Turbine Disclaimer

posted on September 15th, 2010, 3:00 pm

Hmmm, I have forgotten Hinduism.  Darn.  sorry guys, all yea who are Hindus. 

As to the Greek gods, like I said, I don't think there are enough people in the world that they need to name every Greek god in a contract.  I think the over-arching "Acts of God" provides a big enough group that if someone really did believe that God caused something to happen like that, then they can say they are covered.

I don't see why you should be apposed to something like that, you can simply not support it.  I think the reason is, because in the USA our pledge of Allegiance still says"One nation under God" therefor, a case saying that God did something might actually hold up in court, depending on the Judge.  Because of that, they put the "Acts of God" statement in there.

As to the losing ground thing, I"m sure you are right about that, so I"m not even going to look, because if I do, I'm sure I could find a statistic that says otherwise, and I have no wish to debate about such a thing.  It makes no difference to me.

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on September 15th, 2010, 3:17 pm

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on September 15th, 2010, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Americans have a sense of individualism pounded into them, not many are content to go along with things they don't like just because the majority thinks otherwise. I can almost guarantee there will be controversy over using the phrase "acts of god" in a contract. I don't think it will be because someone believes in Greek gods, but that is a possibility.

The "under god" is rather controversial, even despite most Americans being Christian. A similar controversy is happening now with using crosses to memorialize non-Christians.
I do not require everyone to agree with me to be opposed to something, nor do I require that I can actually change things to be opposed to something.


In case you're interested in reading about the cross controversy (yes, this will be my standard procedure for posts dealing with information outside of FO):
Federal appeals court rules that Utah highway crosses are unconstitutional | The Underground
Mojave WWI Memorial Cross Is ‘Stolen’ | Sweetness & Light

posted on September 15th, 2010, 3:29 pm

Ah, then I missunderstood your use of "opposed to."  I thought you meant, activle opposed to, verses just dissagreeing with the status quo.  I too dissagree with many things in the status quo.


Oh, The memorialize thing.  Are you referring to crosses as headstones, like at Arlington?  Or something else.  I have not heard of this controversy.   Tell meh more.

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on September 15th, 2010, 4:01 pm

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on September 15th, 2010, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, crosses as headstones. The major things are in those articles I linked to, not much more I can add except that the church and state separation are a huge mess in America since traditionally several things with gov't involvement involve Christian stuff.
The "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance (ok, that has got to be the most brainwashy name that you can make up for something school kids are often required to recite every day) in the '50s when America was fearing that without it they would be just like the "godless commies." Supreme court overturned a lower court decision to remove "under god" because of custody issues (seriously.)

Not a great source like CBS, but it had up-to-date info and nice summaries:
Pledge of Allegiance Case | Amercian Government | US Supreme Court | Judge Alfred T. Goodwin

posted on September 15th, 2010, 4:11 pm

Well, separation of church and state does not actually exist.  It is only that the USA will not support one religion over another, but will allow everyone to practice theirs freely.

I also agree, the "Pledge of Allegiance" is a terrible name.  

No need to give me more info on the PoA issue, I am completely aware of that one.

I classify it in the same way as the "Acts of God" clause.  They are not speaking of a specific God in that case, and therefor, not supporting any one religion.  The only thing is that we were built on top of Christian Values, so we still have many of those aspects left in our Government, like Swearing on a Bible to tell the truth, Praying at major events, ect. 

 

posted on September 15th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Well, separation of church and state does not actually exist.  It is only that the USA will not support one religion over another, but will allow everyone to practice theirs freely.

The 'founding fathers' certainly seemed to think that separation of church and state should exist though.

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on September 15th, 2010, 9:28 pm

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on September 15th, 2010, 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I classify it in the same way as the "Acts of God" clause.  They are not speaking of a specific God in that case, and therefor, not supporting any one religion.  The only thing is that we were built on top of Christian Values, so we still have many of those aspects left in our Government, like Swearing on a Bible to tell the truth, Praying at major events, ect.  

No, they aren't supporting one religion, they are supporting several religions instead. The problem exists under two cases (some people only go by one case, others both with a slight modification to the first, others neither, it varies) of what consists of a church-state problem for supporting multiple religions.
Case1:supporting some, but not all religions is unconstitutional, because it treats different religions unfairly (multiple god religions cannot be treated unfairly even if they are a minority.)
Case2: supporting religion itself is unconstitutional because not all people are religious and this treats them unfairly.
The first case was made about prayer in schools some time ago, as the schools claimed that they did not specify a particular god, but others disagreed and schools can no longer make students pray (or even tell them to with an option not to, as group pressure could essentially force students to praying when they don't want to.)

IIRC you don't have to use a bible. If it does require some kind of religious book, then under both case1 (not all religions have sacred texts) and case2 that would be a problem tho.

Praying at major events is only a problem if the state is behind the prayer, if it is just individuals choosing to, then neither case would make that a problem constitutionally.

I would post a link, but I don't have a whole lot of time right now.EDIT: I had so little time I caught my bus home from college just barely. Here's a summary of the court case with the prayer in schools (it's at the top.)
Landmark Supreme Court Cases about Students

posted on September 15th, 2010, 11:31 pm

The 'founding fathers' certainly seemed to think that separation of church and state should exist though.

True, but not in the way it is ment today.  They wanted a different kind of seperation.  They also wanted a smaller government, and alot of other things that did not happen.   Too bad..

No, they aren't supporting one religion, they are supporting several religions instead. The problem exists under two cases (some people only go by one case, others both, others neither, it varies) of what consists of a church-state problem for supporting multiple religions.
Case1:supporting some, but not all religions is unconstitutional, because it treats different religions unfairly (multiple god religions cannot be treated unfairly even if they are a minority.)
Case2: supporting religion itself is unconstitutional because not all people are religious and this treats them unfairly.
The first case was made about prayer in schools some time ago, as the schools claimed that they did not specify a particular god, but others disagreed and schools can no longer make students pray (or even tell them to with an option not to, as group pressure could essentially force students to praying when they don't want to.)

IIRC you don't have to use a bible. If it does require some kind of religious book, then under both case1 and case2 that would be a problem tho.

Praying at major events is only a problem if the state is behind the prayer, if it is just individuals choosing to, then neither case would make that a problem constitutionally.

I would post a link, but I don't have a whole lot of time right now.

I see what you are saying, and, though I disagree, I understand what you mean.  They should cover all, or none.  Your point is none of course, and thats fine.  I believe that, by covering monotheistic religion as a whole, you do cover a vast majority of US citizens(excluding those who are atheistic).  If you are atheistic then the term "God" shouldn't mean anything to you.  I think it is impossible to cover all Religion as a whole, so the best that can be done is to cover as many as possible.  To cover none at all would be contrary to the nations founding as a whole and I don't think we are ready to make that leap.

posted on September 15th, 2010, 11:37 pm

A "different kind of separation". I do wonder what that means, given the very explicit descriptions gives by Thomas Jefferson and others . Of course, those men were not on agreement on all terms - especially on "smaller government" - Federalists anyone? 

posted on September 16th, 2010, 12:41 am

true, but we only had three federalist presidents(when federalist meant more government) and none of their term turned out well..I could be wrong, but that is what I remember.  Its been a while.

As to Thomas Jefferson, he changed his mind about everything. Everyone seems to have a different opinion of him.  He was a deist, a christian, an athesist.  He was for big government, small government, wanted God in the Constitution, took it out.  I suppose its hard to argue about what people thought about, or what they intended that long ago. 

From what I read, they wanted separation in order to keep Christianity from becoming a Government run Religion, and have it forced on people who didn't want it, verses keeping it out because we are to be a Godless country, or because it wouldn't be fair to other Religions.  Maybe it is unfair, I don't know, but at this point, I don't think it is that big of a deal that we make sure that the USA conforms to all religions, God(s) or no.  I"m not sure that it matters at all if 'God' is just a word to the majority of America.


All this is merely my interpretation though.  As I said, it is difficult to determine the intentions of those who lived more than 200 years ago.  In fact, I fully admit you could be right, but for now, it is still a subject, which is open to interpretation. 

posted on September 16th, 2010, 10:32 am

A "different kind of separation".

saucer separation?

posted on September 16th, 2010, 12:25 pm

saucer separation?

posted on September 16th, 2010, 1:18 pm

saucer separation?

Now the question is which part hold religion and which part holds government?

posted on September 16th, 2010, 1:54 pm

Lol, I was actually meaning to say something about how this should be in the separation thread, not this one.

very funny

posted on September 16th, 2010, 2:04 pm

I see what you are saying, and, though I disagree, I understand what you mean.  They should cover all, or none.  Your point is none of course, and thats fine.  I believe that, by covering monotheistic religion as a whole, you do cover a vast majority of US citizens(excluding those who are atheistic).  If you are atheistic then the term "God" shouldn't mean anything to you.  I think it is impossible to cover all Religion as a whole, so the best that can be done is to cover as many as possible.  To cover none at all would be contrary to the nations founding as a whole and I don't think we are ready to make that leap.

The founding wasn't really based on religion, just some of them were religious. Even if it does go against the founding, that doesn't mean that covering none wouldn't be a better idea. God does mean something to Atheists, specifically it means "that thing we don't think exists that certain other people want to push on us", and don't count on us being okay about things when god is mentioned in something like a contract as if its existence were undeniable.

true, but we only had three federalist presidents(when federalist meant more government) and none of their term turned out well..I could be wrong, but that is what I remember.  Its been a while.

Federalism is what lead to the bill of rights (imagine if the anti-federalists had been all over and so the bill of rights hadn't been made. ) They were an essential part of the nation, and are the most like modern government policy (federal says one way, states say other, federal wins for sure.)