You wrote…

TP, Obviously we disagree.

Obviously. To me, religious neutrality means being neutral, taking no sides.

Making "In God we Trust" the nation's motto and coercing the nations youth to recite "one nation, under God" is taking sides.

Of course you think this is protecting YOUR rights.

Just like some people think bipartisan means "Doing it my way".

Provoking Thought

I have made much of what the Founders hoped to accomplish by separating church and state. Unlike their counterparts in France, however, they did not intend to discourage religious beliefs. Rather than being content to consign religion to the private sphere, the French revolutionist abolished the church, seized its property, and killed thousands of its priests and prelates. Then, by way of demonstrating their determination to rid themselves of every vestige of their Christian (indeed, their religious) inheritance, they replaced the Gregorian calendar with one devoid of any ecclesiastical connections. Our founders of course did none of theses things, which goes far to explain why our revolution concluded in the writing and ratification of a constitution that has lasted to this day and the French in chaos and terror. (Walter Berns, Making Patriots, p44)

Personally, I prefer a government that promotes tolerance. I don't think I'd be here typing this if that wasn't true of the U.S. constitution.

The problem with just hoping that they [the new Atheists] will just go away is that prejudice, discrimination and intolerance hurt innocent people in the here and now. Just look at the case of Guilermo Gonzalez. Intolerance and bigotry have a very corrosive effect on free and democratic societies. Left unchecked it will only end up destroying it. Ignoring it will only encourage it.

brackets added by me.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

If you mean to say that P is verifiable by rational inquiry, and Q is not, then just say so. Why say P is falsifiable when you mean to say P can be verified? Why introduce Popperian confusion of language everywhere? Sure, Popperites have aversions to words like verify, refute and demonstrate. That's their problem. There is no need to imitate them. Leave them to their epistemic psychoses.

I really have no comment except to say that I agree with you here. But the folks who are criticizing ID like to use the term "falsifiable." I have no problem with that, and if they are going to use that terminoligy, then it fits wtih explaining things other than scientific questions as well. It fits quite well with the historical realities of the Christian gospel. Not many people realize this. I think in my initial post on this question I was referring to a statement by Paul, where he talked about the resurrection in the negative "If Christ is not raised, you are still in your sins." rendering Christianity quite useless and irrelevant if not for the historicity of the resurrection. In fact Paul implied that if Christ is not raised, then Christians of all people are to be pitied for believing in something that is false and staking their lives on such a false event.

Vladimir continues:

About your other points. Yes, Christianity, like Judaism, involves in an essential way, historical realities. And this is not necessarily so for many forms of Hinduism, or, say, Southeast Asian Buddhism. So of course atheists will do what they can to alter the perception of these historical realities. Moreover, it is expected that they will apply much effort in that direction, for the simple reason that they hate Christianity more than they hate Hinduism or Buddhism.

This is true. Perhaps more so in this country, since there is more of a Christian influence than there are Hindu or Buddhist influences. I wonder what sort of abuses Hindus or Buddhists suffer at the hands of atheists in their countries.

In my discussions online with some prominent atheists, there is invariably an attempt to distinguish between the "mean spirited" God of the Old Testament with the God presented in the NT - as if there is a difference. They also attempt to redate the NT to the 2nd or 3rd Centuries AD, even though there is substantial evidence against such dating. So I agree, they hate Christianity because it is Christians who for the most part, challenge their beliefs.

You wrote…

TP: I think you are fallaciously equivocating the meaning of the word "˜respecting.'

Of course you do.

Meanwhile, I suppose you don't think you are fallaciously equivocating "religion" to mean "a religion".

Even if you read the amendment your way, how is coercing the nation's public into reciting "one nation under God" NOT "concerning or regarding" the establishment of religion?

It is unethical no matter how you slice it.

You wrote…

Read the first amendment. It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,… (emphisis mine)

Please note it says "religion" not "a religion".

Read the Supreme Court opinion where it unethically bowed to the Red Scare of the majority. The justices read the 1st amendment just as I am. However, they managed to rationalise that our national motto was neither respectful nor disrespectful of religion in general.

It was hogwash then, it is hogwash now.

Provoking Thought

Do you mean societies that swear allegiance to "one nation under God" and has a motto "In God we Trust" even though it is an unethical violation of a promise not to pass laws that RESPECT religion?

To protect my right to freedom of religion the US government must recognize and respect religion; otherwise how can it give me protection when my constitutonal right are violated? Of course the law cannot show favoritisim it must not show favoritism to any particular religion, but it must extend it's protection to all religions. No where have I ever read about any of our founding fathers passing a law or making a promise not to respect religion. Read the first amendment. It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't it say that if my rights are violated that I can appeal the government?

I'm sorry if you are offended by "one nation under God" and "in God we trust" I'm offended by alot of things also. However, the constitution does not give me the right 'not to be offended.' I guess that is what it means to be tolerant.

[Randy] When I say that Christianity is falsifiable, then, I mean that you can verify the veracity of the historical resurrection through rational inquiry… Hinduism, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. It is not based on an historic event that can be verified.

If you mean to say that P is verifiable by rational inquiry, and Q is not, then just say so. Why say P is falsifiable when you mean to say P can be verified? Why introduce Popperian confusion of language everywhere? Sure, Popperites have aversions to words like verify, refute and demonstrate. That's their problem. There is no need to imitate them. Leave them to their epistemic psychoses.

About your other points. Yes, Christianity, like Judaism, involves in an essential way, historical realities. And this is not necessarily so for many forms of Hinduism, or, say, Southeast Asian Buddhism. So of course atheists will do what they can to alter the perception of these historical realities. Moreover, it is expected that they will apply much effort in that direction, for the simple reason that they hate Christianity more than they hate Hinduism or Buddhism.

You wrote…

Intolerance and bigotry have a very corrosive effect on free and democratic societies.

Do you mean societies that swear allegiance to "one nation under God" and has a motto "In God we Trust" even though it is an unethical violation of a promise not to pass laws that RESPECT religion?

But I suppose the was egotistical of me to point that out, right?

No problem, let's do science!

What do you think of the ID and Consciousness thread?

Provoking Thought