>The problem with this whole discussion is that people forget that the 'state' is supposed to be, at best, neutral. It currently is not neutral. It is forcing a godless point of view upon those who do believe by virtue of prohibiting the free exercise of faith on public grounds. That is not neutral. The state would only be establishing a state religius system (like the Church of England that the founders were trying to avoid) by actively promoting one religious point of view over another.
>To use a simple analogy the State has put the gearbox in reverse as a response to a false notion that being in Neutral is the equivilent of Drive. Neutral is not the equivilent of active promotion of any particular pov.
>Personally, I think that each community should establish rules that allow for any and all points of view. For example, have a designated public park that allows for menorahs, creches, and little buddahs or golden cows for that matter.Neutral: agreed. Therefore do not push any. You can have faith in whatever you want, even golden cows. The State should not force you or anybody else. Adding a mention of god in the Pledge o Allegiance ignores the 14% or so of non-theists.
>By actively promoting the "no god" position the state has actually promoted the religious faith of athiesm - at the expense of everryone else. That sure doesn't sound neutral to me.That's your opinion. The state should stay away from it, not promote. You can pray whenever you want.
>Athiests can no more prove the absence of the existence of god via intellect only that believers can prove his existence by intellect only. Both sides require a postion of faith. Faith equals religious belief. That is, a position held to by more than raw logic. Athiesm is a religious system, just as much as we "Bible thumping maniacs" <bg> may have. There does exist an athiest dogma you know...Whatever does proof of existence or not have to do with separation of church and state? Nothing. Even if there was a proof of any kind, it is of no business of the state.
>I'm quite comfortable that as an athiest you do not want to pray. Your inability to draw enough tolerance from athiesm to allow me to pray wherever and whenever, and even at a school graduation is everyone wants it is IMO something of an example of those who wish to use their weaknesses to make everyone else as they are. I'll continue to respect your right to be a fool but I'd like the same in return. <g>As said before. You can pray. The state should not force you, as it forces the 14% or so of non-believers when the Pledge of Allegiance (amonth others) have religious references.
Would the Pledge of Allegiance be better for you if it said "under Jesus"? How about, as the court said, "under Vishnu"? I am sure a bunch of people would not be happy with that. The why mention any god at all? Leave religion out of the business of government.
>Just remember that when you stand before God to give an account of your life that you were warned. This shouldn't bother you at all because god doesn't exist, right? If it does bother you - why?Bother me? What bother me? I considered myself warned, right?
