Danospano said:
Let me correct myself: I did intend to say "bible-thumping morons" but is there really much of a difference? LOL.
Okay, just so we all know: I was also raised Baptist, which may been the reason I'm so passionately independent at the present time. That's a whole other topic, so I'll stick with the subject. My mother is a non-church going Christian as is my sister, grandmothers, grandfather, cousins, etc. My father is the non-religious one. I suppose I was blessed to grow up with two contrasting faiths in one household. It made me stronger and helped me figure out the true faith. Faith in one's self.
I have a question. Anyone can answer it. Here it is.....
Why SHOULD we have religious prayer within the schools, government, etc? It seems like everyone assumes we argue why it SHOULDN'T, but the question is never phrased in the opposite form. Please tell me why we need to verbally 'praise the lord (God)" outside of our own homes or churches?
Glad to see you meant "Bible-thumping," though I still think that if you must call Christians a Bible-thumping moron, you should probably be clear that you are referring to a VERY select group. The best case would be to not be so derisive of anyone else's religious beliefs.
That said, I believe I know why the discussion isn't centered around "why we need to verbally 'praise the lord'." The argument arose not out of Congress's efforts to change the "under God" clause of the Pledge, but rather a court deciding that the clause is simply unconstitutional.
A Congressional bill would generate the argument, "What are the benefits, what are the costs, and are the costs worth it?"
The court decision focuses on (and SHOULD focus on) a single question: "Is the clause forbidden in the Constitution?"
Hence, the current form of the argument.
But in response to your question, off the top of my head, I can think of three benefits of public (i.e., governmental) acknowledgement of God:
1) In a country with a GREAT deal of personal freedom, self-restraint is absolutely necessary. Responsibility without freedom is slavery; more important to this discussion, freedom without responsibility brings chaos.
A country as free as ours requires good citizens. Historically, religion does more good than harm in creating a moral people.
(Note, however, that if good citizenry were the primary reason to promote religion, religion would cease to accomplish that goal. If a religion focuses on God, everything else follows. If it focuses on anything else, it loses everything.)
2) If we are to assert that our freedoms are self-evident and unalieable, we must appeal to something beyond the physical universe. I honestly do not believe that we can use the natural world to somehow prove we have rights - much less rights that are evident on their own (self-evident) and that cannot be taken away (unalienable).
We must appeal to our Creator, or
some literally supernatural absolute, to rest our freedoms on a firm foundation.
3) I believe God exists. If He does, He would likely be pleased in a government that is unafraid to acknowledge Him - AND willing to not infringe on its citizens' right to disagree.
