THREE the hard way
Posted on 06/16/2004 3:34:01 AM PDT by Huber
Edited on 06/16/2004 3:39:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The battle over the Pledge of Allegiance has stimulated vigorous controversy on an issue central to America's identity.
Opponents of "under God" (which was added to the pledge in 1954) argue that the United States is a secular country, that the First Amendment prohibits rhetorical or material state support for religion, and that people should be able to pledge allegiance to their country without implicitly also affirming a belief in God.
Supporters point out that the phrase is perfectly consonant with the views of the framers of the Constitution, that Lincoln had used these words in the Gettysburg Address, and that the Supreme Court--which on Monday sidestepped a challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance--has long held that no one could be compelled to say the pledge.
The atheist who brought the court challenge, Michael Newdow, asked this question: "Why should I be made to feel like an outsider?"
Earlier, the Court of Appeals in San Francisco had agreed that the words "under God" sent "a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community." Although the Supreme Court did not address the question directly, Mr. Newdow got it right: Atheists are "outsiders" in the American community.
Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared with the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Paragraphs are your friend. I would never vote for an atheist. They SHOULD be outsiders because they have no moral foundation.
Instead of the courts he ought to take that issue up with his psychoanalyst.
Sorry, first try with the "autoexcerpt" function, and posted in a hurry. Thanks admin moderator!
athiests arent by definition immoral. if you have your own moral code it may well happen to be very similar to, say, a christian one.
(But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation.)
Tell them that they have no right to impose their views on other citizens; the liberal mind is an enemy of God and Christ and even will subvert the sovereignity of the United States and the destroy the bill of rights (they are true fools) in order to accomplish their evil goals at the expense of all Americans.They have an intolerant and fascist mindset, they call evil good and good evil and will spend all the taxpayer's monies in the destruction of American's citizen's using agencies like the A.C.L.U. and big name charities and liberal socialist democrat representitives.
I say Newdow has had his 15 minutes of fame and should get off the stage now.
Good article as one would expect from Huntington.
While I don't think I would explicitly not vote for an atheist, only a small fraction of such could be expected to agree with my conservative, small government views.
If you don't believe in a moral absolute to establish a moral code, then how can you believe in morals at all?
And all but a token few of the atheists I have met in fact hold that there is no such thing as an absolute moral code. The 20th century, the bloody 20th century, is testament to how well such a belief has panned out.
That isn't to say I haven't met atheists with a moral code, but those that I have, whether they realize it or not, have simply internalized most of the Christian ethical code.
So I guess you could say the only good atheist is a, err, bad atheist.
Nonsense. Atheists have every right to not worship the non-God of their choice, as infrequently as they wish.
THREE the hard way
(As opposed to a "moral foundation" based on the belief that death isn't really death, but a passageway to an afterlife? That there's some mysterious angels floating around in the ether that are looking out for you?)
Newdow is a fool professing himself to be wise and represent the neo-communist intolerances of liberalism in America; he is an outsider because he would destroy of freedoms to bring in one world government. Moral foundations are important to all men and there are many athiest conservatives who have never even thought to destroy our constitutional freedoms as liberals do.
Your views concerning the afterlife are your's to decide on and you have the right to be an athiest or whatever in pre-liberal America by your own choice. As for me, I will serve the Lord Jesus and believe on Him to save me from hell and keep me in the heavenly Kingdom ; He who has began an good work in me will finish it until the day of His coming.
If you think so, then you don't understand atheists at all.
I hate it when that happens.
Only if Christians choose to treat them as such.
It's just like being something drifting about in the ether, eh?!
I guess my question is why atheists as "outsiders" is a social problem to be corrected? Some are political conservatives and some are not. The inference Huntington makes is similar to that made by CNN: gosh darn these religious right wing nut cases!
If there is free will and some choose to have religious beliefs that may include [eeek!] Christianity and some who do not have religious beliefs, why should anyone's reaction be controlled by government? My problem with the case that Newdow is attempting to control speech so that he will not hear what he doesn't want to hear. Huntington is endorsing this view.
That is not what liberty is about.
No, they treat themselves as such.
THREE the hard way
I have an atheist up the block and have shared several libations with him and his wife. He works hard to keep his ideals which really means walling off the other thoughts, I believe. His parents were hard Baptists, I think and it seems that his upbringing created the reaction in him called atheism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.