Yes, yes we do.
*Grins evilly at laser and PPC pointed at darling*
Do you want your darling regular, or extra crispy?
The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
-
Guest
Well here's one little side effect of this:
On June 21 polls of registered voters put the Democrats at 50%, Republicans at 42%
On June 26 the Pledge fiasco starts
On June 28 polls of registered voters puts the Democrats at 44% and the Republicans at 49%
I see that the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the Dukakis fiasco. Hope everbody enjoys the ground the Republicans might gain in the House.
Austin
On June 21 polls of registered voters put the Democrats at 50%, Republicans at 42%
On June 26 the Pledge fiasco starts
On June 28 polls of registered voters puts the Democrats at 44% and the Republicans at 49%
I see that the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the Dukakis fiasco. Hope everbody enjoys the ground the Republicans might gain in the House.
Austin
-
Nova Andromeda
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: 2002-07-03 03:38am
- Location: Boston, Ma., U.S.A.
Reasoning behind Nova's position...
Let me start by saying that the U.S. constitution is accepted as dogma by far to many people. People shouldn't use it as the primary defense of their position. The fact of the matter is the U.S. constitution isn't perfect and it should be changed where flaws are discovered. Therefore, the defense of my position will start from basic principles.
If people want to live in a community that is governed fairly they must protect freedom of religion. In order to do that, they must create a purely secular government that is neutral with respect to the supernatural (i.e., God, god, no god, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, pink unicorns, etc.). The reason for this is supernatural things are by definition beyond objective and independant observation and their inclusion in gov. results in members of the society being subject to rules based on things that cannot be verified or observed independantly. These rules cannot be disputed with logic or reason since they are based on things that are unverifiable. What that means is the rules are based on what the people writing them happen to believe as opposed to solely based on those things that can be independantly observed or verified. For example, if those writing the rules believe in pink unicorns and pink unicorns require worship every Wed. at noon to live they could write a rule requiring everyone to worship pink unicorns at noon on Wed. and noone could dispute that rule.
By adding the words "... under God ..." to the pledge of allegiance the U.S. government has said God exists (God is clearly supernatural). The primary thing this does is say all atheists are wrong without providing a shred of support for that conclusion. It also does a number of other bad things. Atheists are asked to chose between pledging allegiance to the U.S. or their beliefs. Atheist children are forced to chose between being ostracized at school or maintaining their beliefs. Atheists are treated as second class citizens whose arguements can be dismissed out of hand by both the majority AND the U.S. gov. regardless of their merit.
Some of you may think that the U.S. is a democracy and majority rules, period. However, the U.S. is not a true democracy and majority rule only leads to an eventual contest of power between the minority and the majority where one side will be either subjugated or destroyed (usually the minorty). This type of conflict is generally bad for the community as a whole in addition to the fact that noone is in the majority in all issues. However, in a democracy, if certain basic rights are protected against the power of the majority destructive contests of power can be avoided.
As a final note, I am aware the wording and flow of the above arguements could use some improvement and refinement. I would appreciate feed back on this in addition to any other feed back of course.
If people want to live in a community that is governed fairly they must protect freedom of religion. In order to do that, they must create a purely secular government that is neutral with respect to the supernatural (i.e., God, god, no god, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, pink unicorns, etc.). The reason for this is supernatural things are by definition beyond objective and independant observation and their inclusion in gov. results in members of the society being subject to rules based on things that cannot be verified or observed independantly. These rules cannot be disputed with logic or reason since they are based on things that are unverifiable. What that means is the rules are based on what the people writing them happen to believe as opposed to solely based on those things that can be independantly observed or verified. For example, if those writing the rules believe in pink unicorns and pink unicorns require worship every Wed. at noon to live they could write a rule requiring everyone to worship pink unicorns at noon on Wed. and noone could dispute that rule.
By adding the words "... under God ..." to the pledge of allegiance the U.S. government has said God exists (God is clearly supernatural). The primary thing this does is say all atheists are wrong without providing a shred of support for that conclusion. It also does a number of other bad things. Atheists are asked to chose between pledging allegiance to the U.S. or their beliefs. Atheist children are forced to chose between being ostracized at school or maintaining their beliefs. Atheists are treated as second class citizens whose arguements can be dismissed out of hand by both the majority AND the U.S. gov. regardless of their merit.
Some of you may think that the U.S. is a democracy and majority rules, period. However, the U.S. is not a true democracy and majority rule only leads to an eventual contest of power between the minority and the majority where one side will be either subjugated or destroyed (usually the minorty). This type of conflict is generally bad for the community as a whole in addition to the fact that noone is in the majority in all issues. However, in a democracy, if certain basic rights are protected against the power of the majority destructive contests of power can be avoided.
As a final note, I am aware the wording and flow of the above arguements could use some improvement and refinement. I would appreciate feed back on this in addition to any other feed back of course.
Nova Andromeda
-
HemlockGrey
- Fucking Awesome
- Posts: 13834
- Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm
Weee
Before I toss in my two cents, I would like to say a few things, just so you know where I'm coming from.
I am a former atheist, now Christian. I'm not an utter fanatic, I don't scream at people for saying God doesn't exist, nor am I one of those people who believe that the Earth has only existed for 6000 years, and, yes, I believe in evolution. Now.
I never was offended saying 'one nation under God'. I do not believe the statement endorses Christianity in the least.
The words do not imply that Christianity is the correct religion, or that it is the 'right' religion. There is no law saying that you must speak the pledge or the words 'under God'. And, I don't know what schools you're talking about, but if you don't say 'under God' where I'm from very, very few people give a damn.
A wholly secular nation will not exist in this lifetime. However, the dangers and atrocities that result from a wholly non-secular culture are evident; from the Crusades to 9/11. However, a wholly secular nation would be, in my opinion, rather bleak.
I am a firm believer in the freedom of religion. I believe I should have the right to pray whenever and whereever I choose(though my prayers are very rarely verbal). I believe I should have the right to read the Bible, Muslims the right to read the Qoran(or Koran, or however it's spelled), Jews the Torah, and atheists whatever the hell they want. However, enforced prayer and such things are instituions I'd oppose with my dying breath. In the same vein, I oppose mass atheism in schools. That's someone's beliefs interfering in mine.
Hum. I've gotten off topic. Anyway.
Saying 'one nation, under God' does not mean you believe in God, just as exclaiming 'My God!' does not mean you believe in God.
I dunno if I'm qualified to comment or not on this. Feel free to flame me if you feel the need. That's just my 2 cents.
I am a former atheist, now Christian. I'm not an utter fanatic, I don't scream at people for saying God doesn't exist, nor am I one of those people who believe that the Earth has only existed for 6000 years, and, yes, I believe in evolution. Now.
I never was offended saying 'one nation under God'. I do not believe the statement endorses Christianity in the least.
The words do not imply that Christianity is the correct religion, or that it is the 'right' religion. There is no law saying that you must speak the pledge or the words 'under God'. And, I don't know what schools you're talking about, but if you don't say 'under God' where I'm from very, very few people give a damn.
A wholly secular nation will not exist in this lifetime. However, the dangers and atrocities that result from a wholly non-secular culture are evident; from the Crusades to 9/11. However, a wholly secular nation would be, in my opinion, rather bleak.
I am a firm believer in the freedom of religion. I believe I should have the right to pray whenever and whereever I choose(though my prayers are very rarely verbal). I believe I should have the right to read the Bible, Muslims the right to read the Qoran(or Koran, or however it's spelled), Jews the Torah, and atheists whatever the hell they want. However, enforced prayer and such things are instituions I'd oppose with my dying breath. In the same vein, I oppose mass atheism in schools. That's someone's beliefs interfering in mine.
Hum. I've gotten off topic. Anyway.
Saying 'one nation, under God' does not mean you believe in God, just as exclaiming 'My God!' does not mean you believe in God.
I dunno if I'm qualified to comment or not on this. Feel free to flame me if you feel the need. That's just my 2 cents.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
-
Nova Andromeda
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: 2002-07-03 03:38am
- Location: Boston, Ma., U.S.A.
Rebuttal of Cyril's arguement...
To start let me suggest to Cyril's that it is not necessary to state who you are to deflect critisim. First, who you are does not affect the validity of your arguement one bit. Second, if anyone here dismisses your arguement based solely on who you are then they should be chastised for it (since it is a clear logical fallacy).
The main point I would like to rebut is:
"... I should have the right to pray whenever and whereever I choose ..."
You do not have this right and indeed should not (assuming the prayer can disrupt others). You do not have the right to pray in my house for instance. Basically, what I'm saying is your right to express your supernatural beliefs is limited by more basic rights that others hold (such as their right to life, their right to choose their religion free from coercion, etc).
The last point i would like to rebut is the suggestion that schools support mass atheism. This statement more than anything else shows how biased you are. Public schools must be neutral with respect to religion, however, you interpert this neutrality as support for atheism. This idea is patently false. In no public school I have ever heard of do they teach that there is no god. Instead they leave the the supernatural out of school.
The main point I would like to rebut is:
"... I should have the right to pray whenever and whereever I choose ..."
You do not have this right and indeed should not (assuming the prayer can disrupt others). You do not have the right to pray in my house for instance. Basically, what I'm saying is your right to express your supernatural beliefs is limited by more basic rights that others hold (such as their right to life, their right to choose their religion free from coercion, etc).
The last point i would like to rebut is the suggestion that schools support mass atheism. This statement more than anything else shows how biased you are. Public schools must be neutral with respect to religion, however, you interpert this neutrality as support for atheism. This idea is patently false. In no public school I have ever heard of do they teach that there is no god. Instead they leave the the supernatural out of school.
Nova Andromeda
Idiocy of Cyril
How could you miss the fucking point any more Cyril? The issue isn't about whether kids are forced to (though by the amount of stigma some suffer by not complying it's close to it) or whether you're offended by it. By enshrining the majority religion in public schools in this manner it imposes on the minority, excludes children and pressurises them to conform to somebody elses belief system.
And you think that secularism is "mass atheism" and that by somehow saying "it's wrong that kids should have to say one nation under god" equals "you kids should all be atheists".
Get this straight- secularism is religious neutrality. It neither condones one religion over another, or non-belief over belief. If you can't get this I fear for your mental health.
And you think that secularism is "mass atheism" and that by somehow saying "it's wrong that kids should have to say one nation under god" equals "you kids should all be atheists".
Get this straight- secularism is religious neutrality. It neither condones one religion over another, or non-belief over belief. If you can't get this I fear for your mental health.
First off, I'll say that I'm Canadian so its not really my descision, but I'll add my 2 cents because we deal with the same issues here:
The term "under God" was not in the original pledge. It was added in 1954 at the urging of the Roman Catholic church during a time when the US was in the middle of its communist witchhunt. The addition of this clause was one way to alienate the "athiest communists". I mean, if you're an athiest, and you consider yourself NOT "under God", then does that mean you're not part of the nation? Of course not, but that was the mentality that put it there. So I would (if american) support it's removal on the grounds that it's not the original pledge.
Thinking back to my elementary days, where we were required to say the lord's prayer everyday, I would (if american) support its removal on the grounds of separation of church and state. Because, from my own experience, even if it is optional, most kids wouldn't question it and would simply go along. This does influence them and I don't believe that public school should in any way encourage the practice of religion.
The term "under God" was not in the original pledge. It was added in 1954 at the urging of the Roman Catholic church during a time when the US was in the middle of its communist witchhunt. The addition of this clause was one way to alienate the "athiest communists". I mean, if you're an athiest, and you consider yourself NOT "under God", then does that mean you're not part of the nation? Of course not, but that was the mentality that put it there. So I would (if american) support it's removal on the grounds that it's not the original pledge.
Thinking back to my elementary days, where we were required to say the lord's prayer everyday, I would (if american) support its removal on the grounds of separation of church and state. Because, from my own experience, even if it is optional, most kids wouldn't question it and would simply go along. This does influence them and I don't believe that public school should in any way encourage the practice of religion.
-
HemlockGrey
- Fucking Awesome
- Posts: 13834
- Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm
Responses
Nova: What I should have said was 'as long as it does not interfere with someone else's constitutional rights'. Praying to myself doesn't interfere with your rights; pressuring you to pray or praying that you'd convert, stuff like that, does, and I wouldn't do that.
Also, banning all forms of prayer in school is interfering with my beliefs.
JJP: I did say 'feel free to flame me' so I must have had that coming.
I did not say that the school currently supports mass atheism. I just said that I oppose it.
I do oppose what I've stated above; total banning of all forms of all prayer.
The pledge is hardly 'imposed' on people, nor does it 'enshrine' Christianity. It is optional, for one. The words 'under God' are optional. When it comes to those two words, you can just skip if you like. For another, I seriously doubt that people are pressured to conform to Christianity by saying 'one nation under God'. I know my atheist, Wiccan, and Muslim friend's aren't in the least; they say the pledge every day and do it willingly.
Also, banning all forms of prayer in school is interfering with my beliefs.
JJP: I did say 'feel free to flame me' so I must have had that coming.
I did not say that the school currently supports mass atheism. I just said that I oppose it.
I do oppose what I've stated above; total banning of all forms of all prayer.
The pledge is hardly 'imposed' on people, nor does it 'enshrine' Christianity. It is optional, for one. The words 'under God' are optional. When it comes to those two words, you can just skip if you like. For another, I seriously doubt that people are pressured to conform to Christianity by saying 'one nation under God'. I know my atheist, Wiccan, and Muslim friend's aren't in the least; they say the pledge every day and do it willingly.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
-
Rob Wilson
- Sith Apprentice
- Posts: 7004
- Joined: 2002-07-03 08:29pm
- Location: N.E. Lincs - UK
Re: Responses
1. School is for education, *church* is for prayer. you cannot mandate that everyone pray at school and i seriously doubt the school could stop you from praying at Breaks and Lunchtime if you wanted to.Cyril wrote:
Also, banning all forms of prayer in school is interfering with my beliefs.
JJP: I did say 'feel free to flame me' so I must have had that coming.
I did not say that the school currently supports mass atheism. I just said that I oppose it.
I do oppose what I've stated above; total banning of all forms of all prayer.
The pledge is hardly 'imposed' on people, nor does it 'enshrine' Christianity. It is optional, for one. The words 'under God' are optional. When it comes to those two words, you can just skip if you like. For another, I seriously doubt that people are pressured to conform to Christianity by saying 'one nation under God'. I know my atheist, Wiccan, and Muslim friend's aren't in the least; they say the pledge every day and do it willingly.
2. Your friends say the pledge everyday? Where the hell do they work? And if, as you say it is optional, why does the Atheist or the Wiccan say it?
-
Iceberg
- ASVS Master of Laundry
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:23am
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Contact:
I dunno about you, but I sure pray before exams...
"Carriers dispense fighters, which dispense assbeatings." - White Haven
| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
-
Durandal
- Bile-Driven Hate Machine
- Posts: 17927
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
- Contact:
The 9th Circuit Court was 100% correct.
Iceberg: How would you feel if the Pledge read like this? "...one nation, under no gods, because gods don't exist, with liberty and justice for all"? Or, how about "under Baal," "under Satan," "Allah" or "under Vishnu"? Those would count as an endorsements of religious beliefs that disagree with yours, would it not? Well, guess what? "Under God" has the same ramifications for me as an atheist.
What's more, imagine you had a little girl who, every day in second grade, had to recite that Pledge, despite the fact that you'd raised her as a Christian, because she didn't want to feel alienated or alone in the classroom. Wouldn't you think that was unfair or bigoted? Sure you would, and you'd be absolutely correct, because then the government would be endorsing atheist beliefs, which would violate the neutral stance on religion it is supposed to maintain. Atheists aren't looking for our beliefs to be added to the Pledge, we're looking for others' beliefs to be removed from it.
Do you really have such a hard time seeing outside of your own religion? The point of the establishment clause was to maintain governmental neutrality on all religious matters. Having "under God" in the officially endorsed Pledge means that the government prefers its citizens to be theists, or better yet, Christians. Striking it from the Pledge eliminates any and all religious preference from the Pledge, alienating no one from being an American.
Of course, if the Pledge goes back to proper form, anyone can add whatever they want to it. The point on ASVS arose about how striking "under God" violated Christians' rights because they couldn't swear allegiance to anything other than God, but this is just another example of confusing free speech with religious freedom. Christians can feel free to add whatever they wish to the Pledge while reciting it; it's free speech. But, the government cannot endorse religion because not all Americans are religious. A non-God Pledge doesn't violate anyone's rights because it doesn't contain any terms which would have that effect.
That bigoted little phrase wasn't there before 1954, and it was added after a Christian organization (the Knights of Columbus) campaigned for it to be there. Think about it for a second. Do you think they were referring to all people's gods? Fuck no. Not only does it violate atheists' rights, it violates any non-Christian's rights, as well.
Moreover, that phrase was added under the delusion that all atheists were communists. It was a way to distinguish the US from the "godless" (read: atheist) communist nations. Do you have any idea what this phrase means to an atheist? It harkens back to the McCarthy era, a time of intense religious bigotry, when atheists were reported in by their neighbors and friends as enemies of the state solely on the grounds of their religious belief. Keeping "under God" in the Pledge is to atheists like flying a Confederate flag over the White House is to black people.
Iceberg: How would you feel if the Pledge read like this? "...one nation, under no gods, because gods don't exist, with liberty and justice for all"? Or, how about "under Baal," "under Satan," "Allah" or "under Vishnu"? Those would count as an endorsements of religious beliefs that disagree with yours, would it not? Well, guess what? "Under God" has the same ramifications for me as an atheist.
What's more, imagine you had a little girl who, every day in second grade, had to recite that Pledge, despite the fact that you'd raised her as a Christian, because she didn't want to feel alienated or alone in the classroom. Wouldn't you think that was unfair or bigoted? Sure you would, and you'd be absolutely correct, because then the government would be endorsing atheist beliefs, which would violate the neutral stance on religion it is supposed to maintain. Atheists aren't looking for our beliefs to be added to the Pledge, we're looking for others' beliefs to be removed from it.
Do you really have such a hard time seeing outside of your own religion? The point of the establishment clause was to maintain governmental neutrality on all religious matters. Having "under God" in the officially endorsed Pledge means that the government prefers its citizens to be theists, or better yet, Christians. Striking it from the Pledge eliminates any and all religious preference from the Pledge, alienating no one from being an American.
Of course, if the Pledge goes back to proper form, anyone can add whatever they want to it. The point on ASVS arose about how striking "under God" violated Christians' rights because they couldn't swear allegiance to anything other than God, but this is just another example of confusing free speech with religious freedom. Christians can feel free to add whatever they wish to the Pledge while reciting it; it's free speech. But, the government cannot endorse religion because not all Americans are religious. A non-God Pledge doesn't violate anyone's rights because it doesn't contain any terms which would have that effect.
That bigoted little phrase wasn't there before 1954, and it was added after a Christian organization (the Knights of Columbus) campaigned for it to be there. Think about it for a second. Do you think they were referring to all people's gods? Fuck no. Not only does it violate atheists' rights, it violates any non-Christian's rights, as well.
Moreover, that phrase was added under the delusion that all atheists were communists. It was a way to distinguish the US from the "godless" (read: atheist) communist nations. Do you have any idea what this phrase means to an atheist? It harkens back to the McCarthy era, a time of intense religious bigotry, when atheists were reported in by their neighbors and friends as enemies of the state solely on the grounds of their religious belief. Keeping "under God" in the Pledge is to atheists like flying a Confederate flag over the White House is to black people.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
-
Rob Wilson
- Sith Apprentice
- Posts: 7004
- Joined: 2002-07-03 08:29pm
- Location: N.E. Lincs - UK
-
Iceberg
- ASVS Master of Laundry
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:23am
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Contact:
Rob: I guess one bad joke deserves another.
"Carriers dispense fighters, which dispense assbeatings." - White Haven
| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
-
Rob Wilson
- Sith Apprentice
- Posts: 7004
- Joined: 2002-07-03 08:29pm
- Location: N.E. Lincs - UK
-
TrailerParkJawa
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
- Location: San Jose, California
Flag debate
Well, Ive noticed that there are a couple of arguements to leave the Pledge alone. One being that the words "under God" could mean anybodys God. This does'nt make sense when you read about why the phrase was added in 1954. Also, if it is actually interpeted as any type of God then there isnt any reason for it to be there. IMO
The second one I hear is that the majority of Americans are Christians and people that dont like the phrase should just accept the will of the majority.
Again, this is hoooey because if 100 years from now 90% of Americans are non christian, do you think Christians would silently accept a new phrase such as "not under God", "under Ra" , etc. I doubt it.
The second one I hear is that the majority of Americans are Christians and people that dont like the phrase should just accept the will of the majority.
Again, this is hoooey because if 100 years from now 90% of Americans are non christian, do you think Christians would silently accept a new phrase such as "not under God", "under Ra" , etc. I doubt it.
-
Enforcer Talen
- Warlock
- Posts: 10285
- Joined: 2002-07-05 02:28am
- Location: Boston
- Contact:
-idly notes 'God' can mean absolutely anything, not just Christian God, God of major religion, or diety in general; a person's god, what they strive for, could be money, pleasure, or casting aside worldly goods-
-also notes he's not said pledge at times, even tho a Christian and mildly patriotic-
freedom of speech, and it's follow up, freedom of religion, is a nice thing. be patriotic. or not. say under God. or not.
-skims above posts-
so what if it was made after 1954? you can still worship what you choose.
and, why have 'under god' there when it could mean any god? why have any god at all? cuz people like the idea of a higher power looking out for them. . .
-also notes he's not said pledge at times, even tho a Christian and mildly patriotic-
freedom of speech, and it's follow up, freedom of religion, is a nice thing. be patriotic. or not. say under God. or not.
-skims above posts-
so what if it was made after 1954? you can still worship what you choose.
and, why have 'under god' there when it could mean any god? why have any god at all? cuz people like the idea of a higher power looking out for them. . .
-
Robert Treder
- has strong kung-fu.
- Posts: 3891
- Joined: 2002-07-03 02:38am
- Location: San Jose, CA
Not everybody does....[P]eople like the idea of a higher power looking out for them. . .
And it's true that 'God' can mean any god, not necessarily just the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god...but what about people that believe in no god? Or more than one god? Or Satan?
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
-
Enforcer Talen
- Warlock
- Posts: 10285
- Joined: 2002-07-05 02:28am
- Location: Boston
- Contact:
people in general do like the idea of god looking out for them, that's why religion has lasted as long as it has. it gives people a warm and fuzzy excuse to have a reason for why life is miserable sometimes (god is testing me) as well as a reason to be sure it will end soon.
and, if your life revolves around it, it decides your ethic system, it's your god. satan can be your god, tho I think it's a pretty stupid idea. about mutliple gods -shrugs- it's still a deity your talking about. no god, you still have a way you go through life, your guiding philosophy. call that your god, the term is quite flexible.
pledge time, perhaps, may be neccessary, but enforcing participation would be ending freedom of speech.
and, if your life revolves around it, it decides your ethic system, it's your god. satan can be your god, tho I think it's a pretty stupid idea. about mutliple gods -shrugs- it's still a deity your talking about. no god, you still have a way you go through life, your guiding philosophy. call that your god, the term is quite flexible.
pledge time, perhaps, may be neccessary, but enforcing participation would be ending freedom of speech.
-
Durandal
- Bile-Driven Hate Machine
- Posts: 17927
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
- Contact:
I choose not to call anything my "god." I have no god, nor do I have any religion. The term "under God" was added under a bigoted context, and it should be removed. Furthermore, Shrub has made it clear that the God in the Pledge is his interpretation of it (read: the Judeo-Christian-Muslim one) what with waging his holy crusade on terrorism and stating that "God is not neutral" between good and evil.
This attitude that "god can be anything" comes from a Christian upbringing that tells young kids that if they devote too much time to any activity, like sports, TV or jerking off, then they're violating the first commandment because that activity has become a false idol, thus their "god." That's what is taught in churches and Catholic schools around the nation.
This mentality does not apply to atheists, and it has no place dictating government statutes. You and I both know damn well what "under God" in the Pledge is supposed to mean and how it was born, and keeping it in there is a full-fledged gesture of support for religious egocentrism.
This attitude that "god can be anything" comes from a Christian upbringing that tells young kids that if they devote too much time to any activity, like sports, TV or jerking off, then they're violating the first commandment because that activity has become a false idol, thus their "god." That's what is taught in churches and Catholic schools around the nation.
This mentality does not apply to atheists, and it has no place dictating government statutes. You and I both know damn well what "under God" in the Pledge is supposed to mean and how it was born, and keeping it in there is a full-fledged gesture of support for religious egocentrism.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
-
Enforcer Talen
- Warlock
- Posts: 10285
- Joined: 2002-07-05 02:28am
- Location: Boston
- Contact:
-smiles- my my. I don't doubt it was originally placed to be a political move to get religious minded people on the government's side against communism, but with the ussr fallen, that usage is over. the term god is quite flexible, and as times change, so does it. let it stay in the pledge, it keeps millions of religious types warm and fuzzy, and as long as it's unenforced, it's not unconsitutional. don't like it; don't say it.
-
Rob Wilson
- Sith Apprentice
- Posts: 7004
- Joined: 2002-07-03 08:29pm
- Location: N.E. Lincs - UK
Lets do it a better way, take it out and then if you want to say Under God you have the First Amendment right to do so. However keeping it in is unconstitutional so should be removed.Enforcer Talen wrote:-smiles- my my. I don't doubt it was originally placed to be a political move to get religious minded people on the government's side against communism, but with the ussr fallen, that usage is over. the term god is quite flexible, and as times change, so does it. let it stay in the pledge, it keeps millions of religious types warm and fuzzy, and as long as it's unenforced, it's not unconsitutional. don't like it; don't say it.
As I said before, there's nothing to stop those that want to from saying Under god if they wish. only in America would something so pointless (it changes nothing for those that want to say the words) be blown out of all proportion. Storm in a teacup, verging on a Tsunami in a thinble.
-
Cy
Point
By the way, the mentality that 'if you devote a lot of time to an activity it becomes your god' is taught in strict Catholic churches and schools, as well as some strict Protestant sects(Puritinism and such).
However, the majority of Christians are neither extremely strict Catholics or Protestants, and thus do not teach that. I know my church certainly doesn't.
Though, if you want to substitute 'under God' for 'under Baal' or 'under capitalism' no one is stopping you. Same deal with omitting 'under God' entirely.
However, the majority of Christians are neither extremely strict Catholics or Protestants, and thus do not teach that. I know my church certainly doesn't.
Though, if you want to substitute 'under God' for 'under Baal' or 'under capitalism' no one is stopping you. Same deal with omitting 'under God' entirely.
-
Rob Wilson
- Sith Apprentice
- Posts: 7004
- Joined: 2002-07-03 08:29pm
- Location: N.E. Lincs - UK
Re: Point
Of course it shouldn't be in there in the first place.Cy wrote:
Though, if you want to substitute 'under God' for 'under Baal' or 'under capitalism' no one is stopping you. Same deal with omitting 'under God' entirely.
Oh well it doesn't affect me as I'm not in the States so I think I'll leave this particular topic to those that it does, unless I think of anything else to add.
