Comments on: The Godless Generation?

By: nkb

nkb — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:00:33 +0000

I agree with Andrew, and I am also curious about whether you plan to update the Basic Assumptions.

Do they still reflect your worldview or not? If you are no longer an atheist, what purpose does it serve to keep it unchanged?

By: nkb

nkb — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:58:28 +0000

The comment about marginalizing non Judeo-Christians was my own opinion, I wasn’t trying to imply that this was the author’s point.

Whether or not people before 1954 were religious or not is a moot point. The only argument she is making is that the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge serves no purpose in terms of building character or morals.

Do you believe the phrase has any effect? If so, please share with us what impact it has.

By: Lily

Lily — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:17:15 +0000

“I am back, but moreso after January 1st.”

Terrific news!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:11:49 +0000

As I’m sure you damn well know, RA, I wasn’t asking because I consider you an authority on the subject. Your assertion doesn’t change the facts? No shit!

I was asking because I’m curious about whether your opinions have changed on the subject. You weren’t shy about proclaiming your opinions on that and many other subjects for years. And you’re still apparently willing to make snide remarks about a columnist being “religion-hating.” Yet you don’t have the simple courage to say “no, I am no longer an atheist” or “yes, I am.”
Pathetic.

By: Annie Banno

Annie Banno — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:23 +0000

“Choobus: Don’t call me “Shirley.””

(smile)

Just thinking of you today, for some reason. Hope you’re well.

By: ravingatheist

ravingatheist — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:29:03 +0000

Chaos: She might easily have said something like “the greatest generation was worshipping God day and night, but they turned out fine even though they didn’t additionally have to say “God” in the pledge when they went to school.” But it wouldn’t have made any sense, because her ultimate thesis is that the constant worship of God isn’t necessary to the formation of character. If she has an objection to the forced nature of the God-pledge she doesn’t mention it, or indicate why it would be any worse than the forced prayers at home.

I am back, but moreso after January 1st.

nkb: She never says anything about marginalizing non-believers, or articulates any other objection to the God-pledge. Again, if her thesis is that God-worship is unnecessary to character, it only hold up if people weren’t God-worshipping prior to 1954.

Eva: Just add “not” to the beginning of each post and you’ll have everything you want (minus the obscenity).

Andrew: The truth of the assumptions (or of anything) does not turn on whether I “stand by them.” Indeed, if I were to stand by them it would lessen any force they had, as the focus would shift to my authority rather than their meaning.

Choobus: Don’t call me “Shirley.”

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:38:23 +0000

Welcome back to the blogosphere. Will you be updating the Basic Assumptions on your site, or do you still stand by them?

By: nkb

nkb — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:46:34 +0000

I completely disagree with your interpretation of her comment.

I believe she is arguing that the absence of “under God” in the Pledge had no effect on the patriotism, moral values and formation of their character, so what purpose does it serve now (outside of marginalizing those that don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian deity)?

If the phrase were removed, would all our children grow up to be immoral, homocidal maniacs?

By: Eva

Eva — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:36:27 +0000

wow! glad to read your raves!
(i just wish they were more like the old raving atheist….)

By: Choobus

Choobus — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:32:19 +0000

surely “faith or reason” would be a more appropriate title.