Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chengrob

Pledge of Allegiance Under Attack

Recommended Posts

I really dont mind being related to chimps ( 98.8 % genome match ) and I think that what is required is a universally acceptable definition of 'god'. Then it wouldn't matter if it were in any 'pledges' or not.

 

 

 

Posted Image

 

Sorry, couldn't resist it. Super pic.

 

 

 

 

, :)

Edited by moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot this site http://deism.com/

 

and this one http://www.ethicalatheist.com/

 

There are a few others that are very interesting out there but why use precious space to duplicate efforts---- and speaking of duplicating efforts---

it seems a though the Pledge is duplicating the efforts of the sectarian church, which is unconstitutional ,

The Pledge should read------ one nation, under one electorate, with liberty----

 

but that would be a duplication of effort also--- but it is constitutional

 

http://www.agnostic.org/BIBLEH-15.htm#P1100_258202

 

I finally found this little helper, it put the world we live in into a different perspective..

 

:)

Edited by theoldgardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not feel that atheism is a religion and should not be considered as one under the constitution.

Rob,

 

Review your post and you will see you are clearly mistaking God with religion.

 

Atheists do not exclude god from the consitution nor from civil life. We only exclude religion as a determining factor in the interpretation of the constitution.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an agnostic, I do not believe that I am any less ethical because I do not believe in god. I am not going to go around calling myself an "ethical" agnostic because I think that is absolutely ridiculous, there are people of every religion that have ethics and then on the flip side there are people in every religion that lack ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two separate issues here.

 

1. Under God in the pledge of allegiance.  I believe that America was based under certain religious principles and Under God does indeed reflect these principles.  Additionally, Under God ia sufficiently generic that it does not favor one religion over another.  Although clearly, this irks the atheists, I do not feel that atheism is a religion and should not be considered as one under the constitution.

What religious principles are these? What principles exist that are solely religious that you can only have by being a part of this or these religions? Just because someone of a certain religious orientation creates something, does not mean the created must necessarily be of that religion, just as with a parent and a child.

 

Under God is not a generic term. Not even in the slightest. It is only generic to the jewish and christian religions and leaves out a load of other religions, too many to even begin to go into. A baptist and an antioch can get together and discuss god and be talking about the same thing, and the only name for it is "god". Yet we have Allah... Buddha? Jehova...

 

What about Zeus and Hera? Pluto? Or people who believe in only a superior power and no god at all? This is not a religion? And how offensive is it to a Satanist? Or do they get no rights because christianity claims them to be evil, even though anyone not a christian could and are claimed satanists by christian terms by more than just fanatics, this includes atheists and agnostics.

 

Atheism, which is being coined so often nowadays, is a religion, or can be, depending on the person. A lot of people that consider themselves atheist, such as myself, can also fit the bill to be Agnostic. And vice versa. Anyone anymore that does not believe in "God" is said to be an atheist. But that is not true. You can't lump atheist together in a single category, its truly only a term to give someone that fits no other category. Or chooses not to.

 

If we throw atheist's rights out, who rights are next? Jews? Muslims? It is definitely not fair to consider someone's beliefs valid, and someone else not, which is the entire point of this argument. Your beliefs are your religion. Not believing in a conventional one is no reason to lose your rights.

 

 

 

2. Creationism vs evolution.  This should be a separate thread.  There is scientific evidence that evolution exists in nature.  Plus it also describes many human behaviors and provides an excellent analogy in the business world.  However, this does not lead my to the conclusion that man is descended from apes.  In fact, other than this theory, there is little evidence that man is descended from ape. 

How much evidence do we need before there becomes enough evidence? Most people have no real idea about evolution, especially of the evidence in the last 10 or so years, because all they know about it is hear say and the bits and pieces they get from the news. There is tons of evidence, just nothing concrete... But if we wait for concrete information before we made decisions as a society, there would be a lot more drug pushers and murders walking the streets. And a lot more wars...

 

 

 

On the other hand, we have creationism or intelligent design.  The problem with is a constitutional one I believe.  The intelligent design/creationism theories come from the Old Testament in the Bible.  This favors Judeo/Christian thinking over other relgions that do not have this in their Bibles.  Therefore, I believe that these matters should be taught in religion class where the matter can be properly explored as a whole.  But it should not be taught in science class.

This I can agree with sort of, but peoples problems are there aren't any religion classes in a public school (excluding colleges). This is not for school period unless these people are going to school for some type of religious major or minor, it is definitely not for grades k-12 in a public school where parents have almost no choice what their kids get taught. This type of information is a for churches/sunday school and private schools to decide on.

 

The difference is, evolution doesn't really go against religion, but these other definitely go with religion. There in lies the problem.

 

 

 

To everyone spouting off about spending money with in god we trust on it...

 

1. This was added in the late 1850's by a reverend. It to doesn't belong and people do complain and have tried to have it removed. The old motto was E pluribus unum which means "One from many" or "Out of Many, One" And was actually about this country, not what the country favors as its religion. (I have a report saved somewhere on my computer that explains the whole thing if you wish to read it)

 

2. The last time I checked, my pay checks, my personal checks, and my debit/credit cards don't have that on them, so there... :P

 

And as far as me leaving the country because I disagree with someone about my government... Thats easy to say. If you don't like things, why don't you leave?

Thats not what this country is about, and if you think it is, you really need to go back and read or reread our country's documentation. Its exactly that kind of attitude this country is supposedly trying to avoid....

 

I have only two words "Civil Liberties"

Edited by Highlander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be a balance myself. For those who want to say Under God, let them. For those who wish to leave out under God, let em. And for those who do not want to say it at all, that is their right. This is America and we are about freedom, so let everyone have the freedom to say the pledge as they wish. Is that so hard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, the pledge of alleigance is official. Sure you could just say "let em say what they want", but in that case, the words "under god" would still be in the official version. This is unfair as it implies that god exists, which many, many people dont believe. It would be stupid to force an aspect of your religion upon people who dont believe it in a democratic society based on freedom. It may seem pedantic, but having "under god" in it can be annoying to people who dont believe in god. It annoys me and I'm not even american :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you dont believe in a higher power? Nature itself is a higher power and represents "god" in some cultures yet I dont see anyone denying the existance of nature. The problem is people assume the word god is "christian" when it reality it is not. Its the word people have a problem with, the idea itself is more common than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, the pledge of alleigance is official. Sure you could just say "let em say what they want", but in that case, the words "under god" would still be in the official version. This is unfair as it implies that god exists, which many, many people dont believe. It would be stupid to force an aspect of your religion upon people who dont believe it in a democratic society based on freedom. It may seem pedantic, but having "under god" in it can be annoying to people who dont believe in god. It annoys me and I'm not even american :P

To be truly Official it would have to be a requirement to say it in the first place. I am proposing to let the people decide on their own how they want to say it or if they want to say it at all. Athiest need to get the corn cob out of their *&^ and quit trying to run everyone elses life also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be truly Official it would have to be a requirement to say it in the first place. I am proposing to let the people decide on their own how they want to say it or if they want to say it at all. Athiest need to get the corn cob out of their *&^ and quit trying to run everyone elses life also.

Atheists dont try to run peoples lives (well i dont anyway), but you must understand that is is very annoying for religious people to act as if they have all the answers and that they can act superior because they follow religious beliefs. The power religion has over people (particularlly the very young) needs to die down, if anyone is trying to run people's lives-it's the religious folk. Just because they follow the fables, doesnt mean everyone should, and it doesnt mean that the"unfaithful" should be looked down upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists dont try to run peoples lives (well i dont anyway), but you must understand that is is very annoying for religious people to act as if they have all the answers and that they can act superior because they follow religious beliefs.  The power religion has over people (particularlly the very young) needs to die down, if anyone is trying to run people's lives-it's the religious folk.  Just because they follow the fables, doesnt mean everyone should, and it doesnt mean that the"unfaithful" should be looked down upon.

But that is what diversity is about is being able to put up with the other guys belief. Is it legal to burn a flag of the UK on UK soil? It is legal here to burn a US flag on US soil. We call that freedom of speech. We also have the right to be :filtered: off at those who burn the flag. We do not throw them in jail or execute them like most nations would. My point is you don't have to like everything every one else does, but if you stop it all together you are being tyranical. Get over being offended by those who believe in God. Those who believe in God need to get over being offended by those who don't. Then let everyone live and let live accordingly. Edited by mstlyevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you dont believe in a higher power? Nature itself is a higher power and represents "god" in some cultures yet I dont see anyone denying the existance of nature. The problem is people assume the word god is "christian" when it reality it is not. Its the word people have a problem with, the idea itself is more common than not.

The word is a specific reference to the supernatural, not nature. Quite a different matter. Even in cultures with a naturalistic view of "god" they refer to it/him/her in a supernatural context.

 

I don't assume the word is Christian, I assume the word simply refers to God. I believe that is simply contrary to the foundations of this nation and the ongoing principles of the nation. In fact I believe it directly contradicts these things and is an afront to the core values and Principles of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be truly Official it would have to be a requirement to say it in the first place. I am proposing to let the people decide on their own how they want to say it or if they want to say it at all. Athiest need to get the corn cob out of their *&^ and quit trying to run everyone elses life also.

Why not take the word out the way the Pledge was originally written, then let those who think differently add what they like? It would seem the theists are the ones tring to run peoples lives.

 

I take exception to the corn cob comment, perhaps you should check yourself to see what is in there? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not take the word out the way the Pledge was originally written, then let those who think differently add what they like? It would seem the theists are the ones tring to run peoples lives.

 

I take exception to the corn cob comment, perhaps you should check yourself to see what is in there? :unsure:

LOL I think I'll pass on checking what's in there. I don't have a problem with removing Under God in the official version and leaving it up to the theist to add it. This is not about that one line though. The people responsible for bringing this before the courts motives are to get rid of the pledge altogether. That is what I am opposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word is a specific reference to the supernatural, not nature.

Nature in many cases is supernatural because people cant or dont understand what causes the changes in weather etc. Worship towards mother earth or nature is still a greater power not much different that the christian definition of "god" in that their lives are dependant upon something they cannot control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is nothing supernatural about nature. There are just some parts of it that we dont understand. Just because something is not yet fully understood, doesnt mean that it supernatural. The term "supernatural" generally reffers to things that we are unsure as to wether or not they can happen.(basically stuff like psychics etc),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as "god" goes, god isnt merely something we dont understand, its something that cant exist, it's unpheasable for something so spectacular, so perfect to exist.

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...