Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Galemp on August 08, 2007, 05:20:39 am
-
Okay, it's 6 in the morning and I'm outraged. Nobody's around but I need someone to talk to. I'm looking for a variety of points of view, political, theological and international, but fair warning, this is a United States-centered topic.
While efforts have been underway to excise the phrase "Under God" from the national Pledge of Allegiance, it looks like things are hopeless. The Texas state legislature has recently passed into law a bill actually adding these words into the state Pledge.
http://chron.com//disp/story.mpl/front/5020241.html (http://chron.com//disp/story.mpl/front/5020241.html)
Regardless of your own theistic or atheistic leanings, there is absolutely no reason to edit this phrase into a mandatory pledge except as a means of asserting or ascribing superiority of a political entity (the state) to a specific religious one (God.)
The original phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954, at the height of the Cold War and at a time when American life was dominated by conflict with the Soviet Union. Like Rep. Riddle, President Eisenhower saw 'a gap' in the pledge. After hearing a sermon, Eisenhower initiated a bill to change the pledge:
"Last Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill]. Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He said, 'there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.' Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head."
Unfortunately the politicians of the era had misinterpreted history. "The characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life" was not belief in God, but rather the freedom to believe in God. What set America apart from the Soviets was not that we had religion and they did not, but that we had a freedom to choose our religion and they did not. And freedom of choice, of course, means freedom to worship Elohim, Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, the Goddess, Apollo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster--or none at all. Ascribing America's position as a superpower to the Abrahamic God is not only historically incorrect but insensitive and unconstitutional. For political reasons, however, the phrase was included in the daily pledge recited by millions of schoolchildren every day.
Not only has this phrase not been excised, but religious groups--including former President Bush (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm)--have used it to persecute atheists, polytheists, pluralists and other assorted non-Christians by claiming that "This is one nation, Under God" and so members of the aforementioned groups are unpatriotic or not considered citizens. This is clearly in conflict with the concept of religious freedom established in the Constitution, which every politician is sworn to uphold.
Recent challenges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance_criticism) to making the Pledge recitation mandatory have met with success, though efforts to remove the phrase entirely have made little progress... and given the direction this country's governing bodies are moving in, will likely remain in place for some time. Students are no longer required to pledge, nor do they need a note from home. However those who object to the Pledge itself, or its content, are made conspicuous as dissenters which probably has a chilling effect upon their decision.
Rep. Riddle, and the rest of the Texas legislature, seem totally oblivious to all this history. The new law not only requires the mandatory pledge of both National and State pledges, but puts additional emphasis on the phrase "Under God" and requires notes for those who wish to opt out. All three are unconstitutional, all three are infringing upon students' rights, and all three serve more to bring us closer to our enemies' states of mind than they do to distance us from their ideology.
Does anyone else regard the flippant consideration given this bill and the ease at which it passed into law as deeply disturbing as I do?
-
The whole countraversy shouldn't even be a contraversy. So many people get caught up in this "well, we're under god" and I have yet to hear a single good arguement why it should be there. It wasn't in there to begin with, and never should have been there. Just remove it and get it over with.
-
When you currency states "In God we trust" you are going to have problems!
-
it sould be illegal for politicians to mention the word god while on the job.
-
But it's just so damn easy to play to the religious crowd and get their votes! Asking politicians to actively opt for a stance in opposition to the view of the religious right would essentially be asking them to throw away tens of thousands of votes for no real reason.
Anyway, it's not that big a deal. It's Texas for crying out loud!
-
christianity was created for the sole purpose of keeping theese kind of people in power. it seems to have worked.
-
...asking them to throw away tens of thousands of votes for no real reason.
And I suppose honoring First Amendment rights for all citizens isn't a real reason? Refer to the Bush quote I linked if you need any evidence that this seemingly innocent phrase could have dire consequences.
christianity was created for the sole purpose of keeping these kind of people in power. it seems to have worked.
To be fair, Christianity is an extremely broad category. Don't confuse followers of Christ with followers of the Church.
-
I came here expecting to find a heated discussion and find that I agree with everything that has already been said. God and politics do not mix, and I find it strange how the US government is so determined to twist the ideals of the country into something they have never been, catering to religious fundamentalists and other extremists as well as fear-mongering to trounce the constitution. All this instead of trying to ensure the freedom and well-being (in that order) of their citizens, which is what they should be doing.
Actually, scratch that, I don't find it strange, I just see it as proof that they don't really give a damn about the country or it's citizens, but only about themselves and about staying in power by all means necessary.
-
And I suppose honoring First Amendment rights for all citizens isn't a real reason? Refer to the Bush quote I linked if you need any evidence that this seemingly innocent phrase could have dire consequences.
You think a majority of modern politicians care? I'll grant you that there are undoubtedly men and women out there who are acting wholly for the benefit of their nation and humanity in general, but i'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that they'd make up about 3% of the overall leadership population.
You're clearly passionate in upholding the tenets upon which the US was formed, but these people just don't care. They're in it for the money, the power, and above all themselves.
-
You're clearly passionate in upholding the tenets upon which the US was formed, but these people just don't care. They're in it for the money, the power, and above all themselves.
This is how it is, but this is not how it should be.
There are groups who are willing to take the government to task on these issues, and the more obvious and egregious the offenses the more likely they are to be challenged and resolved. That's why I'm raising these issues, to raise consciousness and support for the necessary reforms.
My despair is at the current political climate across the nation that's actively going backwards from what should be happening.
-
...asking them to throw away tens of thousands of votes for no real reason.
And I suppose honoring First Amendment rights for all citizens isn't a real reason? Refer to the Bush quote I linked if you need any evidence that this seemingly innocent phrase could have dire consequences.
christianity was created for the sole purpose of keeping these kind of people in power. it seems to have worked.
To be fair, Christianity is an extremely broad category. Don't confuse followers of Christ with followers of the Church.
how can anyone follow christ when noone knows who that is. i am in the opinion that the so called holy roman empire-sponsered religion (and that includes the bible as cannonized), was designed to keep the romans in power dispite the collapsing empire. emperors simply became the popes and power was spent converting the masses, rather than conquering them. this obviously worked because the church remained the power base in europe though out the dark ages.
anyway to my point i doubt that todays followers of christ have any thing in common with those of 1800 years ago. they follow the character created by the church and take the new testament as absolute fact. all the crhristians of today have is a splintered idea of what christ was, as told by some shady scribes under some questionable management.
it was constantine who made the religion an imperial one, forever entwining religion and politics. constantine supposedly witnessed a miracle that made him convert, i think it more likely that he simply saw an oppritunity to perserve the empire and jumped on it, that or he was hallucinating. then again, roman emperors were never known for their sanity.
-
He's got a point. Religion is just another form of control, a way of keeping the masses under one's thumb without having to resort to overly-wasteful methods such as arbitrary imprisonment or executions. Fear is a powerful tool in population control, but not nearly as powerful as piety.
Quite frankly, i'm of the opinion that we're getting to the point where we no longer need a supernatural judiciary system. But then, you get these nutters who bring a "go team!" mentality to belief, acting as a detriment to free society and a burden us rational-minded folk.
-
I can see this thread getting derailed, so let me remind everyone that this is supposed to be a pro-civil rights discussion, not an anti-religion discussion.
That's why this has never been changed, you realize. Support for the rights of atheists, pluralists, and non-Christians has always been drowned out by unpopular public opinion about those groups. So let's stay on topic; I'd like to bring this up with a Congressman in such a way that he doesn't immediately balk at the idea of offending 75% of the population.
Remember, the beliefs are irrelevant--what's important is the right to hold those beliefs.
-
Good point, sorry about that! :)
-
Perhaps it would be better to let the person fill in said blank?
I.E. One nation, under ______.
Just my 2¢
-
Perhaps it would be better to let the person fill in said blank?
I.E. One nation, under His Noodly Appendage.
Just my 2¢
:drevil:
-
It depends on the interpretation of Under God. While being a person with Christian-like ideas, I see Under God as a reference to power. The Church of England was said to have the monarchy in its pocket. They often insisted England was God's country, and had the authority of God for their conquests. Under God (In my eyes) means just that we should recognize that while we may be a great power, we are not the Ultimate authority, and must remain modest in our actions. To me, this is a very valid part of our pledge.
However, conservatives and christofascists have distorted the phrase to make it mean the exact opposite of what it (should) mean. They emphasize the word God and use Under to further reinforce it, rather than emphasizing the word Under and using the word God to reinforce it. It wont be long before we are "God's country", if we haven't been already...
-
Perhaps it would be better to let the person fill in said blank?
I.E. One nation, under karajorma.
I.E. One nation, under voliton.
I.E. One nation, under derek smart.
I.E. One nation, under the tooth fairy.
I.E. One nation, under my cat, who is a greater authority than the collective government as far as im concerned, as he doesent give a spit over stem cells, cloning, or creating evil human-cow hybrids. word.
Just my 2¢
cat for president!
-
This is a serious thread, takashi. With serious matters at hand. Don't spam. Wonder why I hadn't posted yet?
-
You expect any different, Snail?
-
God is in the Canadian national anthem, and many others, but AFAIK, not many people have griped about it
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee;
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
-
Standing on guard is a hard thing to do when you don't have an army :p
-
Standing on guard is a hard thing to do when you don't have an army :p
Objection, relevance!
----
At this rate, we'll have broken Godwin's law four times by Friday!
-
Standing on guard is a hard thing to do when you don't have an army :p
Yeah, that's why we have to do the standing on guard for our army.
-
It depends on the interpretation of Under God. While being a person with Christian-like ideas, I see Under God as a reference to power. The Church of England was said to have the monarchy in its pocket. They often insisted England was God's country, and had the authority of God for their conquests. Under God (In my eyes) means just that we should recognize that while we may be a great power, we are not the Ultimate authority, and must remain modest in our actions. To me, this is a very valid part of our pledge.
There is one crucial difference: the United States governs under Rule of Law, not Divine Right. The very reason there was a revolutionary war 230 years ago was to assert that political power comes from the consent of the governed, and not from God.
-
I always figured an enforced pledge is meaningless. In the same vein as a confession obtained under duress (sp?).
-
it sould be illegal for politicians to mention the word god while on the job.
Meh...Many things should be illegal...like you breathing :lol: (Oh, I'm SOOOOO EVIIIIILLL)
I really don't care one way or the other - a problem on this planet are people who read too much into things or blow up the importanc of stuff/events instead of being laid back.
Who...The f***...cares....
-
Sorry, TrashMan, but I would feel better if the President didn't consider me to be unpatriotic and unworthy of citizenship on the grounds of my religious beliefs.
Wouldn't you?
-
Eh? What's your religion (or lack thereof) got to do with patriotism?
The word "God" works for any monotheistic relgion (well..since any God..is a god :lol:) ...if you're an atheist or budhist, just consider it a honoring of the past (USA was founded by christians mostly) or a a sensless, meaningless word you jsut read and ignore (like the EULA)...
-
TrashMan, you would do well to read the first post in a thread.
Here (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm), read this and then try to say the same thing.
-
Thanks Ghostavo.
It's important because a vocal minority and their elected officials are using the phrase "One Nation Under God" as if it's the founding principle of our country and are using it to jeer at and dismiss the opinions of non-Christians. This is increasingly being translated into policy, in contradiction with the guarantee of religious freedom granted to all citizens by the Constitution. It has very tangible effects on (for example) Veterans Affairs, science education in public schools, and freedom of individual expression.
As for your assertion that the US was founded by Christians... well, it's irrelevant since the United States wasn't founded on the personal convictions of the Founding Fathers, but on the consensus they reached when they wrote the Constitution. But try to find me a quote from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, or Thomas Paine that speaks of Christianity in a positive light. I'm not trying to be divisive or offensive, but I would like the record set straight.
And, er... EULAs are kinda important too (software usage rights, privacy policy, spyware/malware installation, etc.) If I were you I'd consider reading legal documents before signing them.
-
Mah...I read the EULA...sometimes.....very rarely...they are all basicly the same....most ppl I know don't read it at all.
However, I fail to see what a sentance in a speech has to do with "runing religious freedoms" or steering the country/legislations/something else to favor some minority...
Bush and some of your elected officials being idiots is a WHOLE different matter tough. :lol:
-
Standing on guard is a hard thing to do when you don't have an army :p
I dont know, I wouldnt want to risk Canada sending down an army of Were-Moose.
Eh?
:lol:
-
Or...WERE-HARPERS!!!
(much worse)
-
I've seen were-larpers... Those things make were-moose look like regular moose.
Oh, and galemp, you bring up a very valid point, and I have to agree with it. Fact of the matter is, Under God does belong in the pledge, but it needs to be changed how it is written. But I wont even begin to say how much of a can of worms that is... Equal to God or even Above God is arrogant and self righteous, Separate from God sounds almost like hostility towards religion, and everything in between can me misinterpreted just as Under God has been. Yes our nation was built on the basis of religious freedom, but it is almost mandatory to state that even if we are the primary world power, we are not the be-all end-all ultimate authority.
-
When I was growing up not saying the Pledge could have gotten you beaten, with a belt, by the teacher.
If you complained to the principle, theres a good chance he would beat you with a belt too.
Complain about it to your parents? they'd also beat you with a belt when they got you home.
...and don't you dare call the cops.
They wore very big belts.
Since a generation of hippies managed to grow up reciting the pledge from heart like good little angels, and they did not all turn out to be strait A Christian academy students by the end, it seems to me that the pledge itself did not do any of the harm its critics have claimed.
It also proves that the money spent to argue this in court was well wasted on making lawyers rich. :wtf:
With all of the burdens we share as children of the Nuclear age, I'd think being able to recite a stupid poem on que is hardly a trouble worth complaining about.
-
With all of the burdens we share as children of the Nuclear age, I'd think being able to recite a stupid poem on que is hardly a trouble worth complaining about.
That makes perfect sense, but you must understand this is all a bunch of symbolic gestures, a battle to test the public and demonstrate who has the real power to sway their minds and more importantly the minds of law-making figures.
At face value, its just an innocent little poem, but the battle has to be fought somewhere, (or over something, in this sense).
EDIT: And to colecampbell666, are Canadian students required to recite the national anthem in school? That would be the fundamental difference here.
-
EDIT: And to colecampbell666, are Canadian students required to recite the national anthem in school? That would be the fundamental difference here.
We sing it. Most people don't but with my LOVE OF MUSIC I do.
-
christianity was created for the sole purpose of keeping theese kind of people in power. it seems to have worked.
:wtf: Someone didn't pay attention in History class.
-
there are 2 kinds of history, the recognized history and the truth. the more time that passes by, the more the truth is lost. what we have isnt the truth, what we have is a bunch of filtered, misinterpreted, misunderstood and just plain mutilated history. opinions generated by so called intelectuals who get all their information from books written by the same kind of people who make opinions based on what little varifyable information they have. i may not have all the facts, but my point is that the historians dont have all the facts either. i merely add my interpretation to the mix.
you want proof of my theory?
<nuke points at america>
-
<nuke points at america>
Kabooooommmmm!!! :D
Okay, seriously
there are 2 kinds of history, the recognized history and the truth. the more time that passes by, the more the truth is lost. what we have isnt the truth, what we have is a bunch of filtered, misinterpreted, misunderstood and just plain mutilated history. opinions generated by so called intelectuals who get all their information from books written by the same kind of people who make opinions based on what little varifyable information they have. i may not have all the facts, but my point is that the historians dont have all the facts either. i merely add my interpretation to the mix.
Every word. Absolutely true.
-
Under God does belong in the pledge
Why?
It wasn't there originally. It serves to divide the nation between those who believe in God and those who don't (Thereby making the entire pledge completely worthless to anyone who doesn't believe in God since they've already lied once reciting it).
I could understand if the pledge was traditional (like the British national anthem) but the pledge was changed within living memory. It's not a tradition that everyone grew up with for generations.
And the problem is that the pledge is then used to back why Christianity should be dominant over every other religion or atheism. If people were trying to claim that God save the queen meant that the UK had to step away from democracy and go back to having the monarch actually rule you'd probably get similar complaints in the UK.
-
There is one crucial difference: the United States governs under Rule of Law, not Divine Right. The very reason there was a revolutionary war 230 years ago was to assert that political power comes from the consent of the governed, and not from God.
I allways thought it was becouse the ruling monarchs were overtaxing jerks.. :blah:
-
what we have is a bunch of filtered, misinterpreted, misunderstood and just plain mutilated history.
...and why is that?
Its because you can't handle the truth!
Do you really want teachers to open every history class with a list of sins your respective nation has committed for the last thousand years (wholly removed from the context of what other nations have done of course)?
You want to teach little billy about the indian genocide, or how TR faked us into a preemptive war with spain that cost thousands of innocent lives, or maybe how your granpappies tripped themselves into a massive global war through their own apathy and incompetence?
For every mosquito bomber that zoomed under German anti aircraft guns to drop a bomb on a prison wall, releasing hundreds of captives, theres another guy that screwed the pooch and blew up hundreds more of his own men.
The truth is obviously still there for those who care to learn it... but few do because its uncomfortable.
History has been domesticated to something thats fit for teaching to school children.
It serves to divide the nation between those who believe in God and those who don't
At the time of its inclusion, most of American believed in God.
In retrospect, its done a piss poor job of dividing anyone.
Spending money to attack every schoolhouse ritual is simply wasteful.
-
history has not and never will be fixed. it will always be subject to change, "revisions", "corrections", and "improvements". one day some archeologist will dig up some sketchy evidence of some historical hypothesis they have and as the result of it being blown out of proportion, all the textbooks will be changed. many will view this as another piece of the puzzel but how many people stop to realize what is lost by the addition of a possibly correct fact. history decays. and the older it is, the less likey it is to be accurate.
then you must take into consideration that the written historical record only covers perhaps less than 1% of the whole of human existance. the truth is not there to learn, it is gone forever. wiped from the record by simple human shortsightedness. how can you ever bother to understand history when you fail to understand its core nature.
-
You don't study what historians written happened...you study just the facts...make the conclusions yourself then.
-
You don't study what historians written happened...you study just the facts...make the conclusions yourself then.
And where do you glean these facts from??? History books! Written by historians!
-
By the way... might I address all the critics who say I'm wasting my time worrying about this?
You're right. It should be meaningless, it ought to be traditional, and in the big scheme of things it's really not that important.
So why are new laws being passed on this issue, then? We ALL have better things to worry about.
-
So why are new laws being passed on this issue, then?
because the world is run by monkeys :D
they are too buisy getting their way to worry about society as a whole. it is as it always has been and how it always will be.
-
You don't study what historians written happened...you study just the facts...make the conclusions yourself then.
And where do you glean these facts from??? History books! Written by historians!
Filter facts from oppinions. Western Roman Empire fell in 385 A.D. (right?), Hitler fought a war on two fronts, treaty X was signed in year Y, Z defeated G in battle of H. Those are facts. Causes are for you to pick up from that.
I had luck to have a great history teacher who tought us to use our heads and THINK..not just memorize years and stuff. To think was caused some historical events, what was the trigger, what were the consequences. :D
-
Filter facts from oppinions. Western Roman Empire fell in 385 A.D. (right?), Hitler fought a war on two fronts, treaty X was signed in year Y, Z defeated G in battle of H. Those are facts. Causes are for you to pick up from that.
I had luck to have a great history teacher who tought us to use our heads and THINK..not just memorize years and stuff. To think was caused some historical events, what was the trigger, what were the consequences. :D
But what facts are presented can be misleading, if you haven't got all the facts at hand then you can come to the wrong conclusion. If you weren't there at the time then you aren't in full possession of the facts. I mean, how many innocent people are jailed due to a lack of evidence or whatever!
Hell even witnesses to the same events can interpret them in different ways!
-
Filter facts from oppinions. Western Roman Empire fell in 385 A.D. (right?), Hitler fought a war on two fronts, treaty X was signed in year Y, Z defeated G in battle of H. Those are facts. Causes are for you to pick up from that.
What? And the fact that Hitler's evil is merely an opinion?
-
Filter facts from oppinions. Western Roman Empire fell in 385 A.D. (right?), Hitler fought a war on two fronts, treaty X was signed in year Y, Z defeated G in battle of H. Those are facts. Causes are for you to pick up from that.
What? And the fact that Hitler's evil is merely an opinion?
Yes, to the majority of people! To Eva Braun he was a lover! I mean in her opinion he wasn't evil, and to many he was a great leader!
-
I've got a new idea! We should just scrap the whole thing and be done with it! Seriously. :arrr:
-
But what facts are presented can be misleading, if you haven't got all the facts at hand then you can come to the wrong conclusion. If you weren't there at the time then you aren't in full possession of the facts. I mean, how many innocent people are jailed due to a lack of evidence or whatever!
Hell even witnesses to the same events can interpret them in different ways!
You don't need ALL the facts..you need ENOUGH facts..or cruical facts.
What? And the fact that Hitler's evil is merely an opinion?
Precisely. We don't KNOW the man... For all we know the jews might have been mearly a tool to unite the people (to jumpstart them to follow him). He might have been insane..I don't know.
-
What? And the fact that Hitler's evil is merely an opinion?
Precisely. We don't KNOW the man... For all we know the jews might have been mearly a tool to unite the people (to jumpstart them to follow him). He might have been insane..I don't know.
He wasn't insane, he was a drug addict... who got an STD from a prostitute (who is believed to be jewish). So... if anything, he was probably trying to get revenge for his own stupidity.
:EDIT:
I said it earlier... but, Godwin's law.
-
clever law :D
-
there are 2 kinds of history, the recognized history and the truth. the more time that passes by, the more the truth is lost. what we have isnt the truth, what we have is a bunch of filtered, misinterpreted, misunderstood and just plain mutilated history. opinions generated by so called intelectuals who get all their information from books written by the same kind of people who make opinions based on what little varifyable information they have. i may not have all the facts, but my point is that the historians dont have all the facts either. i merely add my interpretation to the mix.
you want proof of my theory?
<nuke points at america>
Depends on the history we're talking about. My specialized interest in history is in World War II. We know allot more now in publically available information about what happened during World War II than the individual people that were there during the war.
In slightly less subjective areas the realm of World War II aviation has never before been examined in such detail as it is now. Reason being that documents that were thought lost have been resurrected and posted on the internet, government archives are being opened wide up, and information has been tumbling out. We know more about which types of aviation fuels were used where than they probably did when it was happening as we now have the ability to take all of those bits of information and cross reference it all together. Enough pieces of the puzzle and we're there.
Now I know what you're saying. The old adages about how the victor writes the history books still holds true. But I generally believe that to only be true in the general publics perspective. To be very honest most people in the general public haven't a clue about history. Not one bit. Totally oblivious. One of my dorkier English teachers in high school kept getting Stalin, Hitler, and Churchill confused. That always threw me...
Once you get out of that and into some of the academia ...for all of those faults...we do have some very solid historical information and there is generally no problem distinguishing between things like hard numerical facts and first hand information versus a historian taking that information and synthesizing it into an argument. Thats what historians do and to read that you have to use critical thinking skills. I know you know this Nuke because you've basically written the same thing but this seems less obvious to some.
-
Now I know what you're saying. The old adages about how the victor writes the history books still holds true. But I generally believe that to only be true in the general publics perspective. To be very honest most people in the general public haven't a clue about history. Not one bit. Totally oblivious.
For the past two summers at least once a week I've had someone ask "So have you found any fossils?"
Paleontologists look for fossils and petrified wood. I'm looking for little obsidian fragments, and stargates... ermm... nevermind.
The moral of the story being, most people don't even know what different disciplines do.
-
Good point. People are stupid, throw rocks at them.
-
Under God does belong in the pledge
Why?
It wasn't there originally. It serves to divide the nation between those who believe in God and those who don't (Thereby making the entire pledge completely worthless to anyone who doesn't believe in God since they've already lied once reciting it).
I could understand if the pledge was traditional (like the British national anthem) but the pledge was changed within living memory. It's not a tradition that everyone grew up with for generations.
And the problem is that the pledge is then used to back why Christianity should be dominant over every other religion or atheism. If people were trying to claim that God save the queen meant that the UK had to step away from democracy and go back to having the monarch actually rule you'd probably get similar complaints in the UK.
Oh look! There's another person who doesn't understand what Under God means, yet questions the one who does 'Why'! What a surprise! :rolleyes:
-
Good point. People are stupid, throw rocks at them.
I'd rather throw granades...safer (for me)
-
Oh look! There's another person who doesn't understand what Under God means, yet questions the one who does 'Why'! What a surprise! :rolleyes:
You are assuming that your meaning is the only correct one.
-
GOD
--|--
UNDER GOD
-
Oh look! There's another person who doesn't understand what Under God means, yet questions the one who does 'Why'! What a surprise! :rolleyes:
You are assuming that your meaning is the only correct one.
Whichever way you slice it, it still doesn't counter you're "believers/non-believers being divided" point
-
GOD
--|--
UNDER GOD
:nod:
-
Whichever way you slice it, it still doesn't counter you're "believers/non-believers being divided" point
Exactly
If you want to include humility in the pledge make it something which doesn't require belief in anything. A better phrase might be One nation, first amongst equals. Get the ball rolling with that rather than something which states that people need to recognise the authority of something they may not even believe in.
Something which forces the people who don't believe in God to lie.
-
I like under buttheads...............
-
One nation under telecom giants. :drevil:
-
Tell me this, what's the need for it outside of a religious viewpoint?
-
well, it was added in a time of "sort-of" crisis when alot of people where relying on religon to keep up hope...
-
It was added in a time of repression which ran completely contrary to the very principals America stand for.
-
Here's the kicker:
A Christian musn't deny God - it's practicly a sin.
A atheist can pretty much say whatever he wants - he can lie like crazy - no God, no afterlife, no punishment :lol:
-
No one is forcing the Christian to deny God though. All that is being pointed out is that a phrase about God which should never have been in the pledge in the first place should be removed.
The Christian can reaffirm his faith to God in whichever way he wants after that. What he can't do is claim that a Buddhist or Sikh or Hindu should swear allegiance to a God they don't believe in.
There is no kicker.
-
Here's the kicker:
A Christian musn't deny God - it's practicly a sin.
A atheist can pretty much say whatever he wants - he can lie like crazy - no God, no afterlife, no punishment :lol:
Morality enforced by fear is not morality.
-
No one is forcing the Christian to deny God though. All that is being pointed out is that a phrase about God which should never have been in the pledge in the first place should be removed.
That's basically what has recently happened in Italian schools. There shouldn't be references to Christianity giving the raising number of Muslims and Atheists.
-
Good point. People are stupid, throw rocks at them.
:yes:
-
Good point. People are stupid, throw rocks at them.
:yes:
Yes.More people need to be hit in the head with rocks.Or body.
-
Good point. People are stupid, throw rocks at them.
:yes:
this is a good post
-
One Nation, under God, Allah, several other pentheons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and hoping to achieve Enlightenment via Buddhism...
That is why it doesn't need to go in, define 'under', if you are talking 'physical location' of some kind of deity, it STILL doesn't make any sense. The whole purpose of the statement is to make it sound like the US is one nation 'Under the control of God, don't give any of that 'location location' bull****, I don't buy that for a minute.
-
Here's the kicker:
A Christian musn't deny God - it's practicly a sin.
A atheist can pretty much say whatever he wants - he can lie like crazy - no God, no afterlife, no punishment :lol:
Morality enforced by fear is not morality.
Oh? It's not fear... it's more giving due respect to the big dude in the sky.
-
But the only reason most Christians do give respect is because they're afraid of going to hell, just as the only reason I respect cops who are being jerks is because I'm afraid of going to the slammer.
-
Well, thats theri problem then, isn't it? ;)
Besides...nothing wrong with a little fear...it keeps us in our place.
-
Well, thats theri problem then, isn't it? ;)
Besides...nothing wrong with a little fear...it keeps us in our place.
I find it preferable when people are kept in their place with morality that springs from within themselves, such as they will feel bad about themselves when they commit an act that is immoral relative to their own judgment. This way, if the institution imposing fear breaks down, order will still be upheld.
This is the way most seculars, atheists, etc. moralities function.
-
The more breaks to keeps us from doing something we'll und up regreating, the better.
I find it preferable when people are kept in their place with morality that springs from within themselves, such as they will feel bad about themselves when they commit an act that is immoral relative to their own judgment. This way, if the institution imposing fear breaks down, order will still be upheld.
This is the way most seculars, atheists, etc. moralities function.
:wtf: You say it's not like that by Monotheistic religions?
-
The more breaks to keeps us from doing something we'll und up regreating, the better.
I find it preferable when people are kept in their place with morality that springs from within themselves, such as they will feel bad about themselves when they commit an act that is immoral relative to their own judgment. This way, if the institution imposing fear breaks down, order will still be upheld.
This is the way most seculars, atheists, etc. moralities function.
:wtf: You say it's not like that by Monotheistic religions?
Yep.
First of all, its not morality by their own judgment, its morality from other peoples judgment who claim to be in contact with a supreme moral authority. This allows the followers to be easily manipulated.
Secondary, throughout the Bible, (and i'm guessing also with the Quran), people are punished somehow when they do bad things. Stoning, castration, imprisonment (deprivation of freedom), going to hell, etc. That seems to be the only thing keeping the followers in line at the time and fear keeps them in the pews today.
And then theres televangelism....
But wait, theres "Good News", if you join the church and contribute a total of $1000 in five easy monthly installments, our clergy will ensure you wont get sent to hell! never mind about that extramarital affair or eatinga all that seafood.....
....it all plays off fear.
-
You're assuming somehow that I'm brainwashed and have no thought of my own? Or should I say, morals of my own?
Have you cosidered the possibility that my morals and the ones preached by the Church could actually be in harmony (in 99% of cases at least)?
As far as fear goes, it's allways been there and allways will be there. We got lots to fear in this world and for a reason.
Fear can also be found in the most everyday process - brining up children. A child must have at least some fear of their parents...respect doesn't really come without a little bit of that. So I don't really see what's wrong with little fear in religion.
If God is our heavenly father, then you got to respect him, no? ;)
And you make it sound like the belifs of seculars, atheists & budhists don't have anything to do with fear AT ALL?
-
budhisim has fear. fear of being reincarnated into a worse life (thats a lifetime of suffereing) if your previous life was full of immorality and general badness.
-
First of all, its not morality by their own judgment, its morality from other peoples judgment who claim to be in contact with a supreme moral authority. This allows the followers to be easily manipulated.
Because people are mindless slaves.*
Secondary, throughout the Bible, (and i'm guessing also with the Quran), people are punished somehow when they do bad things. Stoning, castration, imprisonment (deprivation of freedom), going to hell, etc. That seems to be the only thing keeping the followers in line at the time and fear keeps them in the pews today.
*Check out The New Testament.
And then theres televangelism....
But wait, theres "Good News", if you join the church and contribute a total of $1000 in five easy monthly installments, our clergy will ensure you wont get sent to hell! never mind about that extramarital affair or eatinga all that seafood.....
....it all plays off fear.
Because pharmaceutical companies don't do this. The thing is, there are always going to be scam artists, and it's just plain wrong to stereotype people. Remember kids, stereotyping is the bastard child of bigotry.
-----
On a side note, this thread is being hijacked. :beamz:
-
Sad thing is I do have a basic mistrust of all pharmaceutical companies. Its way too easy to just placebo random meds. Yes, I think weird like that.
But yeah, total hijackage. Sorry. I must take my leave.
Whoosh!!!!
*vanishes*
EDIT: And I never mentioned Buddhists for that reason!!! :mad:
-
The reference to God in the Pledge is a reference to the Christian God.
If you believe church and state should be separated, it should be removed.
-
No one is forcing the Christian to deny God though. All that is being pointed out is that a phrase about God which should never have been in the pledge in the first place should be removed.
Correction: not only should it have never been in the pledge in the first place... it wasn't.
You know, I'm not even arguing that it should be removed. If it's traditional and it makes people happy then okay, I'll handle it gracefully. But we need to stop ADDING IT into MORE places it doesn't belong, and people need to stop abusing the phrase to back up their own points of view.
Reading back over the comments former Pres. Bush made, it strikes me that the attitude of he and his aides is as if American Atheists was a hate group, like the KKK or Stormfront. Now even white supremacists and neo-Nazis have their rights... but when you're holding Strom Thurmond in higher capacity than Crick & Watson because of their convictions and not their accomplishments there's something wrong.
-
Correction: not only should it have never been in the pledge in the first place... it wasn't.
I know it wasn't there. That's why it shouldn't be there now in the first place. :D