INTERACT FORUM

There is a distinct difference between god-as-specified-by-dogma and Nature's G-d. C.f. the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

There is certainly no reason to remove the concept of G-d from political discourse. Just as their is no reason to remove the sacred notion of the pursuit of happiness. Subjectivity of interpretation does not denote invalidity of concept.

This issue was debated (and put to rest) many, many years ago.

Us Freemasons run this country. G-d ain't goin' anywhere. Get used to it :-) .

Novus ordo seclorum. Learn it. Live it. :-)

Once again, you prove that there is no possible argument against what I have said.

I am sure there is, I just don't like change, I guess.

There is a distinct difference between god-as-specified-by-dogma and Nature's G-d. C.f. the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

There is certainly no reason to remove the concept of G-d from political discourse. Just as their is no reason to remove the sacred notion of the pursuit of happiness. Subjectivity of interpretation does not denote invalidity of concept.

This issue was debated (and put to rest) many, many years ago.

The issue was never "put to rest", or else this debate would not be occurring right now.

The idea of any "god", "providence", source of order in the universe--or anything else you want to call it--is itself a dogma.  Some people do not partake of that dogma, and that is the issue.  So once again, saying that "Hey, we're not advocating any particular god" does not resolve the issue.

Besides, it is common knowledge that when they added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954, they did it to differentiate the United States from the atheist Soviet Union.  You really think they did it as a reference to an abstract concept of "God", and not to the Christian God in particular?  Give me a break!  President Eisenhower himself said, after signing the change into law, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." (emphasis added)  Obviously, "the Almighty" does not refer to an abstract notion, but rather to a particular entity.

Senator Homer Ferguson, the person who proposed the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge, said at the time: “The phrase ‘under God’ recognizes only the guidance of God in our national affairs, it does nothing to establish a religion.”  But what about people, such as Hindus, who worship more than one god?  What about the idea that even if you don't establish a particular religion, you should not be establishing religion, period?  Oops, that serves as more proof that this whole issue marginalizes some people for the benefit of others.

Your later quote, which you may or may not have intended literally, sums up the general consensus of those who enjoy forcing the concept of god down everyone else's throat:

G-d ain't goin' anywhere. Get used to it :-) .

I'm not sure if the smiley means "Just kidding", or if it means "Nah-nah-nah-NAH-nah!", but either way, the quote speaks volumes.  And it also misses the point.  No one is trying to make god "go anywhere".

Well, that was fun while it lasted.  Most of it was clear, well thought out and respectful.  Thanks.

Closing this now.