Log in

Interesting - The Stylish Musings of Stevie Z [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Stevie Z

[ website | And now a word from our sponsor ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Interesting [Nov. 29th, 2009|06:41 pm]
Stevie Z
A few things have popped up in the news lately.

First, there was the execution of 4 police officers in Washington state. A gunmen entered a coffee shop and shot them all before fleeing. Pretty heinous, but what caught my eye was someone on Facebook who said this demonstrates why people should be armed. Excuse me, but the officers WERE armed and it didn't save them. I don't get it.

Second, there's a new movement among atheists to go mainstream, as well as a more activist arm that is seeking to declare war against religions. Now, I fall somewhere in between. Frankly, people are free to believe (or not believe) whatever they want. The problem comes when people attempt to impose their views upon others. This relates to a whole slew of issues, ranging from gay marriage to drugs to how we choose to raise our children.

Outlawing gay marriage because it's a "sin" is wrong. It crosses a line, imposing a religious viewpoint upon the population at large, including those who don't believe in any sort of god or in a different god.

There are many more examples of such shenanigans. To just cut to the chase, on a personal level, I feel the need to be a bit more activist in my atheism. For too long, there's been a pernicious creep of religion into public affairs and it is time to push back. Now, there's a fine line here and one of which I am very conscious. Religions are free to advocate viewpoints based on their moral belief- stop the war, no more abortions, no gay marriage. But the line is crossed when they use their tax-exempt status and chunnel these funds into political activities. When a "religious" group spends $10 million of its congregant's lucre on blatant political activities, it's time for the government to step up.

And soo I am sure there will be an issue with Alisa and the "Pledge of Allegiance". They still make the children say "One nation under God". Lina and I will talk this over, but I think Alisa should not have to say "God", especially since, among other things, she's Jewish (obstensibly).

(and lulz abound now about the iPhone commercial and the caller's name- "Ted Kapusta". Kapusta is a Russian word for their version of cole slaw.)

Anywho, back to the game and sorting documents to be filed away.

[User Picture]From: ron_newman
2009-11-30 02:48 am (UTC)
I think Alisa should not have to say "God", especially since, among other things, she's Jewish

Not sure I'm seeing the logic here, since Jews also tend to believe in 'God'.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sonofabish
2009-11-30 02:54 am (UTC)
Because the POA and by extension the underpinning philosophy of our nation is Christian, not Judaic, even though in many instances the faiths themselves are intertwined. It's why, for instance, Christmas is a federal holiday but not Passover.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ron_newman
2009-11-30 02:59 am (UTC)
I agree that 'under God' should be taken out of the Pledge (especially as it wasn't originally in there), but it doesn't offend me as a Jew.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sonofabish
2009-11-30 03:06 am (UTC)
I'm not saying it's offensive per se, but one of the questions is "under which God exactly is this nation to which she must pledge her allegiance?" I get a similarly queasy sensation when I've had to swear any sort of oath (like when I did jury duty last month) and have to recite the phrase "so help me God."- especially since I don't believe in any such being.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ron_newman
2009-11-30 03:19 am (UTC)
You should be able to 'affirm' instead of swearing an oath in situations such as that one.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)