Monotheism

[slydevl]

Is a doctrine, not a religion.

Discuss.

[Superfluous_Nut]

indeed. as are polytheism, humanism, naturalism, etc.

[BigVito]

Is a doctrine, not a religion.

Discuss.You are right. Good topic.

[slydevl]

indeed. as are polytheism, humanism, naturalism, etc.

If you are being serious, then by what grounds can you demand the removal of the word God from anything under the 1st?

[Superfluous_Nut]

If you are being serious, then by what grounds can you demand the removal of the word God from anything under the 1st?
huh?

yes, monotheism isn't a religion. it's a category of religions -- those with one god. as opposed to other categories of religions -- polytheistic and atheistic ones.

i read the 1st ammendment to mean that government should not favor one religion over another. by stating that our official motto is "in god we trust", we're putting all monotheistic religions ahead of all polytheistic and atheistic ones. which seem counter to the 1st ammendment.

can i ask why having "god" on money is so important?

[slydevl]

huh?

yes, monotheism isn't a religion. it's a category of religions -- those with one god. as opposed to other categories of religions -- polytheistic and atheistic ones.

i read the 1st ammendment to mean that government should not favor one religion over another. by stating that our official motto is "in god we trust", we're putting all monotheistic religions ahead of all polytheistic and atheistic ones. which seem counter to the 1st ammendment.

can i ask why having "god" on money is so important?

I guess the same reason removing it is to you. It is important isn't it? I'm sorry but a category of religions is not a religion as required by the 1st. You see, it is a category of religions, or a doctrine, like you said. Big difference.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I guess the same reason removing it is to you. It is important isn't it?

yeah, i guess it is. not because of the actual words, but because they're an indicator of national thought. if people didn't pitch a fit about the idea of removing it, then i wouldn't feel strongly about it either.


I'm sorry but a category of religions is not a religion as required by the 1st. You see, it is a category of religions, or a doctrine, like you said. Big difference.is that right, mr clinton?

are you saying, then, that the federal government could legally outlaw monotheism? i mean, it's not a religion, right?

[slydevl]

yeah, i guess it is. not because of the actual words, but because they're an indicator of national thought. if people didn't pitch a fit about the idea of removing it, then i wouldn't feel strongly about it either.

To be honest words on money and the pledge are irrelevant to me. What I'm railing against is the slippery slope and what I percieve to be hostility not just ambivilence toward religion.

is that right, mr clinton?

I knew you would appreciate that :)

are you saying, then, that the federal government could legally outlaw monotheism? i mean, it's not a religion, right?

Sure, I guess they could. What good would it do though? They would have problems enforcing it when it came to telling Muslims, Presbyterians, and Catholics they couldn't worship.

[Superfluous_Nut]

To be honest words on money and the pledge are irrelevant to me. What I'm railing against is the slippery slope and what I percieve to be hostility not just ambivilence toward religion.
maybe the hostility isn't towards the religion, but towards the idea that the nation is supposed to be religious. it's like late term abortion. abortion rights activists demand that all abortion is legal because they fear any errosion of the right to abortion is a slippery slope that leads to the eventual dissolusion of all legal abortions.

i don't see it that way, myself. i have no problems severly limiting late term abortions (basically, only performing them when the mother's health is severly put at risk).


Sure, I guess they could. What good would it do though? They would have problems enforcing it when it came to telling Muslims, Presbyterians, and Catholics they couldn't worship.wtf? you're saying that it's okay to ban GROUPS of religions, so long as you don't use a particular religion's name? by "okay" i mean consistent with the constitution. is that your position for real?

[slydevl]

maybe the hostility isn't towards the religion, but towards the idea that the nation is supposed to be religious. it's like late term abortion. abortion rights activists demand that all abortion is legal because they fear any errosion of the right to abortion is a slippery slope that leads to the eventual dissolusion of all legal abortions.

i don't see it that way, myself. i have no problems severly limiting late term abortions (basically, only performing them when the mother's health is severly put at risk).

wtf? you're saying that it's okay to ban GROUPS of religions, so long as you don't use a particular religion's name? by "okay" i mean consistent with the constitution. is that your position for real?

I'm saying banning monotheism would be meaningless because they could not enforce it.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I'm saying banning monotheism would be meaningless because they could not enforce it.
so do you agree it would be unconstitutional to ban monotheism? or are you just saying monotheists are natural law-breakers?

[slydevl]

so do you agree it would be unconstitutional to ban monotheism? or are you just saying monotheists are natural law-breakers?

I'm saying they could ban the doctrine but not the religions that apply the doctrine under the 1st.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I'm saying they could ban the doctrine but not the religions that apply the doctrine under the 1st.
so you can ban monotheism, just not the religions that are monotheistic? have you been drinking?

monotheism is a category of religions. how can you ban a category of religions, but not the religions in that category? you're not making any sense.

[slydevl]

so you can ban monotheism, just not the religions that are monotheistic? have you been drinking?

monotheism is a category of religions. how can you ban a category of religions, but not the religions in that category? you're not making any sense.

They have banned obscenity. But they still have to look at every obscenity case to see if it might be protected by the 1st.

[slydevl]

The 1st says "an establishment of religion" not religions or category of religions.

IMO it does not prohibit favoring a category of religions over another category but a distinct flavor of that category over another. IE. Catholic over Presbyterian

[Miss tery]

Monotheism? (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm)

[Superfluous_Nut]

They have banned obscenity. But they still have to look at every obscenity case to see if it might be protected by the 1st.
lemme see if i follow...

i'm assuming your making a parallel betwen "obscenity" and "monotheism" (purely in the abstract) since that's what we're talking about banning.

they still have to look at every obscenity case, which implies they'd have to look at every monotheism case as well.

so are you saying that when they look at a specific monotheism case, they'd have to say it's not bannable because now they're specific to a religion? if so, that's a pretty strange take.

[Superfluous_Nut]

The 1st says "an establishment of religion" not religions or category of religions.

IMO it does not prohibit favoring a category of religions over another category but a distinct flavor of that category over another. IE. Catholic over Presbyterian
a couple of things.

first off, you're reading it as though there's an "a" in there (establishment of "a" religion). without it, we're talking about religion in general.

secondly, even if the wording was "a religion" then you're assuming that the prohibition of "establishing of a religion" is not applicable if you establish more than one religion. it would be like leaving somebody instructions "not to spend a cent on junk food" with the expectation that they'd interpret that as "you can spend money on junk food, so long as you spend more than one cent".

your best argument is going to be focused on the word "establishment".

[slydevl]

a couple of things.

first off, you're reading it as though there's an "a" in there (establishment of "a" religion). without it, we're talking about religion in general.

secondly, even if the wording was "a religion" then you're assuming that the prohibition of "establishing of a religion" is not applicable if you establish more than one religion. it would be like leaving somebody instructions "not to spend a cent on junk food" with the expectation that they'd interpret that as "you can spend money on junk food, so long as you spend more than one cent".

your best argument is going to be focused on the word "establishment".

Lets step throught this again.

1. You have agreed that monotheism is not a religion.You have claimed that it is a class of religions. I would say it is a class of classes of religions (Protestant, Non-Protestant, etc).

2. You have argued that the word "God " in the pledge promotes monotheism.

3. The 1st bans the establishment of religion.

4. If monotheism is not a religion how can the 1st ban it?

Lets look at the definition of religion:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Option 1a would be the closest to applying but b specifies that it has to be institutionalized or personal system which monotheism as a whole is not a system.

Check out option 4!!!!! Man wouldn't that open a huge can of worms. Look out PETA!

[Superfluous_Nut]

Lets step throught this again.

1. You have agreed that monotheism is not a religion.You have claimed that it is a class of religions. I would say it is a class of classes of religions (Protestant, Non-Protestant, etc).

2. You have argued that the word "God " in the pledge promotes monotheism.

3. The 1st bans the establishment of religion.

4. If monotheism is not a religion how can the 1st ban it?

religion = "vehicles"
monotheism = "wheeled vehicles"
christianity = "automobile"

to rephrase your question:

1. you have agreed that "wheeled vehicles" is not a "vehicle". you have claimed that it is a class of "vehicles".

2. you have argued that the pledge promotes "wheeled vehicles"

3. the 1st bans the establishment of "vehicles"

4. if "wheeled vehicles" is not a "vehicle" how can the 1st ban it?

answer: because banning the larger group (vehicles, or religions) would effectively ban the smaller subgroups (wheeled vehicles, or monotheism).


Lets look at the definition of religion:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Option 1a would be the closest to applying but b specifies that it has to be institutionalized or personal system which monotheism as a whole is not a system.

Check out option 4!!!!! Man wouldn't that open a huge can of worms. Look out PETA!
i would be just as upset if a christian sermon was held at a public school as i would if PETA came to give their spiel.