[ol][li]I wasn’t talking to you.[/li][li]Go find a dictionary and look up the word impression.[/li]Don’t ever call me a liar again.[/ol]
Either I don’t understand or I just don’t agree. Probably both. Is someone taking the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge to mean that if you don’t believe in God you’re not a patriotic citizen of thios country and can’t truly “pledge allegiance”? What’s the basis for this belief? Isn’t it obviously untrue?
The ‘Under God’ phrase was a dig on Communists. Since even they don’t call themselves Communists anymore, the UG, a vestige of the Cold War, may be dropped.
This was precisely the rationale for including “under God” in the Pledge in the first place. As Congressman Louis Rabaut put it, in sponsoring the resolution to add “under God”,
[QUOTE]
From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship.
The weed of Communism bears bitter fruit. What evil lurks in the hearts of Communists. The Shadow knows! hahahahahahaha ahahahahahahaha
Didn’t one of our presidents, Bush the older or Bush the youger say something about atheists not being good Americans also?
Whatever. It’s nonsense. Besides. How do materialism and Communism go together? I thought one of the biggest evils of Communism was, they wanted to take all our stuff. It’s so confusing.
I’ve never seen a credible source for that, although it’s widely claimed to be true on left-wing blogs (about Bush Sr.). Maybe we need a staff report on this one…
Either a staff report, or a reliable cite. I never verified it, so it may be false. Warning… I will pay attention to the nature of the cite. If the source is the rabid partisan frothing type of either the right or left, I will be skeptical. If it is from one or several moderate/neutral sources then whatever the answer is, I will accept it.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that just about every 1st through 6th grader gets this impression. And why wouldn’t they? After all, if it weren’t so, why would God even be mentioned in the PoA?
Pash
Good info thanks. . However isn’t it obvious at this point in our history that it no longer has any meaning like that?
Personally I have no problem with it in or out. My concern is how do we maintain seperation of church and state while still allowing freedom of expression and worship. It just seems a ridiculous extreme to me to be offended by the mere expression of some belief. Where’s the tolerance? The accpetance of our diversity? If atheists are offended by the mention of a God they don’t believe in and believers are offended by the beliefs of atheists and what they percieve as the suppression of their right to express themselves, then where does that leave us? Isn’t it better to promote an understanding and appreciation of our diversity?
Likewise. And thanks for keeping the tone civil. These issues are ripe for statements that someone may take the wrong way and allow anger to derail the discussion. I appreciate your earnestness and focus.
I get your point, but I’m not sure I’d go that far. The Constitution is undoubtedly a more important document in our day-to-day lives. But the philosophy I do think is more important in the big picture. The D of I stated (overtly and by contrast) the ideals this country stood for. The Constitution was the set of laws they devised that would allow us to realize those abstract ideals in the real world. Those laws can, have, and will change and be modified as the times see fit. When doing so we should always keep in mind the philosophy from which they sprouted. Why? Because it is what enabled and guided the wonderful but temporal Constitution.
Probably poor analogies expressing my idea of the relationship between the DofI and The Constitution that may or may not be useless: objective:strategy, mission statement:company bylaws. (?)
I simply disagree that the Pledge with the words “under God” shackle us to the founder’s religious beliefs. As I mentioned, I view it as a philosophical statement. The philosophical idea that they believed that there was something more powerful than man is a big deal in understanding what they did and why. The acknowledgement of a higher order is imperative for Natural Law theory. And take away Natural Law and you have no inalienable rights. Your idea of simply stating that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights” becomes meaningless. Endowed by whom or by what? When you answer that with the constraints you impose it boils down to those rights being self-endowed, by man. And that goes straight to the weak being endowed by the powerful, to the degree that they deign endow them at all.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. You view their theism as just one of their personal opinions, as accidental and tangential as whether they like beer or wine better, what they thought about sexual orientation, or what colors they preferred. I view it as a necessary ingredient for the Declaration of Indendence it spawned.
I didn’t say that. Actually I think quite the opposite. Any activity that we are asked to perform as a group has some coercive power. That’s simply one of the qualities of group behavior. By itself, it is not bad or good. It just is. As far as those things that may be instituted into the Pledge that I might object to I’d say that someone will no doubt object to anything we put in the Pledge. That is another reason to keep it as philosophically fundemental as possible. I can understand how that rationale would spark the response “fine, take out ‘under God’”. But from the reading I’ve done, I view the founder’s belief in a higher order, Creator, Grand Architect, etc. as the most fundamental aspect of of our founding. If you look at the D of I I don’t see how you can disagree. It is THE founding document—and the one that explains the “why”. The Constitution is a practical document, as can be seen in its preamble:
"We the People of the United States, **in Order to **form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Bolding mine.)
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, or why. The first part seems to simply want to obfuscate the issue or evade the question. I mean it in it’s most basic form. are we the product of a supra-natural force or purely natural ones. I agree with the latter part, obviously, I hope. If it helps us understand one another, I believe in a Creator and evolution.
It is not necessarily a religous concept. Maybe this will help explain where I’m coming from:
Bob: Do you believe there is a God?
Joe: Absolutely.
Bob: Oh, what religion do you belong to?
Joe: None.
Bob: But you just said you believed in God.
Joe: Yes, and I believe God is offended by any organized religion.
Bob: So what do you call yourself?
Joe: Joe.
I’m not sure why you bring up the issue of philosophical neutrality. I agree that it isn’t neutral, nor should it be. I think it’s hard to conclude that the USA is neutral regarding religion. The fact is that is was founded in an atmosphere permeated by Christianity. Traces of it can be seen in every court room. That said, I don’t think that the founders intended an areligious society, but one where you weren’t prevented from practicing whatever religion you wanted to. This, of course goes to the debate about the Establishment Clause, which you and I would probably be on opposite sides of. I’ll just offer that at the time of its drafting several states had official state religions, so it seems clear to me that the Clause was intended to mean precisely what it states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” “Congress” is the federal governement empowered to make federal laws. If they meant “Congress will do nothing to promote religiosity or any particular religion in any way” I think they would have said it.
I’m not following you here, Max. I get lost/confused at the last line. But if you are saying that Atheism and Theism are not religions, we agree. And the reason I think “under God” is okay is because it is a Theistic statment (like the D of I), i.e., not a religious one.
I said, “You are right.” Why did you write this? I must be missing something.
You are right. It certainly isn’t a top priority, but that is no excuse to not address it. I agree.
For you. And I think the result would be less of a Pledge. End of the world? No.
I agree that this is an issue. But I think teachers do a very good job (possibly too good of a job, but that’s another thread) looking out for children’s self-esteem. I think there is are some great lessons to be learned in this for children. 1) that you have a choice. 2) Some choices cost more than others 3) You must gauge what is important to you personally, then act accordingly.
You are absolutely right. You are making sense. That makes you dangerous. 
This is a bit of strawman. No one is remotely suggesting that Christians and other believers should not be allowed to express their beliefs. Atheists are not being offended here by somone else simply mentioning a God we don’t believe in; what we’re not happy about is having to choose between falsely stating our belief in someone else’s God, or opting out of a shared civic ritual of patriotism.
The choice has never been between a pledge with “one nation under God” and a pledge with “one nation without God”; if the pledge were restored to its original wording, Christians could still affirm their belief in God every day, they would just have one less opportunity to claim Americans who don’t believe in God aren’t being patriotic because of their views on religion.
Perhaps, but having said the POA daily as a kid I saw it as an expression of patriotism and not religious belief. Seriously, to refer to those two words out an entire day as coersion is a ridiculous stretch. If an atheists or anyone with an alternative belief asked that their child be excluded from saying under God I can’t see that as scarring the poor child with undue social pressure any more than getting a note to be excused from gym. Let’s be realistic.
Christians can’t realistically claim that now. The inalienable rights granted to us gaurentees the right to be atheist or anything else without persecution or discrimination. I think the question is dealing with when people can express their religious beliefs in trying to determine where the lines are drawn in the seperation of church and state. A teacher should not be allowed to witness to an un willing class but should be allowed to wear symbols that honestly express their beliefs. These are the kind of issues being dealt with.
I don’t believe atheists are being forced to make the choice you describe. The choice can be as simple as remaining silent when others say “under God” and continuing with “indivisable” That way you participate and are true to your own beliefs.
He was unneccesarily rude. I’m not interested in playing some game with you with the letter of the rule rather than the spirit. If you want to report me for violating the letter of the rule, go ahead. I really don’t care. I’m not interested in playing childish games with people who can’t have an adult discussion in a civil manner without talking down to other people. Adults should be able to have a discussion and disagree with others without saying “What planet did you get that malarkey from?” or “Why don’t you do some research?” I’ve been trying to stay out of The Pit as much as possible because I thought that stuff wouldn’t go on as much here. Guess I was wrong. If that’s people’s idea of a mature discussion around here, then I’d rather not converse with those people.
I’m ending this sidetrack now. If you want to take it up further, I suggest you start a thread in The Pit.
[QUOTE=Monty]
[li]Don’t ever call me a liar again.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
I’m not calling you a liar. I’m saying that your snide little suggestion about me was false. In fact I am not religious at all. Yes, I understand that you played a little game where you implied something without actually explictly stating it, but that does not absolve you of responsibility for your words.
Now those are indeed my last words to you. You may continue to take pot shots at me, but I will no longer respond. Knock yourself out…
All he had to do was state that, rather than being condescending about it.
Look, I’m sensing a big gang-up here. I understand that you guys are all buddies and I’m the new guy, so I think I’ll just take my leave of this thread. It’s a shame because it was a pretty interesting discussion.
Amen. I still can’t quite fathom that you guys actually stand up in school reciting it every day. I can barely fathom that you have a pledge.
A pledge a day keeps the Commies away. yeah. That’s it. That’s the ticket. As a wild wild guess, the pledge may have started as just a gesture, a feel good thing. Then it became “institutionalized” as a tradition. Anyone have the real story?
I think you’re letting this get to you. Look at the sequence of posts: You and Monty had your exchange; John Mace provided a link to a site that would demonstrate the point of the use of the word “God” by English speking Muslims; later in the early morning, you asked why his post was cryptic; still later in the morning, (but with no intervening posts on the topic), I pointed out that it really was not all that cryptic (at least to the extent that it was clear to me what John Mace had intended).
Hours later, you and Monty and John Mace re-opened the topic exchanging a number of personal observations (something that neither John Mace nor I had originally included). Now that the whole topic has been hashed over, you dig up my much earlier post to claim pile on?
Take a breath. As you have already noted, it was not that big an issue.
Having said that, I will now strongly urge the three of you (and any other posters) to drop the topic of rudeness, here. It has been done. That topic is closed.