This is our visitors comment section. You are welcome to email us any comments you have to be added here, or go to out blog at
http://backyardskeptics.com/blog
Go to the bottom of the BLOG. click on 'comments' and add your comment.
8-23-10
My husband is in China for a business meeting. Here's something he wrote:
I went to the foreign language bookstore here (which is a weird mixture of tentative capitalism and controlled distribution - the English literature section is mainly Dickens and John Reed) and bought an English- language (sort of) book on Chinese literature. Anyway, they reckon Chinese civilization really started with the Zhou dynasty ( the third) and you might be interested that Hou Ji's mother -- Hou Ji is the ancestor of the Zhou people-- gave a virgin birth. This was about 1100 BC. This Chinese writer explains to the reader that there is a similar story in the West about Jesus, but says that unlike Hou Ji's mother, Mary and Joseph didn't "give him the cold shoulder". Hou Ji's mom abandoned him 3 times but the oxen, birds, etc. protected him.
Interesting story - in this case there weren't angels involved, but Hou Ji's mom trod on God's big toe print and got pregnant that way.
March 15, 2010, Orange County Register, Letter to the Editor:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Thursday ruling NEWDOW v. RIO LINDA USD, affirmed the Constitutionality of under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
In their 60 page ruling the Court said The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation. In this they are wrong: under God in the Pledge does not unite, it is divisive.
They further said that when Congress added under God to the Pledge Congress ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism. Since the Pledge was recited to inspire patriotisms without these words for 62 years, from 1892 to 1954, more people accepted it as a patriotic inspiration before God was brought into it.
The recitation of the Pledge implies that the nation is under the rules of God rather than under the Constitution. While a portion of the public may desire for the U.S. to be a religious nation, the founders, when they wrote the Constitution, clearly wanted to establish a secular nation. The country may be said to be a Christian country since a majority of the population is Christian but the Nation and its founding document are intentionally secular.
I agree with Judge Reinhardt in his 133 page dissenting opinion:
Only a desire to change the rules regarding the separation of church and state or an unwillingness to place this court on the unpopular side of a highly controversial dispute regarding both patriotism and religion could explain the decision the members of the majority reach here and the lengths to which their muddled and self-contradictory decision goes in order to reach the result they do.
To put it bluntly, no judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as todays majority purports to do, that the words under God were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one:
Ernst G
This is a continuing email betwen me and a Christian friend of mine. (latest email on top)
from Alan: Yes it does make sense. I still do not believe that we should change our money or the pledge of alligence for a small minority.
If we do then another small minority will want something else changed and where will it end.
I will still pray for all the nonbelievers whether they like it or not.
from Bruce:
I believe that non-believers respect those who wish to pray whenever they want and long as it is not
sponsored by any government entity - For instance, if before a public high school football game (part of the government) lead a Christian prayers at a high school, that would be illegal, however, it is not illegal for anyone to pray on their own without government sponsorship. If you disagree with this, maybe you'd consider how upset you'd be if there was a wiccan or Muslim prayer sponsored by the school. Of course if you were at a private school, you could have any sponsorship prayer you wanted. Does this make sense?
Bruce
from Alan: They already have those rights. It has been tried for the duration of civilization and you will never seperate the two. I never try to convert anyone but I also have the right to pray as do sport figures on the field. these people have the right to use only plastic instead of cash and not watch sports.
from Bruce:
Of all the atheist I have met, none of the try and persuade the people around them to become christians. Most are not militaistic and simply want ot believe in the same thing our founding fathers wanted - to have church and state separation and to have the same rights as believers.
from Alan: I believe they are just trying to upset the applecart. I really do not care as much about the money as i do about the Pledge of Alligence.I actually do care about the money. I firmly believe , In God we trust, all others pay cash. I am very much looking forward to the Cat house ride. Alan
from Bruce:
If you mean the 14% than are non believers, I think they dont want to take god away from everyone else, they seem to want the same rights as believers. Ive talked to atheists that say they are against placing 'there is not god' on our money just as much as 'in god we trust' on our money. That jus means they dont want ANY type (religious or irreligious) comments made by our government - wouldnt you agree?
from Alan: Because 14% of the people are louder than than the 86% that are to complacent.
from Bruce: why do you think god is being taken out of our land?
from Alan: 'They' (the atheists) are trying to take God away from us and out of America
|
|