The atheist bus

[rdhopeca]

It also doesn't make any practical difference. It's only there to make you, who does believe, feel better about the oath I've just sworn. It has no practical impact on whether or not I will honor it.

As a believer, an oath that is sworn before God and perhaps to God is more binding than an oath sworn just to myself or to the public. It may or may not have any impact on those that hear it, but if the person is a true believer then that oath will be more binding. So that being the case it does have a practical impact on whether it is honored or not. I grant that it might not have any practical impact on someone who truly doesnt believe.

That oath is only more binding to you if you swear it.

If I swear it, not only is it not more binding to me, in fact it is misleading and dishonest, inasmuch as it has no effect on the binding of the oath one way or the other.

Also, I should be clear, I don't necessarily support the suit in question. Personally, I think anyone who is going to swear in court should be given a list of possible "acceptable" oaths and allowed to choose the one most relevant to themselves. Thus, Muslims could say whatever it is that most binds them to their oaths, and Native Americans could do the same. Otherwise, it's only effectual to those that believe directly in God.

[rusmeister]

On this last issue, the key point is not what you, as an individual, think about it, but what society as a whole thinks about it. If it is generally agreed to hold you as more responsible (or even culpable) because you used this formula, then you can be held to a higher level of accountability.
The best society would be one where that level of accountability was applied to our word, plain and simple. Just imagine trying to apply that without a formula.

Your thought on choice of oaths may work in purely pluralist society where there is no consensus on truth. But if most agree on a formula specifying God or Allah or the Buddha, then clearly other forms are not necessary. It is the collective social judgement of your violation of the formulaic contract that will condemn you in a given society.

I guess it's a question of critical mass at that point (on how many people believe what).

Soulbiter is dead-on that the purpose of excluding God (in the formulas developed in our society) is to exclude the traditional/majority view - in essence to deny it.

[rusmeister]

Rus, I am deliberately trying NOT to take them as hostile and to engage this debate more on a "research" and "knowledge" basis, after taking a break for a bit. It just occurred to me that some of what you had said was merely opinion, and possibly just as uninformed as mine might be, regarding faiths and/or belief systems not our own.

Of course some of what I say is opinion. When I make generalities, about Christianity, for example, they are only that - generalities. For example, it is self-evident that the number of nominal believers far exceeds the number of 24/7 believers, and I won't undertake to debate that. The same thing applies to most people's knowledge of the history of the Christian Church. Broadly speaking, very few people of any denomination, Christian or not, really undertake to learn that history - never mind distinguish between partisan interpretations and the facts themselves. Most carry hazy notions that they get...mostly from school. That is my opinion, and again, to me it is self-evident.

Just so it's clear, I don't claim universal expertise. If a Catholic corrects my understanding of Catholic teaching (or whatever faith/denomination), I'll accept correction on details that I do not know. But the generalities I make are true in general. I'm sure you can find exceptions. But they are exceptions.

I do agree that we are, for the most part, not very well-acquainted with other belief systems. I would say, though, that we should strive to discover the best (and defeat that, if we wish to prove it wrong) and not the worst. But the general tendency is to focus on the worst, defeat that (straw men), and then think your conclusions right.

[rdhopeca]

I do agree that we are, for the most part, not very well-acquainted with other belief systems. I would say, though, that we should strive to discover the best (and defeat that, if we wish to prove it wrong) and not the worst. But the general tendency is to focus on the worst, defeat that (straw men), and then think your conclusions right.

I am truly gladdened that you are focused on the best (those that do not share your belief) and trying to prove us wrong.

[rdhopeca]

On this last issue, the key point is not what you, as an individual, think about it, but what society as a whole thinks about it. If it is generally agreed to hold you as more responsible (or even culpable) because you used this formula, then you can be held to a higher level of accountability.
The best society would be one where that level of accountability was applied to our word, plain and simple. Just imagine trying to apply that without a formula.

Your thought on choice of oaths may work in purely pluralist society where there is no consensus on truth. But if most agree on a formula specifying God or Allah or the Buddha, then clearly other forms are not necessary. It is the collective social judgement of your violation of the formulaic contract that will condemn you in a given society.

I guess it's a question of critical mass at that point (on how many people believe what).

Soulbiter is dead-on that the purpose of excluding God (in the formulas developed in our society) is to exclude the traditional/majority view - in essence to deny it.

We are a pluralist society and becoming more so all the time (especially in California). And Soulbiter was quite clear that the main meaning of the oath was to him, not what society as a whole thought it meant. If I am on the stand, I could give two shakes about what you or anyone else thinks of my beliefs. My duty is to tell the truth, not to take an oath that forces me to recognize your moral superiority by "binding me" to a non-existent entity.

If your point here is to make the oath as binding as possible, then the oath should be adaptable to what makes it as binding as possible to the individual oathtaker.

If your point here is to use "so help me God" (or some other "generally popular phrase"), then your point is to insert your belief on what will most bind the oathtaker...which is a fallacy.

Christians have been sent to jail for perjury after swearing under God and then lying...and atheists have told the absolute truth on the stand after lying by swearing under God. Again, this addition of the phrase is solely so you will feel better about yourself, if you are not willing to adapt to societal or religious differences, whatever the case may be.

I am not saying it should be stricken. It should be adaptable to the oathtaker, or it is truly meaningless to anyone but those who believe in God and refer to him/her as such.

[lurch]

When human kind came out of the trees, we began to eat the grasses of the plains. In the grasses are proteins that nurtured the brain. With that human kind developed the ability to Question. Questioning does not stand alone as an ability of human kind. A cat surly is an inquisitive animal. Along with Questioning ability, Human kind has also the ability to Create. The confluence of the ability to Question with opposable thumbs may have been the evolutionary marriage of the eons, allowing and possibly encouraging the manifestation of that which we create.

Creation stories from all across the Earth are evidence of a commonality of human kind. We question and along with that we answer. Still true today,,when we don't know the answer, we create. And what we create becomes the accepted answer when we stop Questioning.

There are those who say " Questioning " is our damnation. Questioning got us booted out of Eden. A God that creates,,but I am told by its adherents, am not to Question,,fails largely for me. The " I am that I am" I take not as an authoritarian dogma but as a " Come and Get Me. I see Questioning as a liberation, a freedom that allows me to explore this creation , this universe, this planet, this Life.

The early monotheistic adherents had a " word" for their God,,that was to be unspoken. So mysterious and potent, the mere utterance of the name was deemed sacrilegious. So mysterious, unknown, that to place a title, a label, a fixed identity to their God , was an expression of human Hubris.
In all reality, what has changed? Perhaps the quality of the grasses we consume has become better...or maybe just uniform?

The Atheist Bus is an expression of not having a final answer, an absolute. The Atheist Bus still Questions. The Atheist Bus campaign encourages the exploration of the unknown, the Mysterious. The Atheist Bus campaign deflates the Hubris of the absolute answer. The Atheist Bus campaign is a reminder of what it is to be a Human Being.

" God" isn't a thing, a being. " God" is simply Where you stop Questioning, Exploring.

[rusmeister]

On this last issue, the key point is not what you, as an individual, think about it, but what society as a whole thinks about it. If it is generally agreed to hold you as more responsible (or even culpable) because you used this formula, then you can be held to a higher level of accountability.
The best society would be one where that level of accountability was applied to our word, plain and simple. Just imagine trying to apply that without a formula.

Your thought on choice of oaths may work in purely pluralist society where there is no consensus on truth. But if most agree on a formula specifying God or Allah or the Buddha, then clearly other forms are not necessary. It is the collective social judgement of your violation of the formulaic contract that will condemn you in a given society.

I guess it's a question of critical mass at that point (on how many people believe what).

Soulbiter is dead-on that the purpose of excluding God (in the formulas developed in our society) is to exclude the traditional/majority view - in essence to deny it.

We are a pluralist society and becoming more so all the time (especially in California). And Soulbiter was quite clear that the main meaning of the oath was to him, not what society as a whole thought it meant. If I am on the stand, I could give two shakes about what you or anyone else thinks of my beliefs. My duty is to tell the truth, not to take an oath that forces me to recognize your moral superiority by "binding me" to a non-existent entity.

If your point here is to make the oath as binding as possible, then the oath should be adaptable to what makes it as binding as possible to the individual oathtaker.

If your point here is to use "so help me God" (or some other "generally popular phrase"), then your point is to insert your belief on what will most bind the oathtaker...which is a fallacy.

Christians have been sent to jail for perjury after swearing under God and then lying...and atheists have told the absolute truth on the stand after lying by swearing under God. Again, this addition of the phrase is solely so you will feel better about yourself, if you are not willing to adapt to societal or religious differences, whatever the case may be.

I am not saying it should be stricken. It should be adaptable to the oathtaker, or it is truly meaningless to anyone but those who believe in God and refer to him/her as such.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

For example, we ARE becoming more pluralistic. But the corollary is that we were less pluralistic. That there was, until very recently, a common social base that a clear majority accepted to be true, however they interpreted the details, and so agreed on common formulas like "so help me God", references to a Creator in offical documents, etc... You're talking about how you feel about it now; a purely individual point of view. I'm talking about when there was a collective consensus - when people agreed about something. The more people philosophically agree, the more able they are to live in peace. (The modern way to get around that is to say that philosophies do not matter - thus my Chesterton quote above. But they did that in ancient Rome, too, when they built the Pantheon.)

[rdhopeca]

On this last issue, the key point is not what you, as an individual, think about it, but what society as a whole thinks about it. If it is generally agreed to hold you as more responsible (or even culpable) because you used this formula, then you can be held to a higher level of accountability.
The best society would be one where that level of accountability was applied to our word, plain and simple. Just imagine trying to apply that without a formula.

Your thought on choice of oaths may work in purely pluralist society where there is no consensus on truth. But if most agree on a formula specifying God or Allah or the Buddha, then clearly other forms are not necessary. It is the collective social judgement of your violation of the formulaic contract that will condemn you in a given society.

I guess it's a question of critical mass at that point (on how many people believe what).

Soulbiter is dead-on that the purpose of excluding God (in the formulas developed in our society) is to exclude the traditional/majority view - in essence to deny it.

We are a pluralist society and becoming more so all the time (especially in California). And Soulbiter was quite clear that the main meaning of the oath was to him, not what society as a whole thought it meant. If I am on the stand, I could give two shakes about what you or anyone else thinks of my beliefs. My duty is to tell the truth, not to take an oath that forces me to recognize your moral superiority by "binding me" to a non-existent entity.

If your point here is to make the oath as binding as possible, then the oath should be adaptable to what makes it as binding as possible to the individual oathtaker.

If your point here is to use "so help me God" (or some other "generally popular phrase"), then your point is to insert your belief on what will most bind the oathtaker...which is a fallacy.

Christians have been sent to jail for perjury after swearing under God and then lying...and atheists have told the absolute truth on the stand after lying by swearing under God. Again, this addition of the phrase is solely so you will feel better about yourself, if you are not willing to adapt to societal or religious differences, whatever the case may be.

I am not saying it should be stricken. It should be adaptable to the oathtaker, or it is truly meaningless to anyone but those who believe in God and refer to him/her as such.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

For example, we ARE becoming more pluralistic. But the corollary is that we were less pluralistic. That there was, until very recently, a common social base that a clear majority accepted to be true, however they interpreted the details, and so agreed on common formulas like "so help me God", references to a Creator in offical documents, etc... You're talking about how you feel about it now; a purely individual point of view. I'm talking about when there was a collective consensus - when people agreed about something. The more people philosophically agree, the more able they are to live in peace. (The modern way to get around that is to say that philosophies do not matter - thus my Chesterton quote above. But they did that in ancient Rome, too, when they built the Pantheon.)

A "collective consensus", I don't buy that. A majority opinion I'll buy. A collective consensus implies that there was no dissent, ever. If there was, "under God" would have been in the Pledge of Allegiance a lot earlier than 1951 (when the Knights of Columbus began incorporating it into their Plegde; law would follow in 1954). The pledge did not have "under God" in it from 1892 to 1951 (59 years), about the same time as it has had "under God" in it. That's not consensus to me. That's a majority pushing through an agenda, just like anyone now aiming to remove it. (To be clear, I don't care if it's there or not, it doesn't change anything in my mind. It just helps to ease any doubt on behalf of my fellow countrymen who would feel less secure about my loyalty if I left it out, and would rather I lie in the middle of it to ease their insecurity).

Additionally, of course I'm talking about how I feel about things now. Aren't you, instead of how you felt years ago before your personal "enlightenment"?

And I agree with your statement that the "more people philosophically agree, the more able they are to live in peace". However, most religious based belief systems attempt to force that philosophical agreement in the name of "righteousness", not in the name of "peace". Isn't the point of missionary work to "save souls", not to "encourage peace"?

[rusmeister]

A "collective consensus", I don't buy that. A majority opinion I'll buy. A collective consensus implies that there was no dissent, ever.

No it doesn't. Where on earth do you get that? A consensus is majority - it's not universal and doesn't mean every member but it does mean the overall/prevailing view.

Additionally, of course I'm talking about how I feel about things now. Aren't you, instead of how you felt years ago before your personal "enlightenment"?

How I feel now happens to coincide with the consensus of x-00 years ago, so there's no difference for me. (That's a major oversimplification, but puts it shortly and simply) Our age of pluralism is the historical exception.

And I agree with your statement that the "more people philosophically agree, the more able they are to live in peace". However, most religious based belief systems attempt to force that philosophical agreement in the name of "righteousness", not in the name of "peace". Isn't the point of missionary work to "save souls", not to "encourage peace"?

I think perhaps the central difference is that you appear to place as the ultimate value the right of the individual to believe what he wants. This differs from any view which actually holds itself to be true. As soon as anyone talks about teaching creation or ID in public schools non-believers are up in arms because THEY believe the proposition of formation of the world that has nothing to do with God to be true, and therefore insist on imposing it as the truth to be taught to all in public schools (lest you deny this, I'll say that my own (Christian) high school was non-state-accredited for refusing to teach evolutionary theory as the truth, and I was denied enlistment in the Air Force (as a high school graduate) for that reason*). The faith of the evolutionists is in the evidence (primarily in their interpretation of it), but it's still faith.

If a view holds itself to be true, then it is only natural to expect that the people who see things that way would impose it as true on their society. This goes for non-believers who insist on excluding God as well as for believers who insist on including Him. I therefore find it natural, however much I disagree, for non-believers to push their agenda in the public arena and so am not shocked and surprised that they do so (and for Islamic believers to push Islam as true in Islam-dominated countries, etc...). That non-believers should be shocked and surprised that believers do so is what is odd and illogical.

* Starnote - I essentially aced the GED, high scored the SATs and maxed out on the CLEP tests thanks to that non-accredited education.

[Cybrweez]

If a view holds itself to be true, then it is only natural to expect that the people who see things that way would impose it as true on their society. This goes for non-believers who insist on excluding God as well as for believers who insist on including Him. I therefore find it natural, however much I disagree, for non-believers to push their agenda in the public arena and so am not shocked and surprised that they do so (and for Islamic believers to push Islam as true in Islam-dominated countries, etc...). That non-believers should be shocked and surprised that believers do so is what is odd and illogical.

Good point. And I think what makes it more illogical (that they are shocked) is that they (non-believers) are going against history. They are changing traditions, culture of this country, and are shocked when there are some who don't want it changed. Its all very intolerant.

[rdhopeca]

A "collective consensus", I don't buy that. A majority opinion I'll buy. A collective consensus implies that there was no dissent, ever.

No it doesn't. Where on earth do you get that? A consensus is majority - it's not universal and doesn't mean every member but it does mean the overall/prevailing view.

Additionally, of course I'm talking about how I feel about things now. Aren't you, instead of how you felt years ago before your personal "enlightenment"?

How I feel now happens to coincide with the consensus of x-00 years ago, so there's no difference for me. (That's a major oversimplification, but puts it shortly and simply) Our age of pluralism is the historical exception.

And I agree with your statement that the "more people philosophically agree, the more able they are to live in peace". However, most religious based belief systems attempt to force that philosophical agreement in the name of "righteousness", not in the name of "peace". Isn't the point of missionary work to "save souls", not to "encourage peace"?

I think perhaps the central difference is that you appear to place as the ultimate value the right of the individual to believe what he wants. This differs from any view which actually holds itself to be true. As soon as anyone talks about teaching creation or ID in public schools non-believers are up in arms because THEY believe the proposition of formation of the world that has nothing to do with God to be true, and therefore insist on imposing it as the truth to be taught to all in public schools (lest you deny this, I'll say that my own (Christian) high school was non-state-accredited for refusing to teach evolutionary theory as the truth, and I was denied enlistment in the Air Force (as a high school graduate) for that reason*). The faith of the evolutionists is in the evidence (primarily in their interpretation of it), but it's still faith.

If a view holds itself to be true, then it is only natural to expect that the people who see things that way would impose it as true on their society. This goes for non-believers who insist on excluding God as well as for believers who insist on including Him. I therefore find it natural, however much I disagree, for non-believers to push their agenda in the public arena and so am not shocked and surprised that they do so (and for Islamic believers to push Islam as true in Islam-dominated countries, etc...). That non-believers should be shocked and surprised that believers do so is what is odd and illogical.

* Starnote - I essentially aced the GED, high scored the SATs and maxed out on the CLEP tests thanks to that non-accredited education.

I have never been shocked or surprised that you would push your own agenda. Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't mean that they are shocked or surprised. Quite frankly, there's an equal amount of "outrage" and "shock" from the Religious Right in this country whenever anyone challenges their imprint on our society.

I also find it in agreement with the overall goals of our Country that I should "value the right of the individual to believe what he wants". I think it's called "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". What I don't value is the the perceived right to then slam that belief down everyone else's throat, or to have someone else's slammed down mine. That's called "life, maybe some liberty as long as you conform, and the pursuit of group beliefs, not your own".

I, also, aced my SATs etc thanks to an accredited education. What difference does that make? I'll grant that most private schools offer a better overall education, but that is more due to better funding and management IMO, because they are not subject to the morass of the current education system. I think there's another thread around here that mentions exactly that.

[Cybrweez]

Well, the idea of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are tricky huh? We all have different meanings of these ideas. For instance, your's Rob ends when someone tries to force something on you, well, then they are not at Liberty to do so. Or when one tries to imprint their ideas on others, they are not free to do that. Of course, that statement is imprinting an idea on others itself, so we're kinda stuck.

[rdhopeca]

Well, the idea of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are tricky huh? We all have different meanings of these ideas. For instance, your's Rob ends when someone tries to force something on you, well, then they are not at Liberty to do so. Or when one tries to imprint their ideas on others, they are not free to do that. Of course, that statement is imprinting an idea on others itself, so we're kinda stuck.

I believe that actions are different than thoughts and beliefs. I should not be required to say anything that compromises my personal beliefs any more than you should. Which is why I suggested that oaths contains personal "binding" information should they exist.

Having said that, you are free to say anything you like. By that definition, however, it does not follow that the things you would like to say should all of a sudden appear in government pledges or on government-issued currency. Write it all over your house, publish a book, hold up a sign, whatever, if you want to see it in print. But leave it out of items intended for everyone as a whole, or allow everyone to be represented equally.

[rusmeister]

A "collective consensus", I don't buy that. A majority opinion I'll buy. A collective consensus implies that there was no dissent, ever.

No it doesn't. Where on earth do you get that? A consensus is majority - it's not universal and doesn't mean every member but it does mean the overall/prevailing view.

Additionally, of course I'm talking about how I feel about things now. Aren't you, instead of how you felt years ago before your personal "enlightenment"?

How I feel now happens to coincide with the consensus of x-00 years ago, so there's no difference for me. (That's a major oversimplification, but puts it shortly and simply) Our age of pluralism is the historical exception.

And I agree with your statement that the "more people philosophically agree, the more able they are to live in peace". However, most religious based belief systems attempt to force that philosophical agreement in the name of "righteousness", not in the name of "peace". Isn't the point of missionary work to "save souls", not to "encourage peace"?

I think perhaps the central difference is that you appear to place as the ultimate value the right of the individual to believe what he wants. This differs from any view which actually holds itself to be true. As soon as anyone talks about teaching creation or ID in public schools non-believers are up in arms because THEY believe the proposition of formation of the world that has nothing to do with God to be true, and therefore insist on imposing it as the truth to be taught to all in public schools (lest you deny this, I'll say that my own (Christian) high school was non-state-accredited for refusing to teach evolutionary theory as the truth, and I was denied enlistment in the Air Force (as a high school graduate) for that reason*). The faith of the evolutionists is in the evidence (primarily in their interpretation of it), but it's still faith.

If a view holds itself to be true, then it is only natural to expect that the people who see things that way would impose it as true on their society. This goes for non-believers who insist on excluding God as well as for believers who insist on including Him. I therefore find it natural, however much I disagree, for non-believers to push their agenda in the public arena and so am not shocked and surprised that they do so (and for Islamic believers to push Islam as true in Islam-dominated countries, etc...). That non-believers should be shocked and surprised that believers do so is what is odd and illogical.

* Starnote - I essentially aced the GED, high scored the SATs and maxed out on the CLEP tests thanks to that non-accredited education.

I have never been shocked or surprised that you would push your own agenda. Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't mean that they are shocked or surprised. Quite frankly, there's an equal amount of "outrage" and "shock" from the Religious Right in this country whenever anyone challenges their imprint on our society.

I also find it in agreement with the overall goals of our Country that I should "value the right of the individual to believe what he wants". I think it's called "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". What I don't value is the the perceived right to then slam that belief down everyone else's throat, or to have someone else's slammed down mine. That's called "life, maybe some liberty as long as you conform, and the pursuit of group beliefs, not your own".

I, also, aced my SATs etc thanks to an accredited education. What difference does that make? I'll grant that most private schools offer a better overall education, but that is more due to better funding and management IMO, because they are not subject to the morass of the current education system. I think there's another thread around here that mentions exactly that.

You speak of "slamming beliefs down others' throats." That's an emotional statement that needs objective definition; plus it really matters what you apply it to. If you refer to your right to believe in your own house that the moon is made of green cheese, then I support your right to do so. If you refer to what exactly shall be taught or not taught as truth to children (even if it is that truth is merely your opinion), or otherwise enact as public policy (the philosophy that is de facto behind the policies) then I may draw my sword. The line is between private belief and public policy (which must be based on a definite philosophy - the same goes for public schools, of course).

My reference to my school experience was only to show that a public policy was in fact enacted that discriminated against the beliefs of the people that ran the school and was based on the proposition that evolution is truth. I didn't intend it to be taken as showing-off; only that it was an education that DID exceed the public standards. (We were poor as church mice, btw, and my mom worked there full-time to knock off tuition. I was the first person in my extended family to ever go to college.)

[rusmeister]

I believe that actions are different than thoughts and beliefs.

Of course thought/belief does not EQUAL action. But it is thoughts/beliefs that LEAD TO actions; actions result from thoughts and beliefs. Actions are not performed, generally speaking, without thought or belief behind them. Thus pornography can lead to masturbation, sexual act or perversion, or even crime (to give a quick, crude example. There are many others). Point is that the actions do not generally happen without some kind of thought behind them; even the most animalistic. Thus, what you believe DOES ultimately affect your actions - if you really believe it (note that I am speaking of worldview here).

But there are some people, nevertheless--and I am one of them-- who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.

GKC, Heretics ch 1

I should not be required to say anything that compromises my personal beliefs any more than you should. Which is why I suggested that oaths contains personal "binding" information should they exist.

But where do you get the modal verb "should" from? Why "should" you anything? Even the founding fathers, who, as you said, established the ideology of our country, specifically stated that the authority to declare freedom was derived from the creator; ie, it has to be derived from somewhere.

Any standard oath is predicated on the assumption of commonly accepted belief. I already said that you may reject the belief, but the society will still hold you to the oath. If for society your word (as such) is not good enough, then the oath must be on something agreed on (by society) to be solemn and reverent.

Having said that, you are free to say anything you like. By that definition, however, it does not follow that the things you would like to say should all of a sudden appear in government pledges or on government-issued currency. Write it all over your house, publish a book, hold up a sign, whatever, if you want to see it in print.

It appears that you agree with me here on private belief vs public policy.

But leave it out of items intended for everyone as a whole, or allow everyone to be represented equally.

Again, you cannot leave philosophy out of anything, because it is what determines everything. There is no such thing as having a policy or system without a philosophy. So you must have a default de facto philosophy, even if no one ever speaks of it or examines it. And if philosophies collide - contradict each other - then they cannot be represented equally. A nation cannot be half slave and half free. One must prevail; the other must be defeated. Thus, we can neither leave it out nor have equal philosophical representation. In that case it is war, and someone must lose. To take a contemporary example (out of many), either abortion is OK or it is not. There can be no compromise. It all depends on the question of whose philosophy wins.

[rdhopeca]

I believe that actions are different than thoughts and beliefs.

Of course thought/belief does not EQUAL action. But it is thoughts/beliefs that LEAD TO actions; actions result from thoughts and beliefs. Actions are not performed, generally speaking, without thought or belief behind them. Thus pornography can lead to masturbation, sexual act or perversion, or even crime (to give a quick, crude example. There are many others). Point is that the actions do not generally happen without some kind of thought behind them; even the most animalistic. Thus, what you believe DOES ultimately affect your actions - if you really believe it (note that I am speaking of worldview here).

But there are some people, nevertheless--and I am one of them-- who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.

GKC, Heretics ch 1

I should not be required to say anything that compromises my personal beliefs any more than you should. Which is why I suggested that oaths contains personal "binding" information should they exist.

But where do you get the modal verb "should" from? Why "should" you anything? Even the founding fathers, who, as you said, established the ideology of our country, specifically stated that the authority to declare freedom was derived from the creator; ie, it has to be derived from somewhere.

Any standard oath is predicated on the assumption of commonly accepted belief. I already said that you may reject the belief, but the society will still hold you to the oath. If for society your word (as such) is not good enough, then the oath must be on something agreed on (by society) to be solemn and reverent.

Having said that, you are free to say anything you like. By that definition, however, it does not follow that the things you would like to say should all of a sudden appear in government pledges or on government-issued currency. Write it all over your house, publish a book, hold up a sign, whatever, if you want to see it in print.

It appears that you agree with me here on private belief vs public policy.

But leave it out of items intended for everyone as a whole, or allow everyone to be represented equally.

Again, you cannot leave philosophy out of anything, because it is what determines everything. There is no such thing as having a policy or system without a philosophy. So you must have a default de facto philosophy, even if no one ever speaks of it or examines it. And if philosophies collide - contradict each other - then they cannot be represented equally. A nation cannot be half slave and half free. One must prevail; the other must be defeated. Thus, we can neither leave it out nor have equal philosophical representation. In that case it is war, and someone must lose. To take a contemporary example (out of many), either abortion is OK or it is not. There can be no compromise. It all depends on the question of whose philosophy wins.

Why the emphasis on "should"? I've been quite clear on my opinion in this matter. If I swear an oath, and happen to mention, "so help me God", it is completely meaningless to me and has no impact on my intention to keep that oath or not. It would be better for everyone involved if I swore on something I did believe in, because then I would not be a) dishonest in my swearing by proclaiming my support for a non-existent entity and b) would be more bound to my word. If you believe that I will tell the truth because I say "so help me God", then you feel better about it when it occurs, but you're being naive in the extreme: I am already lying to you as far as I am concerned.

If, as you say, we agree on private belief vs public policy, are you then saying "under God" does not belong in the Pledge? That "In God We Trust" has no place on our currency?

Also, I am not suggesting you leave philosophy out of everything. What I am saying is that the Pledge and other oaths were just fine without adding "under God", until someone decided it would "mean more" if they added it. Mean more to whom, exactly? The people in who believe in God, presumably. And I must assume that prior to 1954, our country was filled with traitors who didn't have the good sense or morality to follow the Pledge to bring about such necessary change. Again, this is only there to promote God to the masses, and violates the Constitution (which of course you will deny).

As to our founding fathers' philosophies (and those in the Bible), if we were to take them at their word, there would still be slaves today, since it was ok then, and ok in the Bible.

One final note on education: I would most certainly send my son to a private Catholic school today. The ones I am familiar with are excellent schools. And as far as the philosphies that they teach, I am comfortable enough that he will arrive at a correct interpretation of his life that is the right one for him, whatever that may be.

I would most certainly NOT send him to the private Catholic schools my father attended. That was back when a ruler to the knuckles or head was considered appropriate punishment.

[lurch]

Our founding fathers based this country on Philosophy. Their Philosophy was founding a nation free of the Tyranny of the Monarchy,,free of the Tyranny of a State Religion and free of the Tyranny of the Majority. One can understand that a philosophy of freedom was in place in their minds.

Now,, if one tries to make a point that other philosophies have krept in our systems of government, then one has to show how the basic Freedom Philosophy has been compromised or infringed upon. The only evidence presented in this thread concerning freedom from the tyranny of a State Religion is evidence of the Compromise of it, the Infringement of that freedom. All the other evidence is just excuse making and twisted rationalizatiion for that compromising and infringement. And whats even worse, the excuse making and twisted rationalization is presented from the viewpoint of a Victim. The real victim is Freedom; My freedom, Your Freedom ,to participate in a belief system of choice. If one can't see the Wisdom of our founding fathers , then I suggest a look inside of one self for that which blinds.

The Atheist Bus Campaign is putting this issue back on even keel. Paid for advertising puts money in the Media owner. Pressures applied by " offended" groups only show the Tyranny that our founding fathers knew so well. The Tyranny of Mind Control, infringement of Freedom of the Mind, freedom of Thought, belongs to those who impose their beliefs out of Fear of that Freedom.

[lurch]

..and while I'm at it..discussing the Spiritual realm in terms of,,and within the confines of Logic,,isn't even oxymoronic, isn't even hypocritical. Its just a display of not having any idea of what is the subject.

Logic is inside the box of A+B=C. Logic builds a house, builds a Skyscraper, builds a car, builds a A Bomb. Logic is for understanding and manipulation of things physical, tangible. Logic helps us understand the Physical Universe.

Spirituality, is not of the Physical , tangible World. The insistence that Spirituality is of the Physical, tangible world, only demonstrates the conflicted, confused, mind of the insistent. Logic does not allow " Spirituality" into its parameters. Any one who tries,, only insults " Logic" ,, then proceeds to use this insulted Logic as a foundation for their " Philosophy". Having it both ways is not free of either and that confliction becomes tiresome and not even humorous.

Matters of Spirituality have to be free of the Physical World, the Tangible World in order to be " Spiritual". The Freedom from the Physical World, the Tangible World, can be understood as Freedom from Logic. Spirituality is Outside the Box of A+B=C.

That is not to say, Spirituality doesn't have any legs to stand on. Understanding the legs it does have to stand on..the freedom of thought , unbounded ,unlimited, infinite , ethereal , unknown realms, is just the beginning of exploring Spirituality. Its not confined by the LIKES OF LOGIC.

Therefore, the Atheist Bus Campaign only endorses the obvious. Give onto Rome What is Rome's comes to mind. Don't mix matters of the Physical world with matters of Spirituality...and don't try telling me that they are of the same realm. Telling me I am going to Hell if I don't have the same faith as they..insults Spirituality and Logic in one breath. Proclaiming an Oath to a God ,,that if broken, will be punished by man ,is just another extension of insipid non logical nor Spiritual quasi reality being put forth as Real. That Conflicted State does not do well for Humanity at all. As long as we are kept busy with these unclear and muddied perspectives, we will never see clearly in either realm. Stop insulting me and Humanity.

[rusmeister]

Why the emphasis on "should"? I've been quite clear on my opinion in this matter. If I swear an oath, and happen to mention, "so help me God", it is completely meaningless to me and has no impact on my intention to keep that oath or not. It would be better for everyone involved if I swore on something I did believe in, because then I would not be a) dishonest in my swearing by proclaiming my support for a non-existent entity and b) would be more bound to my word. If you believe that I will tell the truth because I say "so help me God", then you feel better about it when it occurs, but you're being naive in the extreme: I am already lying to you as far as I am concerned.

I understand and mostly agree with you here. What I meant by my question is more "What is the basis for moral authority? Where do you derive the authority to say "should" and impose it on me as well?" I think it is more difficult in general for atheists and agnostics to defend the use of the words "should" and "ought to" in general, because they point to the existence of moral law, and can't have meaning without it.

If, as you say, we agree on private belief vs public policy, are you then saying "under God" does not belong in the Pledge? That "In God We Trust" has no place on our currency?

Also, I am not suggesting you leave philosophy out of everything. What I am saying is that the Pledge and other oaths were just fine without adding "under God", until someone decided it would "mean more" if they added it. Mean more to whom, exactly? The people in who believe in God, presumably. And I must assume that prior to 1954, our country was filled with traitors who didn't have the good sense or morality to follow the Pledge to bring about such necessary change. Again, this is only there to promote God to the masses, and violates the Constitution (which of course you will deny).

The pledge of allegiance is a specific example which does not support your case in general - because I will, again, largely agree with you. It is an artificial construction whose real aim is not Christian at all but at indoctrinating the support of the existing government - something the Declaration of Independence points out can be in need of actual change/abolishment. It is a very recent invention (1892) - I am talking in terms of centuries and millenia, and on that scale the PofA hardly registers - even for US history it didn't exist for the first half of that history. I think it a useless thing and would abolish it as a requirement. Let's speak to how the US got along without it prior to 1892.
In general, I do not think these side issues to be of great importance. The only worthwhile observation is that a great many more people took faith, specifically the Christian faith, seriously in the founding and early years of our country's existence, and yes, they did have formative effects on law and government (again the PofA just doesn't fit into that).

As to our founding fathers' philosophies (and those in the Bible), if we were to take them at their word, there would still be slaves today, since it was ok then, and ok in the Bible.

Obviously, the question is, to what extent were our founding fathers right, and where should we part ways?
As to the first (it was OK then), it was a contradictory stance where they did not apply their own words to slaves.
As to the Bible, this needs clarification. If you mean that slavery was accepted in Biblical times, of course you are right. If you mean that it was even permitted in the Old Testament, again you are right. If you mean that it is permitted under Christianity, then you are mistaken. In the New Testament, the existence of the institution of slavery is recognized, but the references are to how to be Christian in the face of it, not supporting or condoning it.

It was Christianity and Christian views that always opposed slavery, and eventually brought it down everywhere that it spread and was genuinely practiced. In the case of US history, it is remarkable that slavery flourished in the southern colonies - which were secular commercial ventures, and not in the northern colonies, which were the products of Christian motivation. IOW, wherever the faith was taken as a true proposition, slavery was squeezed out, and it flourished only where faith was nominal or non-existent. (So a person could call himself "Christian" and support slavery, but he would be in conflict with the philosophy of his faith.)

[rdhopeca]

I think it is more difficult in general for atheists and agnostics to defend the use of the words "should" and "ought to" in general, because they point to the existence of moral law, and can't have meaning without it.

This is mere semantics. I can defend using "should" until the end of days, dude. "Should", as in, a recommendation, or an expectation of obligation, as in "You should brush your teeth everyday", or "I should not be required to lock my house if I do not wish to".

It has no moral consequence whatsoever, IMO.