Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chengrob

Pledge of Allegiance Under Attack

Recommended Posts

The 9th circut court is the most overturned by the Supreme Court. I think they have a 80-90% overturn rate by the way.

Ah, yes...but it could still stand after all......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to be atheist but I gave up because they have no holidays.

 

Everybody is an atheist. Once you realize why you reject the thousands of other God's you'll realize why I reject yours.

 

I look at the bible as an amazing peice of writing. I think it is a great book to live by and the example of Jesus Christ is something we should all strive to become. Who says you can't be a Christian atheist? :shrug:

Dude....you can't forget about Festivus! :lol:

 

 

:beer: :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you implying a optically-impaired cow wrote the Bible?  :huh:

It totally possible!!!

 

he could have been a ancient realitive of the CEO for the National Enquirer...print only the BS and leave out the facts!!

 

How do we know for sure?

Edited by OneCool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is our purpose or this guys, then why are we asking just for those words to be removed and only to ban it from public school's unless they remain...? At least that is what most of the ones complaining have said.

 

No one ever said it was the average athiest purpose. Again, those who brought the suits are not asking that the words just be changed, they are asking for the whole thing to be thrown out. Looks like to me there is more to the agenda.

 

And sorry but if the flag doesn't represent our government, it can not represent our people, because we create our government from its people, it is one and the same. Which is why it is a great government.

 

You are confusing government policy, with government control, two different yet similar issues... And besides, this government isn't a true capitalist government anyway, it is a combination of several types, it only leans capitalist.

 

 

I was not talking about how we view Government as being of the people in this country. These nut jobs view the Government as being of the corporations, the wealthy and the powerfull. I never said the US Government was a true capitalist government. The very far left fringes of our society do view it that way though.

 

Um, no I am sure there are other people in other countries that love their countries but are pretty dang ticked off at the government...

 

True, but most countries will not let you express your dissastifaction openly. Public policy in those countries is if you speak against the government, you have insulted the country.

 

They as in who? It definitely wasn't atheists in general. Unless you are once again confusing the two.

 

They as in Far Left Zealot Socialist. If you reread my post, I was talking about POLITICS, not a persons religous feelings.

 

How would striking out under god benefit these supposed anti-capitalist, anti-patriots? What good would it do? Are you saying there is some secret alliance between them and atheists? Or are you trying to say that atheists/agnostics are these people, in which case this is all assumption with no fact and very little thought involved.

 

Again, These far left zealots are not after striking out those two words. They are not content with just changing it. They want it gone. Far left zealots are athiest for the most part. This is no secret. I never infered that all athiest were far left zealots just as those that believe in God are not all Far right wing nut jobs. It just so happens that the fringes manipulate people any way they can including using religous feeling to inflame people. Just as you accused me of assuming all athiest/agnostics are zealots, you postings have infered all people who believe in god are right wing nut jobs. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander. :mrgreen:

:huh: Um... alright... Obviously you missed the sarcasm, but no matter...

 

Again, you stated

The real agenda of most of those opposed to the pledge is not the part added about Under God.

 

So where is the proof, which was my main question. Considering that the majority of people against the added part are in fact agnostic/atheist, how are you assuming that most of them have a hidden agenda?

 

Either way, you stated that all these people want, yet there are more than just those people wanting something done with the pledge.

 

And there have been alot of attempts at only having those words removed. You stated that this was all an attempt at removing the entire document, when in fact I have only heard "under god" mentioned...

 

What does being libertarian have to do with anything? I don't believe I mentioned political affiliations in my posts although I could be mistaken...

 

I personally think this is an attempt to discredit this whole thing which is pretty insane... I equate this to people saying things like "Blacks don't really want to be free, its the north that has this hidden agenda"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highlander;

 

 

 

Absolutely. Howard is a shadow of an Australian. Both he and Blair also refer to 'god' far too often in their speeches. In fact, Blair has been nicknamed 'the vicar'. Yelling 'god' at folks isn't going to heal the harm they've done.

Lately I haven't had much time to keep up with American politics, so I don't know much about whats going on in other places... So ole Blairs becoming a faith healer huh? Well, he'll get about the same amount acomplished I suppose ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did they not challenge it in the 1930's and 40's when it was added? God does not imply any religion even though one could argue those that added it were Christian. God is a generic term for a diety used by all the worlds religions. Also in the United States there is a process called majority rules. The majority of people in the United States would identify themselves as Christian. (about approx 2/3 of the population.) I guess that means they have the right to oppose that challenge also. I still do not see what the fuss is all about. In the United States you can say the pledge any way you choose. You can say it with the words Under God or not. You can even abstain from saying it at all. If the schools are trying to force your kids to say it, you have the right as a parent to force the school to remove your kids from the class while it is being recited. Just because you do not believe in God, does not give you the right to deny those that want to say it the right to do so. This is about liberty and freedom.

It was added in the fifties, not the thirties and fourties (Which brings in the question how, it took twenty years to add the thing if there was no controversy about it)

 

God implies religion because with out religion there would be no god...

 

Wrong, majority only rules when it is not in violation of the minorites civil rights.

 

The right to vote may in fact imply a majority ruling society, but it is limited in many ways, one called the electoral...

 

Christainity has been on the decline for many years...

 

The problem is the official documentation and the fact that seperation of church and state is being violated. Me being an atheist and a patriot am put into a hard choice to make when asked to say the pledge. Not to mention it would be hard to keep my religion private which is my right, if ask to say it in a group of people.

 

No one said you don't the right to say it, but noone has the right to make others say it, which is the point. You're twisting it around backwards...

 

Yeah, this is about liberty and freedom... Which gives us the right to protest this if we feel this is in our best interest.

 

What your are seeming to imply is religion has a right to influence government just because a group of people is larger than the other. When it plainly doesn't and was never ment to be.

 

Our founding fathers never ever ever meant this country to be a majority rules country. They set it up so that no one could over power the "little guy". They wanted the country to be more of a safe haven for the minorities, which is one of the reasons people came here. The oppression and the control of the church was one of the biggest reason the pilgrams landed at plymoth rock...

Edited by Highlander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the theory, that man evolved from apes

No, it's not. The theory is that both man and ape evolved independently from the same genetic source. A pretty well proven theory too. And one Christian fundamentalists are only too ready to embrace in disguise. Forensic DNA tests leading to criminal convictions, for instance, would be lost without it.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man is an ape

 

Just the kind of cavalier disregard for language that has led us to this pass. I expect better of you doc.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just the kind of cavalier disregard for language that has led us to this pass. I expect better of you doc.

 

I

Better?

 

That is no disregard for language. It is simply fact. Cavalier? Absolutely.

 

Avoiding this point is one of the things that leads to misunderstanding of the concept of evolution and man's place in it in general and that is why I always emphasize it when people say that man evolved from apes or that we simply have a common ancestor, or if man and ape are spoken of as two different things.

 

"man and ape" is incorrect. That's simply like saying Sparrows and birds. Sparrows are birds. Man is an ape.

 

Of course it wouldn';t be such a sticking point for me if there were not so many who didn't get it. I know you get it of course, I'm not worried about you.....unless of course you are absent too long in which case I am jealous that some alternate group might be benefiting from your presence.

 

I do like it that you always seem to expect better of me. It'salmost like having a mentor. But I think we have different ideas about what is better. :beer: :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude....you can't forget about Festivus! :lol:

 

 

:beer:  :beer:

I had to wikipedia that one. :lol:

Edited by The Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man is an ape

You knew it would be inflammatory and perjorative when you said it, regardless of its factual value. The word ape connotes negative implications, especially in relation to the theory of evolution as it's generally undestood.

 

Naughty of you.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You knew it would be inflammatory and perjorative when you said it, regardless of its factual value. The word ape connotes negative implications, especially in relation to the theory of evolution as it's generally undestood.

 

Naughty of you.

 

I

Well... it's wrong anyway... we are not members of the Pongidae family. Yes, we are primates, but no, we are not apes. We share the same superfamily, Hominoidea, but it stops there and we part ways.

 

Chop, do not call me an ape when science says otherwise.

Edited by Neo X1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought humans branched off from apes.

 

I don't think it so much of what we actually are that makes us any more or less important. I am more apt to believe it is what lives inside.

 

If we are apes, monkeys or whatever, we damn sure are the proudest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You knew it would be inflammatory and perjorative when you said it, regardless of its factual value. The word ape connotes negative implications, especially in relation to the theory of evolution as it's generally undestood.

 

Naughty of you.

 

I

Simply put, that is part of the problem I am in conflict with. There should be no negative connotation, it should not be inflammatory. My intention was certainly not for it to be inflammatory, though I know it can be. It is merely fact.

 

 

Naughty? I don't think so. It is an important matter to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... it's wrong anyway... we are not members of the Pongidae family. Yes, we are primates, but no, we are not apes. We share the same superfamily, Hominoidea, but it stops there and we part ways.

 

Chop, do not call me an ape when science says otherwise.

I am a scientist by training and education and have advanced degrees, so in effect I am science speaking in some regard...and I am not alone in the assertion in fact as you probably well know. The fact is that there are many scientists who share the view that I am expressing and we are not a "fringe element".

 

 

 

We are Hominidae, and Hominidae are apes. I do not share in the feeling that all Honinidae happen to be apes with the special exception of humans. That is simply not proper classification and is simply an expression of human arrogance at worst or fragile sensibilities at best.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxonomy is a large and classical field of science that some scientists still spend their lives pursuing. Very interesting stuff and I enjoy it a great deal. The botanists are more proper than the zoologists and very tight about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...