Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

Because that "quip" probably never happened in the first place?

Sure, it did:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.


UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
Source

Why weren't Elder Bush condemned for his quip about atheists not deserving citizenship?

 

[CFLarsen]

Someone points to your king

We don't have a King. We have a Queen.

 

[CFLarsen]

Quaint isn't the word I would use, but I think it does show that it is important to understand the language and cultural references of the day when reading old documents. Claus's mistake is taking these phrases only from a modern perspective rather than taking the time to understand the historical context.

And yet, I'm the only one pointing to historical evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clause just has some strange disdain for the USA. Why is that?

Heavens, no. I love the US, and I love Americans.

I just don't think that "love it or leave it" is a particularly good way.

Why are Americans so thin-skinned when it comes to critique of the US?

 

[monoman]

Mods, there's a problem with this thread. I clicked on it and it took me to a completely different one. I thought this was only a problem with poll threads??

For the love of God..i mean nature..sort the forum out!

 

[Ed]

"Faith based initiatives"? Want to talk about that?[/b]

Diversion from the fact of State supported religion in Denmark. Nice try.



If you don't want to support the church, you can opt out.

Reference? It seems that taxes are what provides the support.



Not maybe. Only 49% of Americans would vote for an Atheist.[

Enough to win a presidential election.



No, we are discussing the US. Remember that? Denmark isn't a theocracy. An atheist won't have a problem being elected, because we don't see a politician's religion as an issue. In the US, it's a huge issue.

No, we were discussing the air marshall incident. You sent this thread into the wild blue yonder.



The holidays are "defined" by the State.

Yup. Religious ones. Theocracy.

Are the religious holidays in the US defined by the government? Yes or no

No. And the Bill of Rights is not distinct from the Constitution and the DoI has no legal standing. Perhaps repitition will help.

 

[WildCat]

And yet, I'm the only one pointing to historical evidence.

Keep beating it Claus, it will jump up and run away any second now, you'll show 'em!

 

[CFLarsen]

Diversion from the fact of State supported religion in Denmark. Nice try.

Not a diversion at all. I've addressed it. Will you address the "faith based initiatives"?

Reference? It seems that taxes are what provides the support.

All you need to do is resign your membership.

Enough to win a presidential election.

That would require that no believer would vote. Not realistic.

No, we were discussing the air marshall incident. You sent this thread into the wild blue yonder.

Wasn't me. Scroll back.

Theocracy.

Wrong.

No.

No?

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart E > CHAPTER 61 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 6103

§ 6103. Holidays
Release date: 2005-05-18

(a) The following are legal public holidays:
New Year’s Day, January 1.
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February.
Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
Independence Day, July 4.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
Veterans Day, November 11.
Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
Christmas Day, December 25.
Source

No?

 

[CFLarsen]

Keep beating it Claus, it will jump up and run away any second now, you'll show 'em!

Do you understand that we don't teach people to become religious, but that we teach them about religion?

Do you understand that religions must be "approved" because otherwise, they won't enjoy tax breaks?

Do you understand that it is irrelevant what religion the Regent has to belong to?

Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?

Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

Are you able to tell me just how far back in time we have to go?

Is the DoI not one of the founding documents?

 

[Ed]

Christmas and a mention of a Creator in a document with no legal standing vs. a state sponsered religion, supported by taxes with a king that must be a member.

Rest my case.

 

[Ed]

Do you understand that we don't teach people to become religious, but that we teach them about religion?

Do you understand that religions must be "approved" because otherwise, they won't enjoy tax breaks?

Do you understand that it is irrelevant what religion the Regent has to belong to?

Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?

Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

Are you able to tell me just how far back in time we have to go?

Is the DoI not one of the founding documents?

Then again I ask: what is your point if not to denigrate the US because of a word in a document with no legal standing...when you do indeed live in a theocracy.

 

[Ed]

Sure, it did:



Why weren't Elder Bush condemned for his quip about atheists not deserving citizenship?

Maybe because our notion of free speech is superior to yours?

 

[Upchurch]

Answer the question, please: You think they were making a joke?

Okay, so I read this post earlier and had to think it over. Why would you ask me to answer something I had just answered? There are really only two possibilities that spring to mind.

The first is that you did not realize that I had answered. You see, when I argued that we should take your rhetoric literally, I was lampooning your taking the writers of the DoI's rhetoric literally. You then felt the need to point out that your rhetoric was only a joke and, thus, absolved from literal implication. By then asking if I thought the writers were making a joke, you were arguing (in question form) that only jokes are exempt from literal translation. I then "answered the question" by countering (in question form) that jokes are not the only form of non-literal rhetoric. So, I did answer your argument, which should have implied the answer to your literal question.

The second possibility is that you are merely trying to play a game of "Gotcha!" by wallowing in details and fishing for a contradiction, any contradiction. It is childish, stupid, and proves nothing except that words can have different meanings at different times. I'm not going to play that game, Claus. If we're going to discuss something, let's actually discuss it.

So, if you still haven't figured it out, I do not think they were making a joke. Do you still insist that jokes are the only rhetorical devices that are non-literal?

On the contrary, I'm looking at the reality of historical context. Can I see what you rely on wrt historical texts?

again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

This is the only pertinent historical and legally binding text when it comes to the US Government's relationship with religions and religious entities. Any attempts by US citizens or officials to use government for religious ends, or vice versa, should be measured against the above text and judged appropriately. Yes, that includes the President's "faith-based initiatives" which should rightly be found unconstitutional.

Why, the rampant religiosity in the US population, of course. You deny that the US population is overtly religious?

I do no such thing. Please try to understand that there is a difference between a religous populace and a religious government.

Having a secular government is not synonymous with having an atheistic country. A secular government means that it is "hands off" when it comes to the country's religious practices. The First Amendment defines the US as a secular government, it does not demand that the population be anything: atheist, christian, buddist, oblivious, etc.

How can "In god we trust" be called "Only tangentially related to religion"?

This is where that historical context comes in handy.

"In God we Trust" was made the national motto and "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's during the height of McCarthyism and anti-communism furvor. One of the aspects of communism that Americans fixated on was the disallowment of any religion whatsoever. Thus, the acceptance of religion was seen as decidedly anti-communist. Adding these reminders of religion to the civil arena were methods of politically distancing oneself from communism. Opposing their addition was seen as being pro-communism. Given the Cold War hysteria of the time, being perceived as pro-communist in those days was tantamount to political, career, social, and sometimes actual sucide.

It was never about religion, Claus. It was all about the communists. I was born 15-20 years after the height of that hysteria and I can still remember being scared of the Soviet Union. It will take a while for that irrationality to go away. We're starting to see the beginnings of that in the last few years with people pointing out the unconstitutionality of things like the motto and the pledge.

Why weren't Elder Bush condemned for his quip about atheists not deserving citizenship?

He was. Not by many, but it wasn't widely publicized. I hadn't heard about it until a couple of years ago. Undoubtedly from something I read on this board.

 

[CFLarsen]

Christmas and a mention of a Creator in a document with no legal standing vs. a state sponsered religion, supported by taxes with a king that must be a member.

The US doesn't sponsor Christmas?

Then again I ask: what is your point if not to denigrate the US because of a word in a document with no legal standing...when you do indeed live in a theocracy.

1) I've already explained it several times.

2) I don't live in a theocracy.

Maybe because our notion of free speech is superior to yours?

Maybe because the vast majority didn't have all that many problems with it?

You know as well as I do that if a politician says something that people find really really dumb, he will be lambasted for it. So why not this?

Bush is running for president when he says it. He is talking about taking away citizenship for those who are not religious. How can this not be striving towards a theocracy?

According to Bush, everyone should be religious.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, so I read this post earlier and had to think it over. Why would you ask me to answer something I had just answered? There are really only two possibilities that spring to mind.

The first is that you did not realize that I had answered. You see, when I argued that we should take your rhetoric literally, I was lampooning your taking the writers of the DoI's rhetoric literally. You then felt the need to point out that your rhetoric was only a joke and, thus, absolved from literal implication. By then asking if I thought the writers were making a joke, you were arguing (in question form) that only jokes are exempt from literal translation. I then "answered the question" by countering (in question form) that jokes are not the only form of non-literal rhetoric. So, I did answer your argument, which should have implied the answer to your literal question.

It didn't, at least to me.

So, if you still haven't figured it out, I do not think they were making a joke.

Good! So, it must be taken literally.

Do you still insist that jokes are the only rhetorical devices that are non-literal?

I haven't said anything to that effect.

This is the only pertinent historical and legally binding text when it comes to the US Government's relationship with religions and religious entities. Any attempts by US citizens or officials to use government for religious ends, or vice versa, should be measured against the above text and judged appropriately. Yes, that includes the President's "faith-based initiatives" which should rightly be found unconstitutional.

But they aren't, so until they have, they are constitutional. And that goes for the many references to God in government buildings etc. as well.

"In God we Trust" was made the national motto and "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's during the height of McCarthyism and anti-communism furvor. One of the aspects of communism that Americans fixated on was the disallowment of any religion whatsoever. Thus, the acceptance of religion was seen as decidedly anti-communist. Adding these reminders of religion to the civil arena were methods of politically distancing oneself from communism. Opposing their addition was seen as being pro-communism. Given the Cold War hysteria of the time, being perceived as pro-communist in those days was tantamount to political, career, social, and sometimes actual sucide.

It was never about religion, Claus. It was all about the communists. I was born 15-20 years after the height of that hysteria and I can still remember being scared of the Soviet Union. It will take a while for that irrationality to go away. We're starting to see the beginnings of that in the last few years with people pointing out the unconstitutionality of things like the motto and the pledge.

It is very much about religion, for the very reasons you outlined. When the commies threatened you, you chose to fall back on a religious statement, when you could have chosen so many more.

Note that communism is also very much against capitalism. Why didn't you choose "In Gold We Trust" instead? Why not add "under a banner of freedom" or the like? No, it had to be religion.

If you think the Moral Majority was a fluke, read on:

The 2004 election was the latest presidential campaign in which candidates openly discussed their religious beliefs, churches became increasingly active in political mobilization, and voters sorted themselves out not just by their policy preferences but also by the depth of their religious commitment. In fact, whether a person regularly attends religious services was more important in determining his or her vote for president than such standard demographic characteristics as gender, age, income and region. Polling data also indicates that Americans are divided over how involved churches should be in the political process. A July 2005 poll by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press indicates that roughly half of Americans (51%) think churches and other houses of worship should express their views on day-to-day social and political questions, while 44% believe these organizations should stay out of political matters. The public is generally comfortable with politicians mentioning their religious faith; in fact, more people say there is too little expression of religious faith by political leaders (39%) than say there is too much (26%).
Source

Ties tighten between religion and politics
Lawmakers form a 'faith-based' caucus, while churches clarify role in national affairs

America, despite its signature wall of separation between church-state, is also a place where religion and politics are often deeply entwined - a phenomenon rarely more in evidence than in the current election cycle.

The signs go beyond a presidential race in which a "religion gap" is seen by pollsters as a crucial divide for Democratic candidate John Kerry to close.

Consider that in just the past week:

• A bipartisan group of lawmakers this week launched a "faith-based caucus" of House members who back efforts to make it easier for federal grants to reach church-affiliated social programs.

• At a retreat in Denver, the US Association of Catholic bishops considered how far to use denial of communion as a goad to pressure politicians of the faith to vote in line with church doctrine.

• A national group of evangelical Christians pondered their role in national affairs - and whether their alignment and influence should be less closely tied to the Republican Party.

...

"This country is the most religious developed democracy in the world," says pollster Celinda Lake. "On the one hand, Americans want separation of church and state, but on the other they feel comfortable with 'In God we trust' and 'One nation under God.' It's a core value."

...

"The vast majority of Americans - Democrats and Republicans alike - believe that government could be working more effectively with faith-based and community groups dedicated to improving their communities," said a bipartisan group of lawmakers at the launch of the caucus, formally called the Community Solutions and Initiatives Coalition.
Source

In fact, although the United States has a constitutional barrier separating church and state, the vast majority of Americans want their leaders to be religious.

A poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 72% agreed with the statement "The president should have strong religious beliefs."

A majority of respondents thought both President George W Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry mentioned their faith the right amount.

...

72% of Americans say the president should have strong religious beliefs
65% say churches should not endorse candidates
51% say churches should express views on political matters
41% say there is too little expression of faith and prayer by political leaders
Source

As the candidates enter their final week of persuasion, both Senator Kerry and President Bush have sharpened their appeal to religious voters.
Source

You want more?

He was. Not by many, but it wasn't widely publicized. I hadn't heard about it until a couple of years ago. Undoubtedly from something I read on this board.

Isn't that...odd? A vice president running for president makes it clear that he will strip non-religious Americans of their citizenship and the vast majority don't even blink?

What do you think would have happen, if he had said that blacks were to be stripped of their citizenship?

 

[Jocko]

We don't have a King. We have a Queen.

Wow, talk about missing the point.

 

[Jocko]

I don't live in a theocracy.

I say you do.

Clearly define "theocracy," so I may see the error of my ways.

 

[Ed]

Claus, you may not like living in a theocracy where a majority support special treatment of the state religion but casting stones at a true secular society like ours does not advance your case.

You also don't seem to undersatnd the concept of freedom of speech. I will leave it to you to figure out the distinction between law and speech.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you still insist that jokes are the only rhetorical devices that are non-literal?

I haven't said anything to that effect.

Yes, Claus, you have. In fact, you said it immediately prior to the above quote

So, if you still haven't figured it out, I do not think they were making a joke.

Good! So, it must be taken literally.

You say that because it is not a joke, it must be taken literally. Logically, you either think that only jokes can be rhetorical devices (which is absurd) or you think that jokes are the only rhetorical devices that are non-literal.

The former would indicate that you don't understand rhetorics (which is what I've been saying from the start of this). The latter ...well, it indicates that, too, doesn't it?*

But they aren't, so until they have, they are constitutional. And that goes for the many references to God in government buildings etc. as well.

First of all, just because something hasn't been challenged, doesn't make it constitutional. Absence of evidence against does does not mean evidence for. You should know that.

Second, the problem with the President's faith-based initiatives is that they aren't clear cut. The money they provide aren't specifically for promoting a specific religion, but I don't feel they provide enough safe-guards against it. When it happens (which it eventually will), it will be challenged in the courts and should be found unconstitutional.

It is very much about religion, for the very reasons you outlined. When the commies threatened you, you chose to fall back on a religious statement, when you could have chosen so many more.

Yes, Claus. Thank you for being more of an authority on American culture than I, an American for three decades who actually experienced a small portion of the Cold War culture, am.**

Did you not read anything I said? You don't understand. Religion was just one aspect of it, not the sum total.

If you think the Moral Majority was a fluke, read on:

{snip}

You want more?

I have said it before and I will say it again now: a secular government does not necessitate an atheistic populous. Heck, religious politicians does not necessarily mean a religious government.

If you want to argue that the majority of US citizens are religious, I will agree. If you want to argue that this means that the US government is religious, I disagree.

Show me one legally binding official US document that establishes an government sponsored religion.

Isn't that...odd? A vice president running for president makes it clear that he will strip non-religious Americans of their citizenship and the vast majority don't even blink?

This would assume that they heard it in the first place. Do you understand what "not widely publicized" means?***

What do you think would have happen, if he had said that blacks were to be stripped of their citizenship?

Racial issues are much more sexy in this country than atheists. Reporters go for the sensational, sexy stories. I have issues with the media, too, but the media is not the government.


* this is a rhetorical question. That means you don't really have to answer it.
** Sarcasm, another rhetorical device. Not meant to be taken literally.
*** Not a rhetorical question. I expect an answer.

 

[Grammatron]

Sure, it did:



Why weren't Elder Bush condemned for his quip about atheists not deserving citizenship?

Because it's probably not true. Is this the kind of research you do for your publication? It's dissapointing if it is.