Quote:
Originally posted by Jin
If a person believes that there is no God that's fine, they have the right to, but the thing I don't get is why they feel that they have the need to sway others beliefs as well. If they believe there's no God and no after-life, what good does it do to change others people's beliefs because according to them we'll just not exist after we die.
In my opinion athiests that are trying to ban the "under God" part are just trying to get others to believe that there is no God. If they didn't want to change peoples opinions at all, and strongly believed that there was no God they could easily just ignore those two words and not say them at all.
|
The man that brought the case to court (Newdow) isn't trying to sway people to atheism, he just doesn't think a nation where peoples of all religions and a nation where church and state are (supposed to be) seperate should be teaching atheist children and children of polytheistic faiths that they live in a "nation under God". How would you feel if you (or your kids) constantly heard that your nation is a nation "under God" if you didn't believe in one or you believed in many gods? He sees his daughter being singled out because she doesn't believe in God, and he wants change for his and other atheist children. The same for polytheistic children.
Look at this from the eyes of others...