More from the Christian-right that seem to have taken over my family. I know that a lot of you will find this offensive, shocking, or whatever. It’s not my intention to deliberately offend you. I will, however, try to invoke an emotional response in order to force you to think…. and thus challenge you to defend your opinion.
This might make more sense if you read this before reading the rest of the following:
——————————————————————————————————————————————
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Barbara Herman <barb.herman@mbarqmail.com> wrote:
> For those of you following this email, Ken is my nephew who resides in
> Alaska. I Bcc those names that I sent it to originally and I will do that
> from now on. However this could be an interesting forum of opinions. If not
> interested please delete it.
….and in doing so, pretty much ended the discussion, as well as eliminated people’s right to opt out of the discussion. Hard to remove someone from a “Reply All” list when they are blind copied.
Very good way to get the last word, I’d say!
Anyway, I chose to add (name removed), as he took the time to (somewhat) offer his thoughts, thereby expressing some interest.
> I am a little surprised you would take this opportunity to discuss your
> political views and opinions on the “The Pledge of Allegiance”, however
> since you opened up an opportunity to discuss it let me give you my opinion.
Why would you be surprised?
You sent out inane statements that infer that “we” all agree, when in fact “we” don’t agree on much of anything at all.
Least of all, we don’t agree upon religion or what it means to be a patriot.
> “If you’re one of those crazy right-wing, bible thumping,
> brainwashed-by-Rush-Limbaugh people who thinks the planet is 6000
> years old, be forewarned that you’re probably not going to agree….”
>
> You may have insulted a lot of people who may hold those typical
> fundamentalist viewpoints. What right do you give yourself to do that?
> Wouldn’t that be considered a very ego-centric attitude?
Insulted? That’s a shame, for holding an opinion comes with the responsibility of defending that opinion, rather than just saying “this is what I believe because this is what I believe because this is what I was told.” Regardless, I believe that stating an opinion shouldn’t be muted for fear of offending someone. If I voice my opinion and if offends you, let’s discuss why it offended you. Perhaps we’ll both learn something from being offended–if not about the subject of what we’re discussing, then about ourselves, or our belief structures.
Are the belief structures of the general population so weak as to take offense and then crumble at the mere mention of the opinion of another?
You say those views are “typical”, which I find to be very disturbing.
For instance, science and math prove the earth to be 4.56 Billion years old. Not 6000. That’s easily proven by fission track geocronology. But, whatever, if you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old because you read it in a novel called “The Bible”, then sure, go right ahead. Also feel free to tell the grocery store that you only owe them $3.22 for a weeks’ worth of groceries. (Oh, yeah, your god didn’t write your novel, by the way. A bunch of upper crust men, in an attempt to retain their power and money, most importantly, control over the masses, did….)
> I think that our God is A God of Many People, many religions, and all
> nations. However this is our United States Pledge. We are one nation under
> God, and we will stand indivisible.
No, “we” are most definitely not one nation under your “god”.
We are a nation that believes a great many different things. This is the principle that our Puritan founding fathers, fleeing religious persecution, founded our nation upon. The right to religious freedom, including the freedom to not practice religion or pledge to any god.
> I don’t believe it states that everyone
> in this country must hold the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Why would anyone have
You think that because you didn’t understand what I wrote, didn’t like what I wrote, and can’t (or won’t) challenge your worldview.
I’ll quote from what I wrote before: “de facto monotheism”
> problems reciting those words, unless they are an atheist? And perhaps that
> is the true issue here.
An atheist, or a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindi, a Shinto, a Jain, or a Sikh?
None of those people believe in your god.
That’s a scant step away from the thought “They have dark skin and don’t believe in God, so surely they’re a terrorist out to blow something up!!”
And what is the “true issue” with atheism? Atheism does not make an individual less than someone who believes in god. Would you take away their right to their beliefs because they are not aligned with your own? Is this an issue of fear of the unknown, discomfort with anyone who does not believe in miracles, talking snakes and bushes, and immaculate conception?
> Our Country was founded on spiritual values and a belief system that there
> was a higher power above all. Our fore fathers believed in something called
> “faith” and they relied on that faith to make decisions for this great
> country we live in. As President Eisenhower wrote:
That mistaken belief is a product of your education. That’s not your fault, it’s a matter of you believing the things you were told and not questioning them after the fact. So, research it a little bit.
The fact is, some of the 1787 delegates had no religious affiliation. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical and vocal about their opposition to organized religion, say, like, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
In regards to the formation of government, Jefferson said:
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”
You can’t claim that this country was founded on religion and faith.
Most of the reason people came to this country was to escape religious persecution from the Church of England, so why would they immediately set up a system of government that allows for the very thing they were trying to escape?
> “ These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great
> physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep
> constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which
> alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.
Eisenhower wrote that the afternoon after hearing that exact phrase, word-for-word, in a church sermon. Don’t try to pass off his writing as his thought–that’s one of the very things that was wrong with that entire situation–Eisenhower wasn’t able to keep his personal views out of government.
> By law no one is forced into saying the Pledge of Allegiance, those that
> object to saying “under God” can chose not to recite this promise of loyalty
> to our Country.
Oh, that’s just funny, in that you’ve just proven my point.
So, you’re saying that if someone objects to saying “under god”, that they shouldn’t recite the pledge of allegiance?
I guess that precludes anyone other than christians from becoming new citizens then, doesn’t it?
Yay!! Government sponsored monotheism!! Yay!
> If you think that this is a conflict to the first amendment, perhaps we
> should change our motto of “In God We Trust” to “We doom our own eternal
> future because of our lack of faith, so we can doom our county too”
That’s a little dramatic, but I wouldn’t mind “In our acceptance we trust”, “In logic we trust” or “In our intelligence we trust”
> As far as Sarah Palin, I reserve my opinion, but for others this is huge
> Republican country here in Central Florida.
Oh, she’s pretty. She winks at the camera a lot. That doesn’t make her a good representative of the people. She’s an idiot, has no idea what’s going on within her own state, and generally clueless about the bigger, longer term picture. Her viewpoints on the age of the planet are in direct contradiction to her oh-so-precious drill-baby-drill mantra. (unless she’s another abiogenic oil crackpot, but I don’t think she’s that smart, based on my interactions with her) But, think what you’d like about her. Just remember that she couldn’t name a single newspaper that she reads.
If your huge Republican country there in Central Florida wants to embrace this, more power to you. Or more something to you, anyway.
kw
