Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: overhols who wrote (162933)	3/4/2003 5:41:21 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1574096

overhols Re..I think the answer is simple. It is because an atheist or an agnostic sees the word God as implying his existence, which is contrary to their religion. The flaw in that argument is that by banning God, then you are agreeing with the atheists religion; that there is no God; thereby violating separation of church and state. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time; therefore in a democracy, the will of the majority should rule. In addition, the word God has many meanings. Who is to say God means a religion. Notice the last 2 definitions given. The Christians can interpret God one way, the atheists the other. Who is to say who is right. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god God A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. A very handsome man. A powerful ruler or despot. I think that the fact of the matter is that in the times of the founding fathers, being agnostic or atheist was much less common, less publicized, and less accepted than it is today True atheists are probably less than 10% of the population today. Why should we all have to adhere to their religion. In a democracy the will of the majority should rule. I think that the world has fundamentally changed, and that today putting the word God on money, in the pledge of allegiance, or anywhere else is in direct opposition of what the founding fathers originally meant, because by using the word God, the government is giving preference to religions that believe in one. How can you say that when the founding fathers purposely put the word God in there. Religion played a far bigger role in their life in the days of our founding fathers, than it does now. Yes, atheism is bigger now, than it was then, but that is the point. To take god out, you should pass a law, by the majority to do just that; not decree it to be so by trying to claim they didn't mean to include God, when they clearly did. I also believe that if the current pledge is found to be constitutional, it will be because the vast majority of Americans believe in a God, Bingo, that is precisely what d democracy is, doing what the vast majority wants. What right do the few have to change the constitution to meet their minority view.

To: overhols who wrote (162933)	3/4/2003 5:49:36 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574096

They saw separation of church and state in all facets as a way to stay away from government sponsored religion, in a world where being an atheist was not a recognized religion. I think that the world has fundamentally changed, and that today putting the word God on money, in the pledge of allegiance, or anywhere else is in direct opposition of what the founding fathers originally meant, because by using the word God, the government is giving preference to religions that believe in one. I also believe that if the current pledge is found to be constitutional, it will be because the vast majority of Americans believe in a God, and not because it is what the founding fathers, the intent of the constitution or the ideals of a nation protecting free speech and decrying government propaganda would have done. The founding fathers must have been liberal extremists... <<gg>> Al