Hi Alex,

Hope you're enjoying this Sun-Day. <g> (damn Roman gods! <bg>)

>>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.

Or actively exclude any either. The minute you do this you're taking sides. ergo - no neutrality.

> You can have faith in whatever you want, even golden cows.

Sure, or your own mind.

>The State should not force you or anybody else.

To pray? Agreed. To prevent praying? Nope. Those that do not wish to join should be free not to but those that wish to should not lose their right to pray just because some might be offended. I would no more want to try and force you to pray than the man in the moon but you have no right to stop me whatsoever, whenever.

>Adding a mention of god in the Pledge o Allegiance ignores the 14% or so of non-theists.

My wife, the 2nd grade schoolteacher deals with this issue every year. She explains that those who do not wish to cite the pledge are free not to and may either sit quietly or leave the room. She also explains to the other kids that this is an example of tolerance. It teaches the kids that they don't have to give up their rights for a few nor are the few somehow 'bad' because they don't want to cite the pledge.

Real life it seems.


>
>
>>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.

The state also should not prohibit. Wht can't those who disagree with me "tolerate" me if I should want to pray if I'm a speaker? That's me. That's my right to speak as I wish. Or does freedom of speech only apply to those who don't want to hear me? I have, it seems, been forced to 'hear' their silence. You see the actual intolerance here is coming from the 'no god' crowd.

>
>
>>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.

It has everything to do with this issue. Athiesim is a faith-based position. IOW, it's a religion and adopting the athiest position is, in so many words, adopting (promoting) a specific religious point of view.

If you cannot proove that god does not exist then your position as an athiest is taken on faith. Why should your religion take precedence here?

>
>
>>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.

It also should not prevent me. It should 'tolerate' me and not try and change me as that's promotion of another position - not mine.

14% crocodile tears I'd imagine. <g>

>
>Would the Pledge of Allegiance be better for you if it said "under Jesus"?

You bet! I wish everyone knew Him but that's not the reality of our situation, is it? Just a straw man.

> 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.

Well, for you to assert this show you have little or no understanding of government and its relationship to religious systems. Heck, why not just throw everything we've learned over the last 6000 years out the window while we're at it? <g> Can you show me a successful athiest (no god) nation Alex? Russian Communism murdered some 100+ millions. China is no better. Pol Pot? Cuba? Where?


>
>>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?