RoR: Forum

Though I agree with him in principle, Newdow would do better for the cause of secularism by picking good battles than to quit flicking flies off of shit by trying to get rid of "In God We Trust" off our currency. The Pledge of Allegiance was a good fight, in that reciting it required a public confession of a belief in God, but the money issue? Marginal at best. It smacks of the mentality that no religious symbolism or phrasaeology, however historical, is ever appropriate on "public" property, like the missionaries' cross on the Los Angeles County flag which was removed because some hot-headed atheists, blinded by a certain mypoic zealotry, couldn't make the distinction between a simple acknowledgment of history and governmental advocacy of religion.

Post 1

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:24pm

I've been hesitant to endorse the "minor" efforts, myself. I would rather the references not be there, as faith in the supernatural has led to all sorts of violence, and I wish it eradicated. Simultaneously, I really have no problem with it. When I look at a coin and read "In God We Trust", I get angry; but this is not because the words are harmful, but because they cause me to think of that which is. If it weren't for the U.S. government and everyone else trying to push their religious beliefs on us, I would have absolutely no problem with the historical references (though I do think that swearing on the Bible in court and praying at the beginning of Congressional meetings is beyond acceptable).

Sorry for the rant. Concisely put: if the force wasn't there, I really wouldn't care!
That's the virtue of noncoercion and respecting rights for ya!

Post 2

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:48pm

When I look at a coin and read "In God We Trust", I get angry; but this is not because the words are harmful, but because they cause me to think of that which is. If it weren't for the U.S. government and everyone else trying to push their religious beliefs on us, I would have absolutely no problem with the historical references (though I do think that swearing on the Bible in court and praying at the beginning of Congressional meetings is beyond acceptable).

Sorry for the rant. Concisely put: if the force wasn't there, I really wouldn't care!
That's the virtue of noncoercion and respecting rights for ya!

Sorry to inform you Mark, but it seems SOLO has recently become a repository for the "Christians are A-Okay crowd". Apparently there is nothing philosophically wrong with abandoning metaphysics and epistemology to any old thing a burning bush tells you.

P.S.-Welcome to SOLO.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 10/11, 6:49pm)

Post 3

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 8:04pm

" I do think that swearing on the Bible in court and praying at the beginning of Congressional meetings is beyond acceptable)."

Anyone ever notice that, in the Fountianhead movie, Roark swears on the Bible? How come no grandstanding there? (Only half-joking.)

Post 4

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:59am

Joe,

Sometimes, one must avoid symbols that will cause your audience to turn their minds off. Given the strength of anti-Atheist bigotry in America in the 1950s, it was something of a minor miracle that the film was made at all. Expecting that it would also be made honestly would have bordered on belief in the supernatural in another sense.

Post 5

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 3:46pm

I always just thought it was a matter of convenience in the Fountainhead, since religion is not a major theme. But in ATLAS SHRUGGED, I don't know if I could accept it, especially since Reardon makes a big fuss about not recognizing the court's right to judge him, let alone on the basis of Christianity.
Of course, it was a major feat to get the movie out, but I don't think that Rand would have been intimidated after hearing how she stood up to the Catholic Decency commission regarding her work.

Post 6

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:38pm

Then, too, she wrote the script - which was followed as she wrote it, by Warner's directive...

Post 7

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:43pm

Touche...

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:13pm

Thank you, Jody. Truth is, I feel somewhat intimidated here. I'm probably the youngest member, I'm new, and I'm not very experienced. However, I've been attracted to philosophical and scientific issues for at least 3-4, ever since my deconversion from Christianity.

Post 9

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 9:24pm

Joe,

There is a matter of being accurate as to actual court processes. If that oath had not been presented, then the court could not have been in the USA, but in some fantasy country.

Mark Chesterman,

By all means, welcome to Solo. It is great to see an intelligent newcomer here and I look forward to reading your posts. I already like what I have read on this thread. If you start getting really intimidated by some of the more colorful posters around here after making a statement similar to the one you did above, just give a whistle.

(I'm absolutely sure that Jody feels the same way.)

Michael

Post 10

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:40am

Danke schoen, Michael!

Post 11

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:46pm

Mark,

N�o ha de que.

Michael

Post 12

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 7:32pm