*DAMN R6 Forum

Since Bondo brought it up in a different thread thought I'd ask about this. The apellate court upheld the ruling prohibiting "under god" from being said in the pledge of allegiance. It appears it will go to the Supreme Court. What do you think the right decision is? Do you think the supreme court will uphold the ruling or strike it down?

I personally think it should be taken out. Even as a person who believes in a monotheistic religion, I do believe that it's unconstitutional. Even if they make the "under god" optional, it is going to be divisive and publicly embarassing to those who choose not to say it. It needs to be taken out completely.

Well, Zait said there was a rumor that it was going to be changed so I told him the news I had heard, but I too think it deserves its own thread (again) so people who don't care about that thread might still see it.  Anyway, this is what I posted there...

"Well, the Federal District Court in San Fran upheld their ruling that it was unconstitutional.? I think a school district in California is taking the matter to the Supreme Court.? It will be a good test to see if the court is biased towards Republican or not.? If they overturn the decision and allow the pledge to return to schools in its present form it will be obvious they are biased to Republican issues and able to ignore violations of the Constitution.

My Comparative Religions professor who has a PhD in Biblical Studies makes a convincing argument that it is unconstitutional.? The part "under God" was added in the 50s to fight the athiest communists that were being persecuted due to McCarthiesm.? It is a violation of the exclusionary clause of the first amendment and thus should be removed from the pledge if the pledge is going to be a school organized activity. "

I don't know nothing 'bout your constitution but I do know that church (religion) and state should be separated as far apart as possible, I puke everytime I hear an American president say ?God bless us all?.

     Heh. Me, too, Kami. Technically speaking, however, that's not really what the separation of church and state is about. Instead, the separation has to do with the government giving official sanction or preference to one religion over others. The President saying, "God bless America" or similar drivel is toeing the line IMO, but it's not official preference, since it amounts to just the President's opinion, with no legislative backing. Whereas being compelled to say "under God" in the Pledge IS institutionally enforced, and is thus violating the separation of church and state.

if they change the pledge will they change the coins and bills as well?  They say "In God We Trust," religion fucks everything.

Jeez,
I don't get why anyone even gives a damn about somthing as trivial as this, when there are actually real problems in the country that people should care about that go virtually unmentioned. Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasnt there a supreme court ruling that you didn't have to pledge anything if you did'nt want to? I remember hearing somthing like that once, but i'm not completely sure. So if you don't wan't to pledge thats fine and if you don't believe in g-d thats ok too, but just stfu about it and relax.....nobody is forcing any one. and if it makes you feel better, just replace the word g-d with canada. and if you feel "embarrased" or uncomfortable about what you believe in then thats really nobodys problem but your own. just my opinion.
and for the record, i think the whole idea of "pledging" is somwhat ridiculous. tell me......do 7 year olds REALLY know what theyre talking about when the spout out all that bullshit?
and bondo....you really have a way of twisting everything so that its a liberal vs. conservative/democrat vs. republican thing.....now THAT makes me wanna puke. i'm anything but a republican and so far ive disagreed with you on everything, but one thing.
and kami: why don't we push seperation of church and state to the extreme and bar anyone who has ever been to a church, synagogue or mosque etc. or ever made a public statement about his faith from ever serving in elected office? personally, i have no problem with bush or clinton or any politician saying something like that eventhough i know that they are of a different faith than me. now, if he said somthing like 'one nation under jesus' or 'one nation under shiva' that might be a different story.....but they don't. What makes me puke is when somone like saddam hussein says "inshallah, we shall kill all the heathen americans". that makes me puke too. wow, i sound like im bullemic or somthing.....oh well. later you pukes.
 ;D

I'm sorry, but I'd really like it if some people would stop lumping any disagreement into the "Republican" bucket.  

Especially because both parties support the pledge in the Senate.  Right after the court decision, they past a resolution 99-0 (that's all but one, and he didn't vote) to express support for the pledge.  Here's a little quote for you (article (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/senate.resolution.pledge/index.html)):

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor just before the resolution vote, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, said he is the only remaining member of Congress who voted for the addition of "under God" on June 7, 1954. He warned the judges who declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional to never come before him because "he'll be blackballed."  

So this is not a party, partasian, liberal or conservative issue.  Don't try to make it into one.


Next, the First Ammendment of the Constitution, and why religion is in there.

Amendment I
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.

Whenever someone talks about this, you can count on someone saying "separation of church and state".  But do they really know where that term came from, and what it means.  Remember, you have to look at what they were thinking when they wrote it.  So look at England, and the Church of England (thanks to Henry VIII).  Church and state were both part of the government.  And that church then could outlaw the worship of other religions.  And that's what made many people come to America in the first place.  Religious freedom.  So it wasn't put there to keep the belief of God out of our Government, or it wouldn't be on our money, or in so much of our official documents, or on the wall in the Supreme Court.  "In God We Trust" is very much a part of our government.

How can this be?  Well, let's look at what the first ammendment really says.  It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  First key word in that.  LAW.  

So, for the courts to find it unconstitutional, it would have to be part of a law?  right?  It would have to have been signed into a law somewhere.  Was this the case?

In other words, I agree with most of what Abe says again.  I don't think that pledging is ridiculous, especially not for adults (and it is said at some meetings I've attended, for local government.)

Abe, no violation of the constitution is trivial.

As for the argument that one can just not say under god.  Sure, you can not say it but by not doing so you are made to feel excluded and different because of religion.  This is a problem, especially in a PUBLIC school.  Should they get rid of In God We Trust on the money, yes.  There are many violations of the first amendment that sadly are permitted in the US.

Bucc, does the phrase "Religious Right" mean anything to you.  It isn't a secret that the Christian fundamentalist group is Republican in an overwhelming majority.  So yes, it is a Republican issue more than not.

Also, while the pledge may not be a law, I'm unclear to what it exactly would be considered, it is a thing controlled by the goverment, which is why Congress was who in the 50s added in Under God.  That makes it an act of Congress and thus subject to the same constitution that laws are I would think.  And by having under god, they are establishing a religious preference.  That they added it specifically to battle athiests out of fear of communism shows it was specifically to approve of one religion over another which IS a violation of the first amendment.

Bucc, in the end what it comes down to is, does my professor who has a PhD in religious studies and knows a great deal specifically about whether the pledge is constitution have things right, or should I take your word for it.  I take the one with credibility and a logical reason for it being unconstitutional thank you very much.

While I usually hate all this politically correct garbage, I have to agree with Bondo. I remember a muslim kid in elementary school who didn't want to say the pledge, so he got sent to the principle's office. Retarded, huh? Like it or not, around here they make you say it in school. If you don't, they think you're a trouble maker and whatnot. I don't see what's so wrong with removing 2 little words, especially since they weren't even in the pledge originally. If they want a religious reference, they can put "under our creator or creators." Anyways, this is just my opinion, I'm not saying the other side is wrong. I just think it's silly to keep "under God" in the pledge if it can offend so many people. As for "in god we trust" and such on money, I don't really care either way, because I know the government won't take all that money out of circulation and change it just to please the population.

From what i've read on the case...
its not unconstitutional to have "under god" in the pledge, it was unconstitution for a school to force kids of all religions and beliefs to say the pledge. The pledge did not contain the phrase "under god" untill the 50s untill the government added it in durring the Red Scare.

Thruout history its been the bible thumpers job to preach their morals upon the public. In america the first major social movement that was based off religion was the temperance movement in the 1840s, which eventualy lead to prohibition. From my studies the ideal of morality is used as a major way to control the lower classes in the past. Religion in school has always been a huge issue, but i don't think a trivial issue about a word should be held in the same light as things like creationism vrs darwinism.

I'm an athiest, and i don't care how anyone wants to use a bible privatly, just as long as its not directed towards me.

Personally, I'd do away with public recitations of the pledge, with the exception of swearing people in for public office, and the like.

Have you ever listened closely to a group of people saying the pledge of allegiance?  (To do this, you have to stop yourself for just a moment. . .be strong, you can do it!)  It's freakish.  Everyone adopts a sort of monotone in their voice, and it can really be disturbing.  You can almost feel the waves of unconditional acceptance and lack of free thought.  Likewise, groups of people praying freak me out in the same way.

In general, I just hate mass displays of faith.  I've always thought faith should be a very private thing, not something to evangelize, proclaim, or sell.  It's the individual's personal relationship with their god and/or country.

Is anyone else reminded of images of thousands of Nazis making the salute, anytime they hear a group of people all reciting the same words?  I think that's the problem more than what the words actually are.  I just get a visceral feeling of distaste.

I don't think people should be forced to say the pledge at any time. By reserving time to say it in school you are teaching the children values which in my opinion is not the school's job. Children at young ages are very impressionable both intellectually and emotionally. Personally I would think it better to just remove the pledge of allegiance from schools completely.  Sure you can make it optional, but let's face it most kids are pretty much lemmings who will do whatever their classmates or teacher are doing, and once they begin the process the message of the pledge will be internalized.

Also just because the senate supports something 99-0 doesn't make it right. All those senators know that if they didn't support the pledge it would be political death. And just because something is supported by popular opinion doesn't make it right either. Same thing goes for how our government is set up. True, we have statements about God plastered all over DC and our money. Once again, just because something is historical doesn't make it right. Not all Americans trust in God. I do, but I don't think it needs to be printed on our money. If anything, associating God with money or flags cheapens him.

I've been an athiest my whole life... but when i was a kid and had to say the pledge, I didn't think twice about the "under god" part.. hell, I wasn't really paying attention to anything because it was just something to recite...  and for that reason I don't see why it's such a humongous deal all of the sudden. If you don't want to say the under god part, don't, I doubt anyone is listening. Mouth it, it's not like it matters. Anyway, this whole thing to me sounds like something people simply want to make a fuss about. We didn't have a problem with it 30 years ago, why now? Because right now is all about screaming for attention. It really kind of pisses me off that people love dwelling on things all of the sudden. Life isn't perfect.. America isn't a Utopia of equity...  get over it.
now onto the line by line!
Like I said before, who REALLY cares? you say it will be publicly embarassing.. but 1) it's not like you're reciting it to the whole nation and you're going to get hate mail every day after and 2) if this is infringing on SO many people's rights, and so many of these people are going to stop saying under god, wouldn't it just become commonplace anyway?
I think abe took care of this one for me. I'd also like to add that even though we have seperation of church and state, which was what this country was founded on, it was also founded on religion and it worms its message into politics occasionally;  there's nothing we can do to stop it, short of acting like fascists.
No offense, but I'm getting really tired of you seeing things in black and white, democrat or republican terms. You can't classify everything as one type and if not the other, because you're overlooking so much of the detail that lies in gray area. Much of this, my friend, is in gray area. On the same note, I find your statement "If they overturn the decision and allow the pledge to return to schools in its present form it will be obvious they are biased to Republican issues and able to ignore violations of the Constitution" to be repugnant, and empirically denied. It's incredulous to say that the ONLY possible explaination for them not banning the phrase is their bias. Perhaps overturning it violates stare decises, perhaps it would cause backlash, perhaps they have a better alternative... perhaps this issue isn't even worth debating in court because there is already an answer.

as for the rest, gj bucc.. couldn't have put it any better.


 i'm having trouble expressing myself lately.

Once again, I never claim that things are absolute.

This is Yin and Yang, not Black and White.

While there are the two sides and you can name them, each side has a bit of the other in it.  So when I say Republican, it is a generalization and in no way saying it is absolute that all Republicans are this way and that all Democrats aren't.

It isn't a logic puzzle saying if this than that, if that then not this, etc.

I sort of wish I could go back to Elementary which is the time when the pledge was recited daily and when under god came up I'd make sure my voice was heard over the others saying under buddha.  I have a feeling I'd get in trouble for doing that though.  That is the problem is that schools are forcing the classes to say it, even if the kid doesn't get punished specifically for not saying Under God, it is still forcing a religious idea in a public institution which is the type of action the first amendment was specifically put in to prevent.

I call bullshit. They may in some way force the students to say the pledge, but I have NEVER heard of a kid getting in trouble because his teacher caught him not saying "under God". Never. Also, you say "schools" as if every school in the nation forces its kids to say the pledge, and more specifically under god.. which I really doubt.

uhh, it's kinda off-topic as u might say, but i really dont care about the pledge (except that someone just needs somethin better to do) because God dOES exist...read Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica." he gives shitloads of deductive arguments why there has to be a god

plz dont turn this into a flame war if u still disagree, im just stating that his writings are VERY persuasive to a fair mind...

All Men, Catholic and protestant, jews and gentiles, hindus and budists ARE CREATED EQUAL. This line must be revoked completly. As Bondo or tasty or one of the smart ones like that pointed out if the line is optional open humiliation will occur time and time again.

One Nation, Under Canada

nahh just kidding. I read on CNN news website that it could be revoked in a few days in 9 states, sorry if stated earlier in thread but which 9 states....anyone?

what about the women, huh? i'm feeling oppressed already.

also, i'd like to point out that all but one of those religions mentioned have a supreme god. "God" is a universal idea, so nyah. As for buddhists, I doubt they're offended as they are generally open to other opinions and ideas.

I'll reiterate: first, I doubt anyone is going to notice if someone doesn't say one little phrase in a giant mass recital. second, i doubt anyone is going to care if you say "under god" or not in a public school.. you're not in a convent or anything,

Well, the 9th District states...which I think are Hawai'i, Alaska, California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

Well, lets go back to history... first of all this country was founded UNDER the christian religion.  Though, the view of America today is completely different i still believe that if they take the phrase "under God" out then we are taking history out.  That means if we take it out we wont learn the past and might "find" a new piece of land to use and do the same thing.
Another thing, the guy that started this whole "i dont like seeing this phrase in the pledge." is a complete idiot. He has no brains! One, he grew up in high school saying it. Why did he protest now! So i say leave it in. It isnt hard to say,"this COUNTRY was FOUNDED UNDER CHRISTIANITY."

In a nutshell,
Many thousands of years ago people looked out and saw things they couldn't explain, like why it got dark sometimes, why a bear ate their wife, and what the that strange rash is. Not just looking at christian/jewish origins but all around the world there were different creation stories, greek, viking, indian, and hindu. Over time tribes got conquered, or adapted there beliefs into fewer and fewer religions and stories of creation.  Jumping forward a thousand years or so people begin to depend on a "god" that loves them because it created them, this God would be the reason for a good harvest, or fortune. Things people saw that were bad, like volcanos, earthquakes equated to god being angry with them. People began to give sacrifices to their gods, a goat, chicken, and in some cases their children. Another thousand years or so pass societies have their cornerstones built on religion and the belief that all can be saved if we believe.

So why would someone choose to believe in a god that has been developed into a superpower like it is now? I don't claim to know the answer over god, no one does. There will always be unanswered questions about what created us and why, but i choose to not believe in a god that has been built up over thousands of years.

     I've read some of Aquinas' proofs. They were uncompelling to me. They were internally consistent, but they were only valid if you take his postulates as true. His postulates included things like (paraphrasing violently here, since it's been years since I read these) "If no Earthly explanation can be found, X must be the work of God," and "there are things on Earth which cannot be explained." Yeah, they're excellent deductive proofs, but his first principles are, to me, rather weak.

The United States of America has more then one religon. There are legal citizens that are jews there are legal citizens that are atheists there are legal citizens that are hindu or budist or native american and so forth.

Then we come to seperation of Religon and State. Now I would argue with Bucc that no the context of the situation does not matter when we errected this law. Many gun owners dont care that the right to bear arms was only to defend us from the British so nobody really cares anymore wheres the law from. And to force kids to either recite a pledge which honors a god they are not in support of or be humiliated should be and hopefully will be illegal. No school should have to say In God we Trust, no school should have to have the 10 commandments posted We are harboring a religon and that is ILLEGAL

Hey. . .it'd be nice if someone responded to my post  ;D  Basically, I tried to describe the feelings of powerlessness and dread I get every time I hear a group all saying the same thing.  It's scary.  So for someone who doesn't believe in what is being said, or in an integral part of what is being said, I can see how they would be upset.

Oh and MOD, Sie sind ja ein arschloch.  Dummarsch  ::)  

There are so many things wrong with this statement:


1.  Do you still feel exactly the same way about everything as you did in high school?
2.  Did you have the time or financial resources to press a major lawsuit in high school?
3.  The pledge is rarely said in high school; he most likely was compelled to recite in elementary school.
4.  Where's two?

1)Well, the complaints are about having to say the pledge in elementary/high school, so i don't see why anything after that would be relevant.  Who cares if say, a 30 year old lawyer or whatever has a problem with the pledge.. he's not the one who has to say it right?
2) your parents can.. that's usually how it works. Parents cause a fuss, taken up in court, starts big movement, and wham- you have messes like this
3) whats the point here?

To touch on what Jeb was writing about, my feeling is that all faith is a product of ignorance.  If you don't have knowledge about something you are ignorant about it.  Since you don't know you choose to believe something, aka have faith.  In animistic religion they have very little scientific knowledge so they have much expanded faith.  They think there is a diety that makes it rain and so on.

Christians don't KNOW there is a god, they simply have faith.

MOD, the pledge having under god has nothing to do with the founding of this country.  That part was added in the 50s.  I don't see why removing it and reverting the pledge back to its original form is such a big deal, whereas I can see how keeping it is a big deal.

Also, you say that the country was founded UNDER Christianity.  Well, many of the founding fathers weren't Christian at all.

I don't think that America today would be as bad as england was during the anglican church. Just last night there was a local controversy regarding religious government. In the state legislature, a leader of a islamic group gave the opening prayer. This outraged a few republicans who stood up and walked out of the house disgusted.

Its sad to think that 60% of the population believes in angels, so why would i want god being stated on my money, or forced in public schools. I have no problem with anyone who is religious, however i'd hope people would examine their faith rather than go along with the ideals inherited by their parents.

1) Loth is exactly right: Thomas Aquinas wrote the best logical arguments for the existence of god.  They are (almost) flawless, in fact.  However, with any philosophical argument you must consider what has been assumed, and what has been assumed is a little too much to swallow.  Moral of the story, you can be a brilliant philosopher and still be (potentially wrong).

2) The "under God" part was added in the 1950's, one of the darkest periods of American history.  Enough said.


3) Abe,  there are problems of humanity and problems of principle.  This is one of the latter, and true, it is less important that the "real" problems you speak of.  But it's hard to fix the real problems when there are still problems of principle.  Anyway, why can't we try to fix both at the same time?  Multitasking is a beautiful thing.

4) It's a lot easier to remove the "under God" from the pledge than it is to remove references to God from currency or other material goods (sayings on federal buildings, etc.)  Why?  Because it doesn't cost any money to take two words out of the pledge.  It costs a hell of a lot to change the dollar bill design, or to recarve the stone on a building.  Plus it's a lot better to remove it from the pledge.  Currency and inanimate objects are passive references to God whereas the pledge is an active reference, and therfore far more offensive and insidious.

5) As for the Constitution argument--both sides should drop it.  We ignore the Constitution all of the time.  It's a guideline, sure, but we've muddied the lines so much, especially with the bill of rights, that it's just rhetoric nowadays, not law.

Just a heads up for anyone who cares, this weeks Newsweek (got it today) has a cover story about "Bush & God: Why his 'God Talk' Worries Friends & Foes"

And a correction, in my listing of states that the decision about the pledge, I listed Hawai'i but it isn't in the 9th District rather, Montana is the 9th state.

Yeah Bondo, had a good article about Bush and his newfound faith. It has a thorough explanation as to why he disgusts me. Quote from the article about why many muslims get enraged by Bush: 'Few doubt that Mr. Bush is sincere in his faith. The problem is with the president's evident conviction that he's doing God's will.'
And as I've said before, I think Bush has a hell of a lot more christian references in his speeches than former presidents and the article confirms this as well.

Theres a national movement playing off of Bushs christian faiths. People are sending a half cup of rice to the white house with a passage from the bible in i dunno what part that says "Feed your enemy" so we are sending to him. We know it just goes off to a whare house with all the other antrax questionable things lol.

THEIR A NATIONAL MOV3MENT PLAYNG OF OF BUSHS CHRISTIAN FATEHS!1111! OMG LOL PAOPLE R SANDNG A HALF CUP OF RIEC 2 TEH WHIET HOUS3 WIT A PASAEG FROM TEH BIBLA IN I DUNO WUT PART TAHT SAYS FED UR EN3MY SO WE R SANDNG 2 HIM!!!1 OMG LOL W3 KNOW IT JUST GO3S OF 2 A R HOUSE WIT AL TEH OTHER ANTRAX QUASTIONABLE THNGS LOL!!!1!!1! LOL


Hmmm.....it still doesnt make sense. Go figure.

I havent read any thing about this yet but i feel since we have a choice to say it who cares. But the Teachers always get mad at me when i stand there with my hat on and say nothing.

Universal I find it funny that you were going for some laughs and....dont have them. Smart of you to sign off before you typed it because otherwise whoever you are would look utterly stupid. At any rate during a part of Bushs press confrence last night he said that Hussien helped train and fund "al-Quieda like groups" and my response is, SO DID WE. We funded Al-Quieda to fight the russians and we funded Iraq to fight Iran and we funded Castro in Cuba and funded the shah in Iran before we disposed him I mean come on Bush hit the history books will ya?

Most of what Bush said in his speech was speculative...the type of "weaksauce" that should have Bucc yelling "bullshit".  He also answered every question nearly the same way and didn't actually touch on what was being asked.

Zait, I think he hit the more religious history books such as the Bible every night.

One thing I find a bit humorous in debates either about religion or about a moral issue in which religion has a stance.  Many christians use scripture to show why their faith or moral belief is correct.  They don't seem to understand that scripture can not be used as a defense of scripture.  This ties in to people assuming the bible is a historical book and that it is a valid source of historical information.

     Well, you can't say that the Bible is not a historical source, either. It's a view of historical events in the same way that any myths or oral traditions are. The events in the bible almost certainly happened in one form or another, but over a couple thousand years of being related orally, the accounts were transformed dramatically. That changed form was what was codified in the books of the Bible.

ahk,
after reading this whole thread of posts, i've come to 2 assumptions

1) Jeb and Bondo are waaay to Subjectivist and assume too much.
2) Alot of college students these days think they're smart, but are not.

i won't correct any wrong statements made above, as i just posted that one on God out of curiosity...it seems there are more dumb head ppl than i thought around here...

also, i know jeb never read the truths i said before he posted, and bondo is just plain dumb " christians don't KNOW there is a god, they just have faith" wtf kinda bullshit is that. i could go on for tons of reasons why ur wrong saying that, but i prefer to argue in tonge rather than typing, as i'll never know you, or care about u in real life =)

it's all good anyways, im cool with u guys, just disapprove of some of your thought processes

now go ahead and quote me all u want...i won't be comming back for encore (if ur still reading this ;)

Baz. . .I don't get it.  Was there a point to that post?  Maybe you're never going to see this, or you just like to have the last word, but what kind of bizarre word was that?

I'll paraphrase instead of quoting:

"You know, you're all wrong.  And, you're not as smart as you think you are.  (Because you're wrong.  I'm right, of course.  This goes without saying, and so I'm not going to say why.  So, to summarize, I'm right and you're wrong, and there will be no further discussion."


So, I guess there's not much I can say to that.  Congratulations.

*Waits to be told why he is so clearly stupid for saying Christians don't actually know there is a God but rather have faith*

Now what I'm about to say might seem offensive but it really isn't.  All faith is a product of ignorance.  That is my thesis about religion that I'd use for a Doctoral dissertation if I was ever crazy enough to continue school after my Bachelors' (Isn't that sexist?  What with more woman than men graduating from college?).

Anyway, here is how the theory goes.  From the most ancient religions.  Religion tended to incorperate explainations for natural phenomenon that couldn't be explained.  Most prominant is the many native oral religions such as Aztec or Navajo or what not.  They tend to be polytheistic/animistic having gods/spirits of rain, fire, sun, death, etc.  Every event in life had a god that controlled that event and by believing in the god...having faith, and showing it through worship/sacrifice, the gods would help them.

Now, most of us look back at the Greek or Aztec myths as simply stories, most certainly they aren't historicly accurate.  Try telling a Christian that the stories of the bible are myths, exagerrated stories meant to teach.  They are likely to get up in arms in defense of their religion.  They would claim that the Bible is an accurate historical account.  That creation happened precisesly that way, that all the stories are absolutely true, that God exists and Jesus died and because of that they shall have eternal life.  But none of these things are proven to be any more accurate than that of the Aztec or Greek myths.  They don't know that those things happened, and that God does exist, not knowing is the same as being ignorant to.  And not knowing is what causes one to have and need faith.

Take for example gravity.  We know that on earth there is gravity.  If we jump, we know we will go up and then go down.  We know this for sure so we don't have faith that it will.  To use a mathematical example of a function box.  If you know the equation in the box...when you put a number in you know what will come out because math is absolute.  However if you don't know the equation in the box, you are ignorant of it, you don't know what will come out.  You can have faith that the equation is a certain way and that a certain result will come out, and it could indeed come out, but you don't know that it will.

When we have knowledge and thus are not ignorant, we have no need for faith.  But when we are ignorant, when we don't have knowldege, we have faith.  The belief of god is faith, most elements of religion are faith.

With that said, it is universal that we can not know everything.  As such, faith will always play a part and is an essential part of life.  My concern is when people remain ignorant and have faith when a contradictory fact exists.  Faith should never be so strong that it resists being replaced by knowledge.  Nor should one faith be deemed dominant to another faith.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Can't you have faith in a subject you're knowledgable about? hmmm? :)

Feel free to provide an example :p

But it also I suppose depends on your definition of faith.  I don't think one has real faith if they do know something.  In essance my definition of faith is the second in my shitty dictionary..."Belief not based on logical proof or material evidence"  That is the definition I am going on.  For the record the definition of know according to my dictionary is To believe to be true with absolute certainty.  Now there is a bit of problem with knowledge being based on belief of something being certain, but I think the distinction between belief of certainty and faith as it was described above is enough to be clearly seen.

Name = {Precious Roy thinking he's a smart college student even though he's not, just cause he's sleeping at Harvard tonight... with a girl!  A girl who won't sleep with him, that bitch!}

Baz amuses me.  Loudnotes is always right.  I like to generalize, just like the aforementioned Baz.

Bondo, I think you could fit what you just wrote in on everything religious but not on the definition of faith, like if I have faith in someone, that's a whole nother thing. (I'd elaborate if my eyes weren't so tired). Aside from that, I agree with you.

Well kami, I think what perhaps you are suggesting is something like me having faith that the Avs will win the Stanely Cup...or something similar.  If I'm wrong please straighten me out when you wake up.  Anyway I have faith in the Avs to win the Stanely Cup because they could win but I also know that it is possible that they wouldn't.  Since I don't know the outcome positively, I have faith in the outcome...so my point stands.  But once again this may not be what you were talking about.  I think my theory on faith works for both religious and general usages of faith.  Perhaps I should say that I've basically just created a definition of faith in a way.

very nicely put loud,
Baz came into the GHR game i was playing and started to criticize me. Mainly saying that I'm a atheist because i wasn't raised right... well this is my story.
I was baptized catholic, went to catholic school for 15-16 years (1 hour of religion class every day). I went  to a catholic prep school in seattle, did countless hours of religious service in the name of the church.
Junior year of highchool i was writing a paper for my religion class... this paper made me question the stories in the bible for the first time. After that i began thinking about religion and the counterpoints to religion. Senior year i finally came to the realization that i wasn't going to buy into it. I guess i didn't need religion to wipe my ass anymore.

Baz, how can you explain the other religions around the world? would you think a hindu or muslim in the same light as a atheist like me?

Yeah, I also was raised Christian being baptized, going to sunday school every week from about 3 years old until when I was confirmed in 10th grade.  I remained strongly believing in god until about a year ago...but through experience I just saw that the Bible was woefully inadequate as something to base one's life on.  I should say that the whole thing about Christianity considering homosexuality a sin was the final straw as it were.

Now I'm taking Comparative Religions and I'm getting a good grasp on what all the major world religions teach and value.  Through this I saw that Buddhism made the most sense.  It explained why there is suffereing (an explainating that makes a heck of a lot more sense than Christianity's Adam and Eve's original sin so now we must pass the test thing).

If Baz finds Christianity to be his thing, more power to him, but if he thinks he is somehow more righteous or pure for it...he needs to get that stick out of his ass.

Personally I like my upbringing the best.  My mother and father are Jewish and Christian, respectively.  But neither of my parents is evangelical, and they left the choice up to me.  Thus I've always had an open mind toward anything theological.  

Really, it would be great if everyone were raised that way. . .there wouldn't be so many absolutes, and people would be happier in general.  So, if you are atheist - those who believe are not "wrong" misguided, ignorant, or otherwise waylaid.  And if you are devout, those who feel differently are not heathen savages.  

Well, I don't know if you were referring to what I said when you said ignorant there Loud, but my usage of ignorant wasn't to say they are stupid, just that they don't know positively.  I think I made it clear that faith is not a bad thing.

Anyway, my plan for teaching my children about religion is to teach them much like a Comparative Religions class.  I'll let them learn all of the religions and urge them to discover their own spirituality and also remind them that that spirituality is dynamic.  Just because you are one way as a kid doesn't mean you need to keep that belief until you die.

I was raised thinking critically about most things I think, I was never baptised since my father is pretty much a an atheist (or a secularised christian) and my mother is a shinto buddhist being Japanese and all.

I wouldn't talk about spirituality with my kids because I'm pretty convinced that the only spirit a human has comes from specific synaptic connections in the brain, and I would definately not talk about religion since I think most of it is summoned out of various peoples asses.

I'm jealous... where are you going to school?