Posted on 07/01/2002 3:05:21 PM PDT by Lennon
What does "God" mean?
When you take the SATs there is a section on analogies. You know those great questions like, "Wolf is to Pack as Lion is to _____." Now think of this in the since of the worlds religions. Here are a few examples:
Buddha is to Buddhism as Jesus is to Christianity. (Buddha and Jesus were men who walked the Earth, prophets if you will)
Vishnu is to Hinduism as Zeus is to Greek Mysticism. (Vishnu and Zeus are specific names for God placed by a particular culture)
Allah is to Islam as Yahweh is to Judaism. (as are Allah and Yahweh)
(Note: Yahweh, and not Jehovah, is the true name of the God of Abraham, however, Jehovah was used to prevent one’s self from "taking the Lord’s name in vain")
So would you say that: God is to Christianity as God is to Islam?
Now we change from a religious debate to a word usage debate.
You can say that:
God is to English as Gott is to German.
Dios is to Spanish as Allah is to Arabic
Allah is to Arabic as Elohim is to Hebrew
God, Gott, Dios, Allah, and Elohim, in their own culture refer to that culture’s supreme being. However, these words can be used to refer to someone else’s God. Your God, or Su Dios, or Ihr Gott. Refering to someone else’s God, doesn’t change the word, so it must not be the name of that particular God.
So is saying, "under God" the same as saying "under Zeus" as the 9th circuit court seems to think it does? Or is it more like saying "under Dios" or "under "Elohim" (the Hebrew word for God, used in the contexts of "no other Gods before me").
So if this is the case, the pledge of allegiance does not favor a particular religion, just the English language. However, it does make the case that there is a God, that there is a higher power. Notice who brought this lawsuit. It was someone who doesn’t believe in any God, an atheist. To me, there would be a concern if the pledge stated, "under Yahweh." This would make others, who do not believe Yahweh is the name of God, feel as if the pledge did not apply to them.
The capitalized noun "God" refers to a specific being, but does not refer to what religion one most follow to believe in that being, nor that one must follow a religion at all. Nor does it imply what or who that being is. It could be a space alien for all the constitution is concerned. What makes the pledge perfectly constitutional is that it does not embrace any religion, however, states that a force, larger then you or I, exists. This is spirituality not religion. The constitution was written with the idea that there was a God (read the first paragraph on the Declaration of Independence and other documents written around the same time and by the same people), but that no man should be in a place of power to force his ideas of that God upon others, as it had been in Europe.
Our founding fathers also understood that there were people who did not believe that any god existed. This is plain in Article II, section 1, clause 8 of Constitution (and in other places of the constitution) where it is stated that the President, before entering his office, shall take an Oath (a pledge before his God) or Affirmation (a pledge before man). Men should not be forced to take a pledge before a God they do not believe in. Nor does it mean anything if they do. This is the point for having an Affirmation clause in the constitution. Yet we still have Oaths. This would cause me to believe that, although our founding fathers understood that some people do not believe in any god, there is no good reason to remove references to God for their sake.
Think of all the places we refer to God in our public (Government) life. The pledge of allegiance, "One nation, under God." Above the Speaker of the House’s seat as well on all of our money, "In God we trust." When the President is sworn in, at the end of his oath, he states, "So help me God." (This is not required by the Constitution, however most say it). When you take an oath to tell the truth in a court you swear to tell the true, "So help you God."
So, if you were to replace "God" with "Jesus" in any of these phrases, would they then be unconstitutional? On the money, yes. On the plaque above the Speaker of the House’s seat, yes. But not in the pledge, and not in any Oath you are asked to take. If you believe in Jesus, you can state that. If you don’t, then you shouldn’t.
What do I mean by this? You can never require some one to say, "So help me Jesus," just like you can’t ever require anyone to say anything (even the pledge of allegiance). However, you can’t ever stop someone from saying it either, and this is what the 9th circuit is trying to do. They want to say, that you can’t say "God" in school. This is not only an infringement upon your freedom of religion, but it is an infringement upon your freedom of speech. Don’t let them do it!
© David Klinge 2002
Existence implies potential non-existence, and implies a potential to be made non-existant.
Any definition of God becomes caught up in boundlessness, inarticulation, and vain supposition.
It is, by prerequisite, rootless, unreferencing, and incomparable. It is a personification of the expression 'anythings possible', the primordal self-negating proclaimation, an unlimited assertion.
A handle, a hanger, a tarbaby, a bludgeon, a vortex within the mind of man.
I used to agree with the following "I don't believe in God, I believe in something much, much bigger".
Now, I wont even go that far, I think of myself as a meta-agnostic: I don't understand what I truly mean when I say 'God'.
Who am I to witness such a thing?
Seek what though.
If a thousand cults around the world and throughout history have 'discovered' something -- I suggest that the practice of 'seeking' is fraught with danger and self-delusion.
Instead I contend that by maintaining a harmony between the rational and the emotional, the concious and the subconcious, I make myself an unwitting executioner of 'Gods will', and that man cannot cope with the knowlege of his own divinity.
He can only hope, he cannot KNOW.
I am not a celestrial mechanic, I am a man. It puzzles me why some claim 'knowlege of God' is neccessary to live a meaningful life, one that is congruent with the idea of 'good'. The way I see it, 'God' gave me the means to do this by providing me with mind, heart and conciousness.
I defy anyone religious to illustrate how thier 'purpose in life', their goals, are fundamentally different than mine... or to be more specific: What can be achieved via religion that cannot be achieved through ethics and compassion?
I see religion as the historical forerunner of philosophy -- that does not mean however that religion is the BASIS of philosophy, but rather the PATH that man had to walk in order to learn.
Once man takes on the more refined philosophical system, does it really make sense to hold onto a crude precursor?
Ethics/philosophy/love is just religion without the epic drama, diminution, and neurotic boogeymen.
Some precepts of religion I consider outright dangerous; for instance, the idea of a promised hereafter and a judge of man seems to me to inculcate a strategy of simple refraining from 'evil' while spawning a reluctance to truly 'fight the good fight' by attacking things that WE-THINK-but-are-not-quite-sure-are-bad. It is an ideology that erodes confidence in ourselves, in our CAPABILITY to JUDGE. To BE, to LEAD and EXEMPLIFY.
It neuters what I consider to be our true soul -- the WAKE we make on the minds of our fellows, on the mind of man, in our lifetime. Instead we sit like passive babies, behaving but not LIVING, waiting to be fed our promised heaven. The pilot light in the breast is cold, and your soul is always 'on the other side' of death.
That light is your soul, ignite it now, let it spark the furnace of passion -- and LIVE!
Take the quotation marks from around God, and there's no difference between your position and mine.
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.