Agnostic Mom

43 Comments »

1. mathyoo:
   March 24th, 2006 @ 9:22 am

   While it’s not a huge issue for me, either, I would prefer to see the pledge returned to it’s original state. Ultimately, though, I’d rather see the pledge go away altogether-loyalty oaths and forced patriotism violate the first amendment-part of the very thing they claim to uphold. Not only do I object to the pledge being required, but I’m appalled that it’s required for children who have no idea what words like “allegiance”, “nation”, “indivisible”, “liberty” and “justice” mean. We get them to memorize it by rote and intone it back to us in montones so some parents can feel like they’re teaching their children something good, but in reality, it doesn’t do anything for children’s education, or for their patriotism for that matter.

2. Ron:
   March 24th, 2006 @ 12:41 pm

   I feel it is impossible to justify an oath of support to a symbol whose meaning is in constant flux and beyond the individual’s ability to fully monitor, let alone trust to represent their interests.

3. Terry S:
   March 24th, 2006 @ 8:19 pm

   I remember when we first began including “under god” in the pledge. I think it was around 1954 or so. I would have been around 8 years old. Of course, all it meant to me was that it was something else I had to remember.

   While I must admit that the pledge has not been a major hot button issue with me, I do agree that it is inappropriate. Younger kids have no idea what it is they are repeating. “Under god” is just another instance of religious brainwashing.

   A very real problem facing those attempting to affect change as regards the pledge, school prayer and so forth is that most state legislatures and congress are made up primarily of christians, many protestant, fundamental christians. Few of these people will be predisposed toward aiding and abetting evil “seculars” in their quest to expunge “under god” from the pledge or banning school prayer or so called “moments of silence.” The fight should certainly continue, but one should be aware of the nature of their enemy. As the courts, including the Supreme Court, are also moving more and more to the right they will not necessarily provide nearly the support that was once enjoyed by the godless hoards. Perhaps we could enlist the law firm of Mephisto, Beelzebub and Asmodai,PC to represent our nefarious interests in this matter. I understand they approach their work with what you might call a “devil may care attitude.”

   TLS

4. Christy:
   March 24th, 2006 @ 9:41 pm

   I guess I am the odd ball of your readers. There are a few things that I strongly disagree with. 1st, there are a lot of people who need religion! And by us agnostic people trying to take that away from them, makes us know better. Why would you want to tell a meth head who final got clean “by the grace of god” that his beleifs are silly and unjustified! You should feel proud of your self that you where strong enough to get past that and stop feeling bad that the religion community is not accepting you. I think this web site is great. And I think you should share your ideas with people who want to hear them, but you should never never fource your ways on someone else. It is such a double standard. When you start fourcing your beleifs, you are no better then the people you are complaining about.

   I also do take offense to the statements marthyoo wrote. My daughter has been able to recite the pledge of allegiance for the last year. This is something I am very proud of. Yes, she may not know what all the words mean, but she does know that it stands for something great. She is proud and happy when she sees the American flag and thinks the eagle is an awesome animal. After 911, I vowed to teach my children to be proud of the country they live. So much of that is missed in todays youth. If you do not teach our children to be proud, then the will just take it all for granted.

   I do apoligive if my comments come across abrasive. As I am sure you all are aware, it is hard to show emotion on-line.

   Christy

5. Terry S:
   March 24th, 2006 @ 10:00 pm

   Christy,

   I don’t think what you are seeing here as regards the pledge and patriotism is an attempt to “force” anything upon anyone else. Actually, that is the whole point of the issue. Children in school are generally “forced” to stand and repeat the pledge, including the “under god” line whether they or their parents want them to do so or not. While I think too much is made of nationalism in this world that is beginning to edge toward a global community, I am pretty sure that those posting and commenting here are pretty happy to be Americans. Despite all its faults, of which there are many, the US is still a great place to live, and, yes, be proud of. But we would be remiss if we ignored or excused that which we feel to are unfair or unjust.

   TLS

6. Terry S:
   March 25th, 2006 @ 6:15 am

   And when any of you finally figure out just what I meant in my last line above by “… which we feel to are unfair or unjust.” let me know. I must have a talk with my editors.

   TLS

7. Christy:
   March 25th, 2006 @ 9:04 am

   Children are forced to do everything in school. Trust me I would have skipped my spelling quiz! This is obviously an issue for us grown-up that we/they are using our children as ponds. But a few things from that. 1st, fourcing children to receite the pledge is just like fourcing them to do their math problems. It all is in an atempt to teach them. And the underline message is to be proud of their country, not if god is watching over us. That brings me to my 2nd point. Like I said, we/they are using our children as ponds in this grown-up argument, but who cares. I mean obviously I care, but you have to teach your children to pick your battles. And why would I want to take something away from so many. Being agnostic is being the odd ball. All of us know that. But I’m o.k. with that. I have known, still know, so many people who need their religion. Not knowing is just way to scary of an idea for most. Why would I want to take away something that gives so much comfort to so many, when to me it is only words!?! I hope that last sentance sums up the point I am trying to get across.

   Christy

8. hifi:
   March 25th, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

   Hi guys,
   This really isn’t the place to debate the worthiness of the Pledge. I think Noell posted this topic to find out what you would be willing to do to make the system more inclusive of and supportive of our non-religious children. If it’s not the Pledge, then some other community action. Certainly, the easiest path is stand as a critic of others’ efforts, but, at least, they are doing something.

   Still, to respond to Christy’s concerns: Naturally, religion is important to people, but in a constitutional republic, with explicit guarantees of freedom of belief, the majority is not entitled to use the government as a vehicle for promoting the dominant religious belief. Christy, do you really worry that Christians, in America, don’t have enough opportunity to express their religious belief? The fact is that the daily Pledge just does not represent us. I can’t in good conscience swear an oath that claims, without qualification, that the nation is “under god”.

   Look at it the other way around. If the Pledge said, “one nation, under no gods” I would agree that would be taking something away from religious people – just as the current Pledge takes something away from us. However, by restoring the Pledge to its former neutral language, it functions according to its original intention as a means to foster a sense of national unity in Americans. (When it was written the nation had just been torn apart by the civil war and federalism was barely popular.)

   That is a fight that Michael Newdow has taken on at the national level.

   But what we can do is to work locally with teachers, principal and administrators, to ensure that the least pressure is applied and the most options are available to all students, including ours, who by reason of belief, have been put in the position of being excluded from the Pledge. I have explained in more depth on the linked Bright’s forums and on my site Patriotism For All.

   I have to say, Christy, you sound a little naive as to the nature of the political agenda that this religious change to the Pledge was and still is a part of. It is part of a concerted, massively funded, long-term strategy to turn this country socially backwards. And now stronger than ever. Make no mistake what 50 years of conflating “nation” and “god” in the Pledge have done to convince people, by default, that there is such a thing as a god in this country, while all other modern societies have retreated from the concept.

   The Pledge is just one place where we can work on the level of the system for our children. There are many more – as in the parents suing the state for the moment of prayer in Texas. I am in contact with a parent who has organized a non-religious high-school baccalaureate – with full participation of his graduating daughter. Another project might be taking on the character education movement, with its barely disguised religious “sub-text” which is now inundating our schools. Now that the debate about the appropriate place for religion in our country has come into more prominence, there is no better time for us to take a stand – in our families, schools and communites, as well as in letters to the editor and on sites like Agnostic Mom.

9. fran:
   March 25th, 2006 @ 2:42 pm

   I liked being forced to chug in my college days . Now that I would never object too.

10. Christy:
    March 26th, 2006 @ 11:58 am

    Naïve, maybe. Opinionated, yes! I just don’t buy into the whole conspiracy theory of trying to turn our country “socially backwards“. Sure there are some politicians motivated my there religious interest, but I don’t think it is this whole movement. Even if it is, does it mean your children will believe in god because of one line in the pledge. Somewhere down the line, we agnostic individuals can up with the idea that religion is bad. Bad for us, sure. But religion is not bad. Would you honestly feel better knowing that you neighbor was an agnostic? I wouldn’t. I would feel the same. I just don’t understand this whole fight fire with fire mentality. We all know the best way to put out a flame is with calm, cold water!

    Also, there where a few entries questioning the integrity of the pledge. With or with out the “under god”. It flabbergasts me. Why would any one want to do away with one of Americas longest traditions that helps children be apart of? What is next, no longer singing the national anthem at ball games? It just seems absurd to me.

    Oh, and by the way, with every “in god we trust”, I most happily spend my dollar bills!

11. Stephanie:
    March 26th, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

    Christy, agnostics did not come up with the idea that religion was bad. Religion has proven itself through historical events to be bad. It is still proving itself to be bad today. A man in Afghanistan was going to be put to death because he became a Christian…how can religion be good when it promotes violence like this?
    I think by acting on things such as the wording of the pledge and promoting the education of our children, we are trying to prevent our country from becoming a country ruled by religion like Afghanistan is. People do not need religion to be good…we need respect and tolerance of other people.

    Also, I think you may have misunderstood some of the previous posts. As far as I can tell, nobody here has wanted to do away with the pledge. All people are trying to do is return it to its original wording…..what is wrong with that? I haven’t heard of anyone wanting to do away with the national anthem either and I don’t see why they would. There is no mention of us being “under god” in the anthem.

    The point is that our country was founded as a secular nation to prevent religions from persecuting people. It is great to be patriotic but when it comes to the point that we also become arrogant (which I think it has) it is dangerous. We can love our country and also have respect for other nations and peoples of the world.

12. Terry S:
    March 26th, 2006 @ 1:29 pm

    Christy,

    It hardly seems that you are in fact agnostic. Is religion bad? Obviously, most commenting here believe that it is. Would I like to have an agnostic or even an avowed athiest living next door? Sure. Does it matter to me that it is likely that all of my neighbors are christians? No. I don’t dislike christians, just christianity. The pledge, with “under god” inserted in it transforms it from a simply patriotic pledge to one acknowledging the existence of, and our submission to, god. It may be chiefly symbolic, but then look at how much religion relies on symbolism to reinforce its message.

    Spending “In god we trust” money? What choice do we have? Our currency is not like license plates. You can’t request the paper or coin of the realm “without” the “In god we trust” inscription substituting the name of your alma mater. I guess we non-believers could make a pact agreeing to eschew using cash, just stick to ATM and credit cards, checks, or maybe bartering. (Hey man, I’ll trade you this chicken for that six pack.) It could work.

    Religion taking this country “socially backward” may be a problem, but the more significant problem as I see it is fundamentalists, IDers and the like taking our country scientifically backward. They have in effect declared “war” on science. Fighting that war is largely the focus of Noell’s efforts as regards this site.

    And that’s the name of that tune.

    TLS

13. fran:
    March 27th, 2006 @ 12:27 pm

    Christy, It cuts much deeper than you realize . If we are going to display the ten commandments in the court house when only about 5 of them deal with all of us and the morality we wish to maintain we are we going to have to leave room for all of the other religions that are practiced in this country? If that happens are we going to have a court house left to deal with matters of justice ? God(S) have been around since the beginning of time . They have been used to justify our reason for being and to fantasize where we will end up . Variations of god(s) have been plentiful and I’m certain every one of them bore the classification of being “” The One “” and only .Maybe the god(S) we are speaking of in the allegiance should be clarified by all that believe in a god and when we get to that part everyone should say god of abraham , allah , no god , aries , vishnu, etc/ There is another term we as americans like to flaunt it’s called “united we stand ” not “for christians only “

14. hifi:
    March 27th, 2006 @ 8:59 pm

    Hey gang, is there anyone here who is willing to take action to change at the level of the system to make it more congenial to non-believers. I mean, look what blacks, women and gays have done! They have achieved rights. They can hold public office (so far atheists cannot). Atheists out number Jews 3 million to 2.5 million. People with no religon are the fastest growing of any segment in the country. And yet the percentage of atheism/agnosticism in American is 4-9% far below that of other modern societies.

    Christy it seems distrusts even herself (if she is, in fact, not just masquerading as an agnostic here). Did you know that the least trusted group of any in America is atheists? People would rather their children married gay! This is a big, big problem for us and for our children.

    So you still don’t think we need to act above and beyond raising kids free of belief in the supernatural, as citizens, deserving better representation, better respect for ourselves and the non-believing community?

15. Terry S:
    March 27th, 2006 @ 9:33 pm

    It appears that we have not responded to Noell’s query in all this blather. But, I guess when you set out a question, there are no guarantees about what kind of answers you’re going to get.

    I guess my position is that while I do object to the use of “under god” in the pledge, and I am not particularly wild about the whole idea of making a “pledge” of any kind, I doubt that I will be taking any specific action on this issue. I’m sure there are others of a similar mind set as HiFi’s who have or will throw their hats into the ring. My kids have already run the gauntlet of school and church brainwashing. They seem to have emerged more or less unscathed. We have to pick our battles. To be honest, I’m not sure exactly what “battles” I’ll be fighting. Perhaps they will all slip by me as I age gracefully like fine wine. Yeah, right! More like an old prune.

    TLS

16. fran:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 7:32 am

    Terry S , I was just sitting here wondering if you’ve ever heard of the expression “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile ” We need to stand firm or they will amass and overtake us. You will continue to live in a superficial supernatural world of fairy tales and hocus pocus canon rule if they do. If that is what you want I suggest you just sit back and do nothing.

17. Terry S:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 8:27 am

    Well, no, that’s not what I want. But as I stated, one has to pick one’s battles. I suppose my off hand comment about letting things “slip by me” fostered your rebuttal. However, I do believe that there are perhaps more pressing issues than the pledge. No one person can take up the gauntlet for every cause. I feel that the issue that Noell describes above regarding the Afghan who was to be executed for having left islam for christianity, and the larger issue of human rights abuses throughout the world are positioned higher on my list. Visit “A Complicated Salvation” and review the several cases Zoe has recently described. No one is likely to die for having been coerced into reciting the pledge of allegiance. As I stated, I am not particularly supportive of the pledge in any of its incarnations, but I don’t choose to actively work against it much beyond the discussions here in blogworld. Perhaps that will change. But, as I see it now, I believe the fight IS being fought. If, at some future time, I feel the need to join in, I will.

    TLS

18. Olga:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 9:38 am

    The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I become that this cause is worth fighting for. Although, I’ve been agnostic all my life, I never thought of the Pledge as a big deal. But now I have a 20-month old son, and I can’t help but think of his future and what kind of environment he will be growing in, which includes the school. I don’t object to the Pledge as a patriotic oath, but the expression “under god” does turn it into some sort of a prayer. And I would object to a prayer in school!

    In 1954, it was 3rd or 4th time when the Pledge underwent another change, and the words “under god” were added in order to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union. Well, that country (or countries now) has declared religious freedom more than 15 years ago. Does this fact automatically reverse the decision of 1954? No, really, if it wasn’t for the communist threat at the time, would they still add the phrase?

    Regardless of the reason why this phrase was added, I do feel strongly that it doesn’t belong in the Pledge. In fact, I think it’s a great battle to pick to fight for me as an agnostic. I will definitely look into this issue deeper and think how I can get envolved. Thanks for the post, Noell!

19. Christy:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 1:47 pm

    Ok, I’ll admit I jumped the gun, using this pledge issue as my platform. The integrity of the pledge is a hot button for me. The truth is some of the time when I read over some of the posting and/or entries I feel such negativity. In a perfect world I agree that the “under god” should be removed in the classroom. There is just so much turmoil in the world regarding religion I don’t understand why anyone would want to continue the “fighting”. I still stand by my statement that religion is not bad. Absurd and misguiding, but not bad. It brings a lot of people happiness. Who I am to judge something that makes someone happy when it doesn’t hurt me!?! Sure I could tell a devoted christian what kind of lady I really think Mary was (I’m sure a lot of teenage girls would like to believe god impregnated them!) But the truth is that would most likely make that devoted christian upset. Chances are they wouldn’t change their mind. So why would I want to upset someone when to me it is only words. One of the most annoying things about religion is their need to convert. I don’t need any one knocking on my door during dinner. Some times it seems that a lot of you feel the need to convert people into your way of thinking. I just don’t have the need to have more people feel like me on this issue. I am in fact, by definition (a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a god or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena), an agnostic. I’ll admit I am not an atheism. That would mean I know. I don’t know and I’m ok not knowing. And I’ll admit I am ignorant when it comes to the science aspect. Only recently, after reading this blog, have I thought to start giving it much thought. Religion has never harmed me nor did me wrong. Maybe the difference here is I had religious freedom growing up. My mother never sheltered me from any religion and never tried to guide me one way or the other. Maybe that is why I don’t have this built up angry towards religion as some of you do. I ask you how has religion harmed you (in the western world)?

20. fran:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

    imagine there’s no heaven It’s easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today whoo hoo Imagine there’s no countries It isn’t hard to do Nothing to kill or die for and “no” religion too… Imagine all the people Living life in peace whooo hooo You may say I’m a dreamer……. but I’m not the only one…I hope some day you will join us ………… and the world will be as one……………………………….. and to think, he was shot dead by a christian youth minister imagine that

21. hifi:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

    Christy,
    How does unquestioned acceptance of religion harm us in America? Again, you seem rather naive on the subject.

    First, as more fully explained at the Patriotism for All site, my kids don’t get to express and develop their patriotism with other kids at school. It is a sense of community, not something you can learn by sitting on the sidelines or at home.

    Second, no atheist or agnostic in this country can get elected to public position because of public perception. That is a big deal. Recently a woman and an agnostic was elected President in Chile. It will never happen here and we will not be fairly represented (there are, after all, more of us than there are Jews) unless we can change American attitudes.

    Third, atheists are the least trusted group in America. That hurts me and my kids in untold ways.

    Fourth, it has been proven through research that less religious societies have less social dysfunction (abortion, homicide, drug use, teen pregnancy, general crime). It better for society on almost every level.

    Fifth, fundamentalists have ramped up playing politics to a level the Knights of Columbus, who agitated for years to insert “under God” in the pledge in their quest to make America a Christian nation, could only dream of.

    Now Christians throughout the country are electing everyone from school board members to legislators at every level who are passing initiatives including (and here is a short list):

    - intelligent design
    - abstinence
    - only sex education
    - banning choice for women
    - defunding family planning orgs throughout the world
    - trying to make Christianity the state religion (Missouri)
    - religious tests for employment by church organizations receiving federal funds
    - and not least, believing that the future is in Jesus’ hands so we don’t need to be concerned with the environment or conservation or global warming – which everyone is now predicting will be the biggest world-wide disaster in recorded history

    Lastly, here’s a little insight for you into the fundamentalist agenda.

    RECONSTRUCTIONISM

    In his excellent 1996 book, With God on Our Side, William Martin used a sampling of the views of several noted Reconstructionists to give a sense of how a Reconstructed America would be:

    “- The federal government would play no role in regulating business, public education, or welfare. Some government would be visible at the level of counties, but citizens would be answerable to church authorities on most matters subject to regulation: income taxes would not exceed ten percent – the biblical tithe – and social security would disappear.

    - Public schools would be abolished in favor of home-schooling arrangements, and families would operate on a strict patriarchal pattern.

    - The only people permitted to vote would be members of ‘biblically correct’ churches.

    - Most notably, a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning.

    - A reconstructed America would have little room for Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or even non-Reconstructionist Christians. ‘The Christian’, one Reconstructionist author has asserted, ‘must realize that pluralism is a myth. R.J. Rushdoony, also regards pluralism as a heresy, since, in the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions.”

    Take a look at the Dark Ages, ending with the Inquistion and burning people at the stake. That was 1,000 years of Christianity in control of government. Obviously, the less of it the better. People originally came to America to be free of repression. I want to be free of repression, don’t you?

    Don’t just sit there, do something!

22. Christy:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 3:51 pm

    Don’t be confused by the actions of one person. You can not blame Christianity for one persons actions.

23. Terry S:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 5:20 pm

    Just a quick comment about defining atheism as opposed to agnosticism. I am an athiest. I do not believe in the existence of any god. As I have said a number of times, I don’t KNOW that no god exists, but I do not BELIEVE in the existence of god. An athiest no more KNOWS that god doesn’t exist than a christian KNOWS that he (she, it) does. An agnostic is one who has not decided what she or he BELIEVES. I have decided. If I’m wrong, there will be hell to pay.

    TLS

24. Noell:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 5:46 pm

    Oops, Terry S. Your definition of agnosticism needs some polishing. Agnostic means it is impossible to know. I don’t believe in gods, but I can’t prove they don’t exist, therefore my worldview is agnostic. My personal belief is atheistic, but because I can’t prove it, I call myself agnostic.

    A few people may call themselves agnostic because they haven’t decided. But that has no relation to the definition of agnosticism. Many of us, including Michael Shermer, have no belief in gods but choose to call ourselves agnostic because we think it is philosophically sound.

    BTW, everybody, in case you are still doubting Christy’s agnosticism, she is actually a friend of mine! She just has different views about religion than the majority of commentors here. I say commentors because I am sure there are many READERS who agree with Christy.

    Personally, I don’t want to take people’s religions away from them either. I am more concerned about improving our reputation as a group. I’d like more people to accept our atheism and agnosticism without assuming we must be evil. I DO want to see religion playing a lesser role in politics. I’d love to see our atheist and agnostic population grow. But I don’t think it requires a complete erradication of all religion.

25. hifi:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 6:18 pm

    Christy,
    One person? Christian political organizations millions strong? Fundamentalist dominated school boards and legislatures. The article in question collects the common views among several dominionist organizations. Please click on the link to Reconstructionsim. (But you would still be mistaken to care so little if that one person is the President of the U.S., which there is very good reason to believe – in which case, we all are in deep doo-doo.)

    Are you sure you are agnostic and a parent? Your casual, off-handed statements belie that and are getting hard to take seriously. If you have any real questions or considerations that are responsive to what I and others have said, I’m sure we’ll all be happy to engage you.

    Terry,
    I’d like to clarify. Atheists run up against this false argument alot, “You can’t prove there is no god,” therefore the fact of god is still in play. Huh? They wish…

    Listen, just because you can’t prove I didn’t once walk on water doesn’t give any more substance to my assertion that I did. If I can’t do it again, with skeptics checking for tricks, there is no reason to consider my claim at all. It isn’t that my claim is proven false, just empty.

    By the same token, atheists do no make any statement of belief; i.e., it is not true that atheists believe that god does not exist. Atheists simply deny the claim of others that god does exist. The claim is empty: ridiculous on the face of it and lacking any evidence whatsoever.

    Just as with any other unnecessary or outrageous claim, one cannot and need not prove the negative of it. This especially applies when a simpler explanation, one with evidence, is available that makes the questionable claim silly and unnecessary.

    Remember, the burden of proof is always on the claimant – especially in the case where the claim is outrageous, unnecessary or both. A lot of hot air is sufficient to its own undoing.

26. Terry S:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 7:10 pm

    I guess we have evolved (myself included) to splitting semantic hairs here. As to how I define the terms agnostic vs atheist, we seem to differ. I don’t “believe” in the existence of a god. When I say I don’t “know” god doesn’t exist, I say that in respect to the fact that I can’t “prove” it. I agree with HiFi that as the assertion of god’s existence is based on NO evidence, it is therefore, specious at best. Therein lay the basis of my atheism. I don’t feel the need to prove the negative, but it would be presumptive of me to completely deny the possibility of god.

    Noell,

    Dictionary.com profers the following definitions for agnostic:

    One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
    One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
    One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

    Perhaps we are both right, but I’ll continue to polish.

    TLS

27. Gregg100:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 8:57 pm

    At the great risk of sounding like a PITA, I lament that once again a Humanist blog or website has fallen into the black hole discussion of the existence or nonexistence of a deity. I continue to believe that such discussion is neither fruitful nor do I believe it is relevant. The key is the whether someone accepts the second axiom of secularism; i.e., the primacy of existence over consciousness or vice versa. Put another way, either you believe that existents have an identity and associated nature that is not influenced by thought processes or you believe that some form of thought processes such as praying or wishing will somehow influence the actions of existents either according to their nature or outside their nature (a miracle?). Such belief, one way or the other, will influence the way people will conduct their lives. So no matter what label you aspire to, the question is, do you pray or not? I do not and have no idea nor do I think it is important whether that renders me an Atheist, Agnostic, Secularist or all or none of the above.

28. Noell:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

    Ok, Terry, that’s new to me. Agnosticism can go both ways. But please remember both meanings when you define it because I choose to call myself agnostic and clearly you know I have made my decision and that I live my life without any thought that a god may exist.

    But you’re right, we’re going back to the least of our concerns, which is semantics. There is a broad spectrum between hard-core atheists and soft-agnostics like Christy. Obviously we have our differences and we should discuss them. But on a whole, maybe we can unite on the most common issues between us.

29. Christy:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 10:41 pm

    Hifi, my comment in regard to one christian was for fran. When I wrote that your entry was not yet here.

30. Christy:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 10:58 pm

    Hifi, please help me understand. When you made the comment about my statements being “belie”. Was it a misunderstanding because of a timing error of the last entry or do you feel that way about all of my entries? I do have further question and concerns I would like to discuss with you, but only if I am being taking “seriously.

31. Terry S:
    March 28th, 2006 @ 11:14 pm

    We’ve been kind of beating each other up over all this, and I blame myself as much as anyone. This whole discussion took off in an unintended direction. Of course, Gregg100 is correct. The labels don’t much matter. When it comes down to it, none of us pray – in earnest at any rate.

    Conditioning does have its effects, though. I think I’m finally getting beyond it, but for many years, whenever I said anything that would be considered sacreligious or even blasphemous, I would on reflex mentally and sometimes even physically duck in expectation of that predicted lightning bolt. Haven’t been struck yet.

    I wonder how many of us continue to use phrases like “Thank god the brakes worked.” or “What in heaven’s name were you thinking?” and so on. Or how many of us still swear uttering “goddammit!”, or “jesuschrist!” Again, it’s a matter of conditioning, and common usage. In the end it matters not. But just as with certain obscenities, they just work. Having been an actor for a number of years, I learned that most epithets and obscenities work simply because of the way they sound. By and large, they are great declamatory words and phrases owing to their having good hard and sometimes plosive consonents.

    There I go again. Digressing. Sorry.

    TLS

32. Christy:
    March 29th, 2006 @ 7:16 am

    Terry S., that is funny. I was just thinking about the phrase I always seem to catch my self saying, “Oh my god!” What is really funny is it took my almost three year old to start saying it to make me realize how much I am saying it. I guess overall it is a better phrase then some of the others she could start repeating!

33. hifi:
    March 29th, 2006 @ 11:37 am

    Label-wise, I like the way Bertrand Russell put it in “Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?”. This speaks to how we should present ourselves in the public arena to others as a force for rationality and secularism.

    “As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

    On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.”

    So for you agnostics, are you equally agnostic about Zeus and Thor, the elephant-headed, multi-armed Ganesh, and the Zuni corn gods? Taken in context of what we know and don’t know about gods, isn’t it easier just to say, “That’s absurd! I’m not even going to consider believing that.” and then push back if the believers attempt legislate these crazy ideas on others.

    The way we label ourselves can give a pretty good idea of the active positions people are willing to take. Which brings us back to our topic of civil action. I find that, in general, atheists are more willing to take a firm stance against supernaturalism, to not let preposterous statements and religiously based policy decisions slide. Few if any agnostic forums talking intellectual integrity, science and politics out there, but all the atheist and Bright ones do.

    Here’s a quote on the subject from Sam Harris’s “Atheist Manifesto” (can’t get more political than that title!), who believes, as I do, that coddling religious people (because they are doing no harm and, after all, who really knows) is dangerous.

    “It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines.

    Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence — and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.

    Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.”

34. fran:
    March 29th, 2006 @ 11:52 am

    If you start with absolutely nothing. Where does the “thought ” of god come from ? You say you can’t prove there is one. Well, where did the one you can’t prove exists come from ? The term “god” exists because people with vivid imaginations need to rely on fantasy to justify existance .That is ghostly supernaturalism. Just make it all up and hope for the best. That is not only irrational but absurd !!!

35. hifi:
    March 29th, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

    However, labels are not relevant to public action where we are asking the government to be neutral. One statement I have often used in speaking with teachers and school board members, is that anytime we need to ask someone what they believe to decide a matter of public policy, we know we have violated basic principals of our form of Republican government. I have never said anything anything to them about my personal beliefs. And there is the problem.

    Try not standing for the Pledge sometime. Why should anyone be able to suspect that you are not religious, or worse, not patriotic because you are not religious because of one’s personal beliefs? But for many people you might as well being the red arm band that the Nazis made the Jews wear as identification. Maybe you don’t stand just because you don’t believe the government should promote religious statements to public school children. There was a recent case of a Mennonite in Virgina who sued for the reason that he felt the Pledge was contaminating religion with government!

    What it seems everyone so far has overlooked in this topic is that my actions with my school have diffused this predicament for my children: the education code now explicitly states that the Pledge is optional, there was a training for teachers and staff in the entire district on it such that they are not allowed to coax or even question a sitting student, the language for announcing the Pledge now says clearly, “if you choose to say the Pledge, please stand”. The upshot is that where last year, only my child sat in her assemblies with other students telling her “you should stand”, this year, on any given day several students in my girls’ classes will be found sitting.

    My latest action has been to inform and support teachers in their right to conduct any activity they choose in their classrooms. This has resulted in many Pledge free days. In one case, in an entire month free of the Pledge. Also want to ad that last year my child’s teacher was black and never said the Pledge because she thought “liberty and justice for all” was a joke. Now that the Pledge is conducted over the PA with the new language, she was feeling compelled to do it. Now she doesn’t.

    I want to add, that many teachers are liberal (after all, folks, religion in this country is now political) and can be great allies. I even found when I took my complaint to the state level, that the Deputy Consel for the state Superintendent’s office was in full sympathy (she is married to a Japanese man whose parents were interned during WWII) and gave me a lot of ideas on how to legally go back to emphasize teachers’ choice in the matter.

    You don’t know what you can do, if you don’t try.

36. fran:
    March 29th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm

    Bravo!!! Idealistically they know they are wrong ,but until someone offers to challenge them they will continue to abuse the system. I think it’s deplorable. They will completely flip an issue to make it appear as though they themselves are being persecuted when they know that’s not the case at all. When you stand on the other side of the issue you actually get to see there savage nature. In the old days many times it was to late . You burned at the stake…

37. dudley:
    March 29th, 2006 @ 8:13 pm

    The pledge is not a huge issue with me, although some here do not like the idea of the pledge, god or no god. I don’t mind the original pledge — actually I really like that version. It’s patriotic, but not overly jingoistic.
    Here’s how it sounds out loud:
    original version

38. hifi:
    March 30th, 2006 @ 4:05 pm

    Well, while we sit on our hands wondering what could be important enough to our values to do something about, conservative Christians are organized and acting. Froo them, no item is too small for them to consider in promoting their agenda.

    Question: if the religious fundamentalists in America find the Pledge to be of such importance to promoting religion as to make it the top item on their list, why is it that naturalists, agnotics and secularists don’t seem to mind much.

    (CNSNews.com)
    Religious conservatives call for congressional action
    By Julia Duin
    The Washington Times
    Published March 28, 2006

    WASHINGTON — A summit of evangelical Christians and conservative Catholic and Jewish activists yesterday produced a “Values Voters’ Contract with Congress,” an outline of what the religiously minded expect their elected representatives to bring about in the near future.

    The “Values Voters’ Contract” lists 10 aims, including legislation to keep the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; laws guaranteeing greater religious freedoms in the workplace; prohibiting human cloning and embryo research; and defending he family; and guaranteeing a “right to life” to all children before birth.

    “It’s time for the values voters to tell the government what we expect of them,” said the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of the Lufkin, Texas-based Vision America, which organized the summit. “This contract tells Congress they can count on our vote if these things become front-burner issues.”

    It also addresses President Bush, Mr. Scarborough added.

    “With all this discussion of marriage before the election,” he said, “we just heard a State of the Union message where there was no mention of a marriage amendment.”

    The “contract” was released at a “War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006″ conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, where speakers painted a gloomy picture of a war by “neo-pagans” against “values voters” for about 300 listeners.

    “Let’s not say, ‘Oh, it’s not that bad,’ ” said the Rev. Tristan Emmanuel, director of the Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre in Jordan Station, Ontario. Secularists, he added, practice “Christophobia,” which he deemed “an irrational fear of anything Christ-based.”

    “When you listen to their rejection of our participation in the public square, it’s visceral,” he said.

    Ron Luce, president of Teen Mania Ministries of Garden Valley, Texas, told the audience that only 4 percent of today’s “millennial” generation of teenagers are evangelical Christians able to transform the culture.

    “If we only have 4 percent, we all lose,” he said. “We look at ‘In God We Trust’ on our money and think [losing] it will never happen.”

    Five Jewish speakers on one of the afternoon panels seemed unconcerned by other speakers’ rhetoric about “losing Christian dominance of America” by noting that their safety depends on the existence of evangelicals.

    Jokingly referring to the quintet as “Jewish co-conspirators on the religious right,” Jeff Ballabon of the New York-based Center for Jewish Values said today’s culture wars “aren’t just a war on Christians.”

    “This is a war on America, a war on God and a war on all believers,” he said.

    “Our battle,” said Rabbi Aryeh Spero, president of Caucus for America, “is the battle of the ages, and that’s of great import. We are aligned with Elijah, with Jesus and with Moses.”

    Values voters are believers aligned against pagans, he said, adding, “Elijah went up against the pagans of his day. We should be happy this day we can fight the battle of God.”

39. Noell:
    March 30th, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

    Hifi–interesting article! I sent a link to the editor of HNN so if he wants he can put it in the Media Roundup section of the ezine.

    “A War on America?” Funny how they equate all things Christian with being American.

    This is a good time to start writing letters to the editors everybody! You can respond to this article, either at the original website, or refer to it in a letter to your own local newspaper. Copy and paste it into a comment here at AgnosticMom.

40. hifi:
    April 1st, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

    How many here have repeatedly announced their apathy when it comes to promoting our civic position? Take a look the what just happened in Georgia? There is nothing passive about these people. They believe in the value of getting their viewpoints known to the point of indocrination. They are earnest, dedicated and organized. I don’t think you should need me to post an entry like this every day – and I could – in order to get it.

    Where are the parents among us advocating a class on supernaturalism and superstition? Or one on the fundamental importance of secularism to a democratic society. In the interest of equal treatment, shouldn’t every viewpoint have an elective class? Tolerance is not OK, if it only goes one way – us tolerant of them.

    Certainly, the casual, unquestioned conflation of god and country in the Pledge makes it easy for the everyday American citizen, who believes in secular government and diversity, to accept this kind of thing. It goes to explain why there was no debate when this passed.

    Georgia House OKs Bible study in public high schools

    “(Atlanta, Georgia-AP) March 20, 2006 – A bill that allows public high schools to offer classes on the Bible sped through the Georgia House Monday, passing overwhelmingly with no debate.

    The legislation, which passed 151-7, would allow high schools to form elective courses on the history and literature of the Old Testament and New Testament eras. The classes would focus on the law, morals, values and culture of the eras.

    State Representative James Mills, the proposal’s House sponsor, said the legislation would withstand a court challenge because it treats the Bible as an educational supplement.

    Under the proposal, the Old Testament and New Testament would be the primary text for each class and the local school board would decide which version of the text to use.”

41. fran:
    April 2nd, 2006 @ 11:43 am

    Funny that you mention that hi-fi . I wrote a generalized letter to a senator from Atlanta . Even though Im not a resident of Ga. I wanted to plant a seed in the mind of representative Janelle Shantele . I told her I was interested in a startup elective for secular humanists and I knew someone who would like to introduce Bhuddism in Georgia Public Schools and I wondered how to go about that procedurally. She said to petition my local rep. Where are their brains , hmmmmmmm it must be the water……

42. Darkpath:
    April 19th, 2006 @ 6:19 am

    Comment for Christy and others who would have their kids rote learning and stupidly reciting a pledge of allegiance. A question: Are you crazy? Perhaps it is because I am imbued with a healthy dose of British cynicism but pledging your allegiance to a country run by flawed individuals seems a little bit silly. The pressure that this puts on individuals to tow the country line and not to question their country is enormous. Kids will be thinking that it is somehow wrong to question the policies of their government. What you then get is a government that can basically do whatever they want and justify it under the badge of patriotism (for example: the appropriately titled Patriot Act – a piece of legislature right up there with UK ID cards and mandatory Hitler youth conscription). The fact of the matter is for a democracy to be healthy it must be questioned. If everybody is brainwashed into believing that their thoughts, ideals and country are somehow better than others, you undermine this basic tenant!

    I lived in South Africa for a while when I was younger and apartheid was in full swing. The government of the time had everybody singing to the flag and pledging allegiance. Add to that control of the media and rigged elections (Florida anybody?) and you have a recipe for disaster. The parallels with America are becoming frightening.

    Oh, and don’t get me started on the “Under God” addition. Pledging allegiance to a mythical deity is the height of stupidity. Why don’t you just ask Zeus to elevate you as the chosen people?

43. Eddie Marotske:
    June 11th, 2007 @ 6:29 am

    I also grew up in the day where the pledge was said everyday I was in Elementary school. I may not have known what it all meant at the time, but looking back it sure wasn’t a bad thing either. We had one little girl who I believe was a Jehova’s Witness and she was never “forced” to stand up and say anything. She merely sat there and when those of us who were done reciting it, we picked up with class as usual.

    The Supreme Court ruled in 1953 that noone could be forced to stand up and recite the Pledge. They made that ruling a year before President Eisenhower had the words “Under God” included. What was unconsitutional in the pledge at that time? There were 3 total revisions to the pledge and each revision made that oath stronger. Because of our rights concerning seperation of Church and State I can understand (to a certain extent) why some people don’t want to say “Under God” but prior to that entry there was nothing for anyone to complain about.

    Its a wonder how people refuse to show their allegiance to the very country that allows them the freedoms that they have. Its amazing that patriotism is talked about as if its a no brainer for people. Sure, on 9/11 the flags came out and it was exceptional. Is the only time we can show our outward expression of our loyalty to our country when our way of life is threatend? No other country has what this country offers. And for those who want the pledge abolished and for prayer abolished because they feel it is their right are forgetting that those of us who want to recite the pledge, those of us who want to pray in school, those of us who want those rights that helped establish this country have the same ights as those who seem to despise them. For every one person who refuses to want to say the pledge there are 1000 more who do. Why does the majority have to bend to every will and demand of the minority? Is that fair?

    I love this country. I have served it in the Marine Corps for 21 years, and for the record….I lean to the left…..I think however that those people who continue to try and take freedom away in support of their own adgenda fail to realize they are attempting to stifle the rights of others.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>