Who is God anyway?

[JonA]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr....stm?display=1

[Balok]

Interesting. Especially "30% of atheists sometimes pray". I would submit that those individuals are actually agnostics. An atheist does not believe in a god, and therefore would have no reason to pray. (I speak as an atheist.)

We have, IMO, too much religion here in the United States right now. I don't care what another man chooses to believe (or not to believe) -- until he wants me to be a part of it, or until he uses it as a policymaking driver.

I think religion serves the important function, for many people, of providing them with a moral compass. If we eliminated religion, the world would not be a better place unless religion was replaced with some other means of getting a solid foundation for moral behavior into people's heads. OTOH, there are many people who visit church every Sunday, and on Monday they're mistreating their relatives, friends, business associates, and customers again. So religion is no guarantee.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Fesarius
An atheist does not believe in a god, and therefore would have no reason to pray. (I speak as an atheist.)

Buddhists do not believe in a god, do not pray to a God (or to a Buddha or Bodhisattva, etc.) but they do pray. So, theism is not a necessary component for prayer.

As an interesting aside, an Amicus brief has been filed on behalf of a number of Buddhist temples, centers, and organizations regarding whether "under God" in the US Pledge Of Allegiance violates First Amendment laws regarding "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The full story can be found at Tricycle: The Buddhist Review web site.

[ComaBoy]

Originally posted by Fesarius
We have, IMO, too much religion here in the United States right now. I don't care what another man chooses to believe (or not to believe) -- until he wants me to be a part of it, or until he uses it as a policymaking driver.

I'll second that. I'm glad people have their faith and I'm just as glad when they keep it to themselves. A holier than thou/I'm saved you're not approach wins zero points with me. I'll respect your beliefs if you respect mine.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
...regarding whether "under God" in the US Pledge Of Allegiance violates First Amendment laws regarding "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Debatable. "Under God", while we all assume (I think correctly) refers to Yahweh -- 'God' is a term that could easily mean Allah (essentially the same being, despite claims to the contrary), or Brahma, or the Fuzzy Pink God of Tutus. The problem isn't with too much religion, but rather with the penchant people have for assume insult and intrusion where none is intended nor exists.

As an atheist, 'under God' doesn't hurt me in the least; the Founding Fathers were religious men, so the founding of the country "under God" would jibe with theperceptions of those men of the country having a certain divine backing...especially considering the unlikelihood of the creation of this new country in the first place.

You don't like it, just don't say it. That's what I did in school as a kid. The real trouble is the incessant attacks on Christians as "bumpkins" or "superstitious", or "weak-minded", and attempts to exclude them from the public discourse of life. When Christians can't celebrate the birth of their messiah without people mandating against displays of their religion (while conveniently allowing menorahs and the crescent as the same time), the problem is not with the Christians, but with intolerance in the supposed 'tolerant secularists'.

So I guess I'm with Fes on this one.

And BTW, " the movie " is bloody brilliant. Violent and disturbing, but if you're Christian go ! Very, very powerful. (Once again, not a Christian, here.)

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by qerlin
Debatable. "Under God", while we all assume (I think correctly) refers to Yahweh -- 'God' is a term that could easily mean Allah (essentially the same being, despite claims to the contrary), or Brahma, or the Fuzzy Pink God of Tutus. The problem isn't with too much religion, but rather with the penchant people have for assume insult and intrusion where none is intended nor exists.

I don't think that's what its about; It is about whether the state sponsors, sanctions, or otherwise endorses a religion or religions, or set of religious values and/or concepts and, by operation of that sanction or endorsement, excludes other Americans in any way.

"Under God" is certainly an affirmation of theistic belief and, as such, would necessarily exclude Buddhists and Atheists. This exclusion creates a conceptual division -- theists and atheists -- "us" and "them" -- of which one portion is endorsed in word by the State. This defeats what our Pledge says our country is supposed to be -- indivisible.

Some have taken this concept to heart. More than once I've had Christian literalists tell me that America is a Christian nation because our money says "In God We Trust" and our Pledge says "one nation under God" (. . . despite the fact that "under God" wasn't added to the Pledge until 1954 by the successful lobby of the Catholic organization Knights of Columbus.)

"See ?" they'd say. "Our money and our Pledge, and therefore our government, supports Us. If you aren't one of Us, then you must be one of Them. And clearly, the state does not support Them. "

Does this complaint against "Under God" have merit ? I would say "Yes." Is this minor in relation to other problems in the world ? Also, in my opinion, "Yes."

But, is the conceptual division real and does it have power ? To that, the answer is also a resounding "Yes." For, if it were not real, and it did not have power, there would not be two disagreeing sides.

Therefore, the State-sanctioning of religion, even if only in word, does merit some serious consideration. But no more, or no less, than it is due.

[Phantom]

I was talking to friend, who thinks himself an atheist, not long ago about this subject. I found it quite amusing that he said this, since he had a traditional wedding with a priest and holy vows. Well, I found it amusing anyway. ::shrug::

To address the article. One thing mentioned that scares the s*** out of me was the high percentage of those "willing to die for their god." What is this SG-1!? The last time I checked my God didn't make such demands. I would die for my family, friends and if need be my country, but for God? Only if he appeared to me himself and asked.

And before anyone asks, yes I am a believer.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Personnally I'm an atheist and if I ever were to marry it would be a traditional marrriage. When I die? I don't really care, but it will be a traditional catholic burial. Why? It's tradition. Secularized tradition. I'm Polish and alot of Chritian values are now identified with Polish values. I haven't been to Church in years, and will probably never go back (except for the marriage thingy), but I celebrate things like Lent, Easter, Christmas (I think most people do), etc...

Most people I find, very few amongst them are convinced atheists, many of them believe in some higher power. And I am convinced, the few Christians I know, will recant on their death beds. That's just my experience.

As for the whole God vs State issue; the one thing that irks me is when faith is used to somehow portray someone as fanatical, out of his mind, or deficient. I've always thought that freedom of religion went both ways, but alot of people seem to cringe away from those who attend any type of religious service regularly.

[sjroby]

Originally posted by qerlin
As an atheist, 'under God' doesn't hurt me in the least; the Founding Fathers were religious men, so the founding of the country "under God" would jibe with theperceptions of those men of the country having a certain divine backing...especially considering the unlikelihood of the creation of this new country in the first place.

What do the founding fathers have to do with the "under God" bit? That was added to the oath of allegiance in 1954.

[Liz Not Beth]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[Sea Tyger]

Unfortunately, one of the worst things someone could do, IMO, is to use religion as an excuse to kill another person.

The Crusades are one example. This current "Jiyhad" is another.
-----------------------------------
The Separation of Church and State was written to prevent the government from establishing a state religion, a la the Anglican Church. It doesn't prohibit members of the government from having strong beliefs and acting upon those beliefs, nor does it prohibit the display of religious symbols of importance (as long as that's not part of a program to establish a "state religion"). Only the imperfect and skewed interpretations of that clause create such lunacy as the Alabama courthouse issue (lunacy on both sides, mind you) and the absurd attempt to remove the words "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

And Krys is right. Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom From Religion. It's just as wrong to force those who believe to go "under ground," so to speak, because it's unpopular to believe in God and that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, etc. I should be able to freely express my beliefs or celebrate my faith, without being shouted down by the vocal minority.

Of course, I will, at least, give praise to most of the atheists on these boards; on matters of religion and tolerance, you all are the most reasonable and tolerant people I know. Some of my fellow Christians would do well to learn from the examples of tolerance many of you set here.

[The Midnighter]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy

As an interesting aside, an Amicus brief has been filed on behalf of a number of Buddhist temples, centers, and organizations regarding whether "under God" in the US Pledge Of Allegiance violates First Amendment laws regarding "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I swear, every time I hear the First Amendment invoked in matters of religious practices and the alleged mistreatment thereof -- such as in the "Under God" phrase debate, I want to scream, I really do.

All I want is someone to explain to me where/how that phrase "under God" is a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by The Midnighter
. . . All I want is someone to explain to me where/how that phrase "under God" is a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."

U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 4 establishes the current Pledge Of Allegiance and how respect is paid to the flag when reciting it.

Therefore, under Title 4, "under God" is an assertion of theistic belief codified into United States law.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Unfortunately, one of the worst things someone could do, IMO, is to use religion as an excuse to kill another person.

The Crusades are one example. This current "Jiyhad" is another.

You are walking on thin (and political ) ice here, Sir. I know somebody else who claims to act on god's will and to fight in his name, although his war is not called Jiyhad ( although an arab translation might result in the same word ).

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."

U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 4 establishes the current Pledge Of Allegiance and how respect is paid to the flag when reciting it.

Therefore, under Title 4, "under God" is an assertion of theistic belief codified into United States law.

Thing is, Ezri, in this case, "respecting" means "in regards to". Two little words (and nothing in the code you point to) neither "establish a religion" nor "prohibit the free exercise thereof".

Now, all semantic arguements aside, let's tread carefully here, folks, as it's starting to get a little on the political side...