Alabama wastes taxpayers money

[A_Feeble_Mind]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94764,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94764,00.html)

This makes me wonder if making a big deal about things like the ten commandments is worth it?

For that matter, recently I was thinking about the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, on US money and in the courtroom. For the record, I am a born-again Athiest, but I don't take a strong offence to the references to God.

Although, I have been feeling kinda wishy-washy on this lately and was wondering what opinions there were about this.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94764,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94764,00.html)

This makes me wonder if making a big deal about things like the ten commandments is worth it?

For that matter, recently I was thinking about the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, on US money and in the courtroom. For the record, I am a born-again Athiest, but I don't take a strong offence to the references to God.

Although, I have been feeling kinda wishy-washy on this lately and was wondering what opinions there were about this.

We just had a huge "10 Commandments and The Legal Tradition" thread over in the politics forum. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22874&highlight=commandments

My opinion is that I don't like it. It gives support to the jingoistic simple minded that think people who don't go to church are evil. The Supreme Court says these mentions of God are benign because they are ceremonial and no one takes them too seriously.

I say the USSC is a either being obtuse or has never been to a place where people think God wants them to handle rattlesnakes (like here).



But that's my opinion.

[arcticpenguin]

Experience tells me that every violation of the church-state barrier is used as justification for the next. For example, I've been in discussions about the pledge of allegiance, and had the 'In God we trust' slogan on coins used as justification.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Experience tells me that every violation of the church-state barrier is used as justification for the next. For example, I've been in discussions about the pledge of allegiance, and had the 'In God we trust' slogan on coins used as justification.

Is that just an argument from popularity, or can you actually justify hypocracy by breaking more rules?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by c4ts

Is that just an argument from popularity, or can you actually justify hypocracy by breaking more rules?
I don't understand what you mean by hypocrisy. Please explain who you think is being hypocritical, and how.

I was saying that in this case, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I don't understand what you mean by hypocrisy. Please explain who you think is being hypocritical, and how.

I was saying that in this case, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy.

Is it really a "slippery slope?" God on money and God in the Pledge both seem equally trivial, at least to me. Maybe it is more of a "slippery slight grade?" ;)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Is it really a "slippery slope?" God on money and God in the Pledge both seem equally trivial, at least to me. Maybe it is more of a "slippery slight grade?" ;)
After hearing of numerous things said by Dubya, his attourney general Ashcroft, his secretary of christian education, etc. I want the dividing line between religion and government to be as clear as possible.

There is an effort in this country to revise U.S history, claiming that it is a "Christian nation", and that the 10 commandments are the basis of U.S. Law, etc and that we should go back to that golden age that never was. I have even heard this crap from my own college-educated brother.

[The Mad Linguist]

Here in the UK, we have a state religion. Bishops sit in the upper chamber of our legislature. The monarch is both head of state and head of the established church. On the money we have an abbreviation of the words "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God Queen, Defender of the Faith". Laws specifically prohibit anyone other than a Protestant sitting on the throne. We have a blasphemy law still on the books, and arrests have been made within living memory. Politicians have a role in appointing church officials. Our flag is a combination of the signs of three Christian saints - each a variation on the Cross.

And yet over here, many fewer people are religious than in the US, and most of those those who are seem much more moderate about it. There is general agreement that religon is something for the private sphere, not the public. The loony fundamentalist fringes are almost universally sniggered at. Our PM is a religious man but would be torn to shreds by the media if he actually made explicit reference to it in his public speeches.

It's a funny old world.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
It's a funny old world.

Funnier still when you consider that the reason for all that is to defend England from the evil of the Catholic Church...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog


Funnier still when you consider that the reason for all that is to defend England from the evil of the Catholic Church...

Wasn't there more concern about the ' control ' of the Catholic church, rather than any perceived evil?