Monotheism

Is a doctrine, not a religion.

Discuss.

 

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

 

You are right. Good topic.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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?

 

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.

I knew you would appreciate that

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.

 

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.