I’m pretty confident it will get shot down. It hasn’t had much success here in the past
Of all the things to worry about, I can’t fathom why some people invest so much effort on issues like this.
I voted no
Considering all of the emphasis that the Apostle Paul put into explaining the difference between The Law and the One who came to bring the law of love (and to fulfill the law), these efforts always amaze me. The Bible is divided into The Old Contract and the The New Contract for good reasons. (Hint: Christians are called to the follow the The New Contract.)
I wonder how many Alabamians are really serious about doing away with all graven images—especially those who wear cross jewelry on their necklace or bracelet. (I suppose Instagram photos are OK because no actual engraving is involved.)
I can very much imagine many people today thinking early Colonial America was a great place because local government often rigidly enforced church attendance and allowed doctrines----even among those who had fled Europe in search of “religious freedom” and “freedom of conscious.”. (Thought police was basically an assumed ideal.)
Patrick, the Ballotspedia entry is fascinating:
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 29, and the FRE is -15. The word count for the ballot title is 53, and the estimated reading time is 14 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 49. The word count for the ballot summary is 261, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 9 seconds.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia’s entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.
There’s also this entry under “Arguments” for the Amendment:
Dean Young said: “Do the people of Alabama want to acknowledge God, the God of the Old and New Testament, the Christian God? Do we want to acknowledge the God that our nation was founded upon? Alabamians will vote, they will reckon on that day with God how they vote on this, that’s how serious this is. Either we stand for God or we won’t.”
So that takes care of the requisite “You’d better agree with me on this and vote the correct way or you will face Divine wrath on the Day of Judgment” threat.
Hey, did you know that the commandment “thou shall not take God’s name in vain” is a rather sparse translation? The actual commandment is “You are not to take God’s name up for nothingness” i.e. don’t go using it casually to back up worthless and dubious claims, or claiming God as an ally in some scheme you’re trying to pull. Just putting it out there, for all those politicians out there.
Yes. “Taking the Lord’s name in vain” is definitely very archaic language. The commandment prohibits not only the use of God’s name in casual (or non-casual) cursing, it applies likewise to jokes involving God----some of which I’ve actually overheard being told in church lobbies and parking lots. Go figure.
I wonder how many Alabamians who will vote for the Ten Commandments amendment would be OK with the Mosaic Law’s penalties for their telling one of those stupid golf-course jokes about St.Peter and God.
So @gbrooks9 God-guided evolution is taking God’s name up for nothingness? George better not go to Alabama, he will be arrested for violating the 2nd Commandment. Don’t worry George, FFRF will defend you against this unconstitutional use of the state to promote one religion over another,
Well Alabama did it.
If you’d like to win people over, I strongly recommend finding a source other than Friendly Atheist. I hope you win too, because I also want A Secular-Confessional Society. Play to win with a less biased source. Don’t play to lose. This is too important.
Meanwhile, we still have “In God We Trust” on our money. (Do we as a nation trust God? I don’t think so. As I understand the court decisions allowing that national motto, they basically tolerate “In God We Trust” because it is just a tradition-based historical relic with little real meaning. So why would any Christian want to promote an empty tradition devoid of real religious meaning?)
The Friendly Atheist is a reminder that errors of fact, demagoguery, embarrassing tactics, and logic fails are not the monopoly of any one “side” of these issues. (That recent F.A. article confusing Wiccans and witches and their allegedly outnumbering Presbyterians was a case in point.)
I’m not sure there’s really a similar blog out there, not with the scope that his has.
I do admit, there is often unintentional comic value to Friendly Atheist posts. The sanctimony coupled with ignorant bias almost seems like satire of atheism.
They do zero original reporting. It is all poor oped work. It would be better to post news reports to which they refer.
The fact that he collates them all into one easily found place is the valuable thing however. I’ve become aware of a lot of things through him that I wouldn’t have otherwise. For my part, in my internet ramblings I prefer to give credit to the person/site that I found an article because of. Just feels right to me. So I would probably just avoid posting it in that case since you don’t seem to like posts from that site.
I always treat that as a reference The Almighty Dollar. That’s what makes sense.
It would be fitting if the Dawgs rolled the Tide in a few weeks.
If there is one thing atheists won’t stand for it is a theist monopoly on fallibility.