There are a couple of cases where this worked. I remember reading about several thefts that were solved this way and at least one case where a servant girl killed his illegitimate baby.
But the all of the successes had one thing in common: the accused were not career criminals. The practice was in effect for about 250 years or so. During the whole time there is no evidence that even one single career criminal broke down and confessed because of sermon from the priest. In fact, the practice was counterproductive: when a criminal got sent to the pastor, he immediately knew that the evidence against him was not strong enough to convict him without his own confession. So, he knew that he could get free by just keeping his mouth shut. [Barring the rather rare occasion that he would be sentenced to jail "until he confesses", a judgement that was reserved for murder cases where there was almost enough evidence for conviction].
JLam
Proud Skepkid Parent
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,149
My main problem is this. Newdow is making us look ridiculous.
He's fighting the wrong fight, and when the right fight comes along (perhaps the Kansas school board decides to start teaching kids about how Adam and Eve named the dinosaurs) we'll be looked at as a bunch of kooks.
"Oh, the atheists are making a stink again, Gertrude."
"Aren't they the ones who were making the fuss about the word 'God' on coins. They're crazy."
In a marriage, one learns to choose his battles. I think Newdow would be well served to learn the same lesson.
And let's all just refrain from using the slippery slope argument. If that argument held any water, we'd all be sending our tax payments to the Church of The United States by now.
He's fighting the wrong fight, and when the right fight comes along (perhaps the Kansas school board decides to start teaching kids about how Adam and Eve named the dinosaurs) we'll be looked at as a bunch of kooks.
"Oh, the atheists are making a stink again, Gertrude."
"Aren't they the ones who were making the fuss about the word 'God' on coins. They're crazy."
In a marriage, one learns to choose his battles. I think Newdow would be well served to learn the same lesson.
And let's all just refrain from using the slippery slope argument. If that argument held any water, we'd all be sending our tax payments to the Church of The United States by now.