[Cabwi Desco] One Nation, Under Your Belief System

[Castor Troy]

Maintaining tradition. *shrugs*

What tradition? If wanted to be traditional about the pledge then shouldn't we use the original, i.e. the tradtional version? The one that doesn't include, "under god."

You're asking the wrong guy. I am pretty much now indecisive on this issue.

I suppose you have a point.

[Cabwi Desco]

The thing you all seem to be missing is that you are just as intolerant as the words to which you object. You are particularly blindingly intolerant of Christians; you can't see past it.

OK, I don't think it's a big deal that the words "under God" are in the pledge or that "in God we trust" is on our currency and coins. Some of you do. We're each entitled to our beliefs. That I don't find the words objectionable doesn't make me a fundi; in fact I'm far from it. I just don't have a really strong feeling about it.

Regardless of what it looks like in print (capitalized "God"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're atheistic, they can omit the words. The person who describes saying words one doesn't believe or being looked at when omitting them as "torture" is pretty thin-skinned. If you feel strongly that it's wrong to say them, you should be able to stand up proudly for your beliefs, just as adherents to any religion should be able to stand up proudly for theirs.

That said, I agree that the solution to what clearly is a divisive issue would be to restore the pledge to it's original form, omitting any reference to belief systems, instead of going off on pc tangents in some misguided attempt to be "inclusive". There will always be someone, somewhere, who objects to something; there will probably always be someone who objects just for the opportunity to sound off. So let's be realistic: we'll take out the words "under God" and someone will go after the assertion that there's justice for all.

[Darth Wong]

The thing you all seem to be missing is that you are just as intolerant as the words to which you object. You are particularly blindingly intolerant of Christians; you can't see past it.

Oh great, it's the "if you don't let us make YOU do what WE want, then YOU are intolerant" line of right-wing idiocy again. Nice one, fucktard.

OK, I don't think it's a big deal that the words "under God" are in the pledge or that "in God we trust" is on our currency and coins. Some of you do. We're each entitled to our beliefs. That I don't find the words objectionable doesn't make me a fundi; in fact I'm far from it. I just don't have a really strong feeling about it.

Then why do you think everyone else needs to have it shoved down their throats?

Regardless of what it looks like in print (capitalized "God"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're atheistic, they can omit the words. The person who describes saying words one doesn't believe or being looked at when omitting them as "torture" is pretty thin-skinned. If you feel strongly that it's wrong to say them, you should be able to stand up proudly for your beliefs, just as adherents to any religion should be able to stand up proudly for theirs.

You're missing the point: the phrase was originally put into the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of making atheists feel that they were being disloyal to their country. That deliberate message is not erased if an atheist chooses to rebel and not say it.

That said, I agree that the solution to what clearly is a divisive issue would be to restore the pledge to it's original form, omitting any reference to belief systems, instead of going off on pc tangents in some misguided attempt to be "inclusive". There will always be someone, somewhere, who objects to something; there will probably always be someone who objects just for the opportunity to sound off. So let's be realistic: we'll take out the words "under God" and someone will go after the assertion that there's justice for all.

Bullshit; the idea that this is just "PC" oversensitivity is both historically and ethically ignorant.

[Nephtys]

The thing you all seem to be missing is that you are just as intolerant as the words to which you object. You are particularly blindingly intolerant of Christians; you can't see past it.

OK, I don't think it's a big deal that the words "under God" are in the pledge or that "in God we trust" is on our currency and coins. Some of you do. We're each entitled to our beliefs. That I don't find the words objectionable doesn't make me a fundi; in fact I'm far from it. I just don't have a really strong feeling about it.

Regardless of what it looks like in print (capitalized "God"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're atheistic, they can omit the words. The person who describes saying words one doesn't believe or being looked at when omitting them as "torture" is pretty thin-skinned. If you feel strongly that it's wrong to say them, you should be able to stand up proudly for your beliefs, just as adherents to any religion should be able to stand up proudly for theirs.

That said, I agree that the solution to what clearly is a divisive issue would be to restore the pledge to it's original form, omitting any reference to belief systems, instead of going off on pc tangents in some misguided attempt to be "inclusive". There will always be someone, somewhere, who objects to something; there will probably always be someone who objects just for the opportunity to sound off. So let's be realistic: we'll take out the words "under God" and someone will go after the assertion that there's justice for all.

I don't see what you're trying to get at. Intolerant of christians? Hell no. Many of my friends are strong Christians. My issue lies with those aggressive Christians who cannot be wrong in their minds, and force this issue.

By putting 'God' in the pledge, it influences kids to say it. It forces them to say it, else they feel left out. You said yourself that you felt those kids were traitors, Cabwi. People can believe what they want, sure. But nothing else in the pledge I could say is contraversial. The rest is conventional 'This country is dandy' stuff.

What is the issue, is like what you say. To YOU it's not a big deal. To many Christians, it is not a big deal. But to some of other beliefs, it IS a big deal. And they are ignored because a majority refuses to see things their way. Returning the pledge is fine, all you need to do is to keep it related to our secular government. Keep the loyalty gig, sure. Just don't associate the flag with one god. Because nobody else refers to their diety as 'God', save Judeo-christian religions anyway, thus making it quite specific. Even if you can rationalize it as just being a word for any greater entity. Just not saying Under God as a choice is the same as posting the ten commandments in a public school, and telling kids they 'dont have' to look at them.

And about taking out 'Under God' means someone goes after 'Justice For All'... I don't see what you're talking about. Sure, there isn't REALLY complete justice for all, but people in general know that. It's like how the country isn't REALLY indivisable. But ignoring those is quite different than a kid being pressured by the almighty majority on 'Under God'.

[Spacebeard]

The thing you all seem to be missing is that you are just as intolerant as the words to which you object. You are particularly blindingly intolerant of Christians; you can't see past it.

Tu quoque fallacy.

OK, I don't think it's a big deal that the words "under God" are in the pledge or that "in God we trust" is on our currency and coins. Some of you do. We're each entitled to our beliefs. That I don't find the words objectionable doesn't make me a fundi; in fact I'm far from it.

Yes, we're each entitled to our beliefs. We're not entitled to shove those beliefs down everyone else's throats by government edict, whether it's sig

I just don't have a really strong feeling about it.

ITS TWO FUCKING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like a strong feeling to me.

Regardless of what it looks like in print (capitalized "God"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're atheistic, they can omit the words. The person who describes saying words one doesn't believe or being looked at when omitting them as "torture" is pretty thin-skinned. If you feel strongly that it's wrong to say them, you should be able to stand up proudly for your beliefs, just as adherents to any religion should be able to stand up proudly for theirs.

Let me rephrase that...

Regardless of what it looks like in print ("one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're theistic, they can insert gratuitous references to some random deity. The person who describes a lack of religious references as "blindingly intolerant of Christians" is pretty thin-skinned.

[Cabwi Desco]

The thing you all seem to be missing is that you are just as intolerant as the words to which you object. You are particularly blindingly intolerant of Christians; you can't see past it.

Oh great, it's the "if you don't let us make YOU do what WE want, then YOU are intolerant" line of right-wing idiocy again. Nice one, fucktard.

What are you reading? Or don't you know how? Where did I say anyone has to do anything?

OK, I don't think it's a big deal that the words "under God" are in the pledge or that "in God we trust" is on our currency and coins. Some of you do. We're each entitled to our beliefs. That I don't find the words objectionable doesn't make me a fundi; in fact I'm far from it. I just don't have a really strong feeling about it.

Then why do you think everyone else needs to have it shoved down their throats?.

Didya read past this line? (oh, yeah, you don't know how) Why do you respond to words YOU put in MY mouth?

Regardless of what it looks like in print (capitalized "God"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're atheistic, they can omit the words. The person who describes saying words one doesn't believe or being looked at when omitting them as "torture" is pretty thin-skinned. If you feel strongly that it's wrong to say them, you should be able to stand up proudly for your beliefs, just as adherents to any religion should be able to stand up proudly for theirs.

You're missing the point: the phrase was originally put into the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of making atheists feel that they were being disloyal to their country. That deliberate message is not erased if an atheist chooses to rebel and not say it.

Sure it is, if they don't feel disloyal. What better way of saying "fuck you" to the people who meant it to be exclusive than by not playing the game? Fact remains, I don't think it should be shoved down anyone's throat and I said so.

That said, I agree that the solution to what clearly is a divisive issue would be to restore the pledge to it's original form, omitting any reference to belief systems, instead of going off on pc tangents in some misguided attempt to be "inclusive". There will always be someone, somewhere, who objects to something; there will probably always be someone who objects just for the opportunity to sound off. So let's be realistic: we'll take out the words "under God" and someone will go after the assertion that there's justice for all.

Bullshit; the idea that this is just "PC" oversensitivity is both historically and ethically ignorant.

who said anything about pc oversensitivity? (Oh, yeah, that was you too)

[Slartibartfast]

I see that Cabwi finally reveals his true nature.

[Darth Wong]

What are you reading? Or don't you know how? Where did I say anyone has to do anything?

When you're a little kid in school and the teacher says to do something, it's basically perceived as an order. Don't be a sophistic asshole.

Didya read past this line? (oh, yeah, you don't know how) Why do you respond to words YOU put in MY mouth?

Oh look, a hair-splitting moron!

You're missing the point: the phrase was originally put into the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of making atheists feel that they were being disloyal to their country. That deliberate message is not erased if an atheist chooses to rebel and not say it.

Sure it is, if they don't feel disloyal.

Bullshit; a message is not erased even if the recipient chooses to disagree with it. The school is still telling you that you're disloyal for not saying "one nation under God". The fact that you have to defy your peers and the school's instructions is proof enough that this message is being sent.

Fact remains, I don't think it should be shoved down anyone's throat and I said so.

Utterly irrelevant to the idiocy of your proclamation that it is "intolerance" to object to the Pledge in its current form.

That said, I agree that the solution to what clearly is a divisive issue would be to restore the pledge to it's original form, omitting any reference to belief systems, instead of in some misguided attempt to be "inclusive". There will always be someone, somewhere, who objects to something; there will probably always be someone who objects just for the opportunity to sound off. So let's be realistic: we'll take out the words "under God" and someone will go after the assertion that there's justice for all.

Bullshit; the idea that this is just "PC" oversensitivity is both historically and ethically ignorant.

who said anything about pc oversensitivity? (Oh, yeah, that was you too)

See bolded section, you lying little pudgy-faced asshole. It's pretty obvious what that phrase means; you think all of this is just PC whining.

[Spacebeard]

That said, I agree that the solution to what clearly is a divisive issue would be to restore the pledge to it's original form, omitting any reference to belief systems, instead of going off on pc tangents in some misguided attempt to be "inclusive".

who said anything about pc oversensitivity? (Oh, yeah, that was you too)

Emphasis mine.

[The Spartan]

What are you reading? Or don't you know how? Where did I say anyone has to do anything?

By having it in there at all, societal pressure cause people to feel that they have to be religious or adhere to a particular religion or be outcasts. In some cases, their peers actively ostracise them for not being religious or of the "right religion" when they refuse to say, "under God."

Then why do you think everyone else needs to have it shoved down their throats?.

Didya read past this line? (oh, yeah, you don't know how) Why do you respond to words YOU put in MY mouth?

By putting that in the pledge, shoving it down people's throats is *exactly* what's being done.

You're missing the point: the phrase was originally put into the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of making atheists feel that they were being disloyal to their country. That deliberate message is not erased if an atheist chooses to rebel and not say it.

Sure it is, if they don't feel disloyal. What better way of saying "fuck you" to the people who meant it to be exclusive than by not playing the game? Fact remains, I don't think it should be shoved down anyone's throat and I said so.

If you don't want it shoved down anyone's throat then why have "under God" in the pledge at all? Further, why should we have to say fuck you to the ones that meant for it to be exclusive? It shouldn't have any exclusionary phrases in it *at all*!

[Cabwi Desco]

Regardless of what it looks like in print ("one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're theistic, they can insert gratuitous references to some random deity. The person who describes a lack of religious references as "blindingly intolerant of Christians" is pretty thin-skinned.

'Scuse me, "blindingly intolerant of Christians" had nothing to do with lack of religious references.

[Castor Troy]

Honestly, Cawbi, I was thinking like you were last night, pretty much, and I realized I was just thinking about Christianity.

Think about it this way -- what if this were founded by Muslims? Would you like it if it said "In Allah We Trust"?

There you go.

[Darth Wong]

Regardless of what it looks like in print ("one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're theistic, they can insert gratuitous references to some random deity. The person who describes a lack of religious references as "blindingly intolerant of Christians" is pretty thin-skinned.

'Scuse me, "blindingly intolerant of Christians" had nothing to do with lack of religious references.

I grow tired of your bullshit. BACK UP THIS CLAIM OF "BLINDING INTOLERANCE" RIGHT NOW. How are Christians being marginalized or their rights or freedoms violated in any way by not being allowed to shove their bullshit down other peoples' throats?

[Cabwi Desco]

Yo, I said YOU were blindingly intolerant of Christians, in no reference at all to the current argument. You use "christian" like it's a dirty word - I guess you ran out of other ones to use?

[Cabwi Desco]

In fact, you seem to be blindingly intolerant of any opinion except your own

[Spacebeard]

Regardless of what it looks like in print ("one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all"), people can mean whatever they believe when they speak the words. If they're theistic, they can insert gratuitous references to some random deity. The person who describes a lack of religious references as "blindingly intolerant of Christians" is pretty thin-skinned.

'Scuse me, "blindingly intolerant of Christians" had nothing to do with lack of religious references.

The thing you all seem to be missing is that you are just as intolerant as the words to which you object. You are particularly blindingly intolerant of Christians; you can't see past it.

Christians (for the most part) founded this country goddamnit and they have just as much of a right to say what they believe in it as anyone else.

You were clearly connecting the presence of the words "under God" in a national loyalty oath to the right of Christians to express their belief, and connecting opposition to those words as opposition to religious expression. Either stand by it or concede.

[SirNitram]

In fact, you seem to be blindingly intolerant of any opinion except your own

This claim always amuses me. Where's my insulting title, if holding opinions opposite to Wong's brings down doom and gloom?

[Cabwi Desco]

nope, just saying Christians have a right to exist, which a lot of you "fucktards" seem to be making the main issue of this discussion

[Castor Troy]

Dude, just don't dig yourself into a hole you can't get out.

[Firefox]

nope, just saying Christians have a right to exist, which a lot of you "fucktards" seem to be making the main issue of this discussion

Does that right to exist include the right of its adherents to shove their dogma down the throats of "infidels"?

[The Spartan]

nope, just saying Christians have a right to exist, which a lot of you "fucktards" seem to be making the main issue of this discussion

What the fuck are you talking about? We have no problem with Christians existing. It's when they try to shove Christianity and it's associated morality down our throats that we get pissed off. Like when the words "under god" are included in the Pledge.

[Cabwi Desco]

Dude, I AM out, just trying to throw the rest of you a lifeline.

[SirNitram]

nope, just saying Christians have a right to exist, which a lot of you "fucktards" seem to be making the main issue of this discussion

Intolerant fucker. You aren't being forced out of existance because no one else wants to say 'Under God'. What the hell kind of delusion do you live in?

[Spacebeard]

nope, just saying Christians have a right to exist, which a lot of you "fucktards" seem to be making the main issue of this discussion

Oh, so in order to "exist" they must be able to force their beliefs into loyalty oaths, courthouses, and pennies? Apparently, no Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims exist in the United States, since they don't have that privilege.

[The Spartan]

Dude, I AM out, just trying to throw the rest of you a lifeline.

A lifeline? What the fuck do we need a lifeline for?