Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chengrob

Pledge of Allegiance Under Attack

Recommended Posts

I've never given God a gender before, I'm not going to start now... :blink:

 

The pronouns used to describe Him are because of the way most languages defaulted to male terms in situations where gender is ambiguious, unkown, or unimportant. You don't want to go around calling God "It". :shrug:

 

 

 

 

...I gotta start smokin weed before I come here...

Interesting....

 

Why not "It" as long as it is made a proper noun? I mean, if we are made in "It's" image and not the reverse, then why the need to anthropomorphise?

 

 

It is an interesting angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting....

 

Why not "It" as long as it is made a proper noun? I mean, if we are made in "It's" image and not the reverse, then why the need to anthropomorphise?

 

 

It is an interesting angle.

*sings* THIS IS A MANNNN'SSS WORLD!

 

That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'under Creation' might be a more generally satisfactory term. It's genderless and still awe-inspiring without being exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree many religous zealots are trying to force people to say under God also. Both the atheistic and religous zealots are wrong. Most people are not zealots and would not be opposed to a policy that you have the choice of saying under God or not. Also most people are not opposed to a public policy that allowed those who wished not to recite the pledge to abstain. No one has to lose on this issue, but the zealots whomever they are will not be happy unless they have it completely their way.

True true...

 

But there is a difference between the two.

 

In one case, we have someone interposing their view point. In the other case we have someone wanting no view point and the allowance for all to decide in their own manner, and not coaxed, tricked, or forced (whether its only a feeling of being forced or actually being forced).

 

I personally feel like its a big trick to make or get everyone to admit a god no matter their feelings.

 

There is nothing in the government stating any thing atheist or confirming it. There is only the lack of religious guidance or pressuring. (Or that is how its supposed to be)

 

A lot of people are saying that atheists or those who are having these problems are screwing with the government for their own agenda's.

 

They also tend to say things in the nature of "The government was better a hundred years ago, now they are changing things and making it worse" or things to that effect.

 

But all atheists and the others are asking for are things to go back the way they were originally, before they were screwed with in the first place....

 

My questions are:

 

Where is the hidden agenda?

 

What is wrong with this?

 

If things were so much better before, then why not change it back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'under Creation' might be a more generally satisfactory term. It's genderless and still awe-inspiring without being exclusive.

Good idea, or perhaps "Under Creator"

 

But then you still have some people that do not think of it in that aspect.

 

Problem is, if you drop it, there is no controversy except for those that will complain they don't get their way, but they are not being discriminated against...

 

Now I could understand if we were trying to change it to something like "With no god" Which of course would be against religions in general, but this is not the case, not having the words there is not the same as having an atheist view point, only an open minded one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has saying "under God" in the pledge actually hurt anyone? Do people actually complain about something so harmless and insignificant? Is this what our government is wasting their time on rather than something that actually effects something in the smallest way imaginable? Might as well reprint all our currecy that says "In God we Trust" while we're at it. Oh, and "God Bless America" is just way over the boundary. If you're an aetheist, I suppose it would be like saying "Tooth Fairy Bless America!" Wow...so offensive, I think I'm gonna protest in rage. The only people who are offended by this are people who are so insecure, they kill someone for looking at them funny. :bang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with God being in the pledge of allegiance. I have two rationales:

 

1. The separation of church and state was not meant to create a godless government. It was meant so that the state would not favor one religion over another. That is all religions are equal in the eyes of the government. I have said many times, that I do not believe that atheism qualifies as a relgion, much as fasting does not count as a form of eating. Therefore if you exclude atheism as a religion, there is no other religion that has a problem with the words Under God.

I replied to this before, well the Atheist's not being a religion. You can be an atheist and still have a religion. Not to mention atheists are not the only ones who want it out of the pledge. Besides, atheism is a religion, saying its not is like saying 0 is not a number.

 

My mother believes in god, but not christ or the bible, now that would make her an agnostic right? Well, she wants it out. I had a friend who is a pasture, we used to debate religion before I got married at the waffle house. He has been a friend of the family for years and even he says it shouldn't be there.

 

And yes, the seperation of church and state was to create a godless government. That is the entire point. It can not be percieved any other way. Otherwise you leave open the opportunity for one religion to be recognized over another. And if atheism is not a religion, then there should be no reason for it not to be the governments policy. That way religion remains in the hands of the people, where it was intended to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand why people care about such insignificant things. Sure, if a vote came up to add "under god" I would ahve said no. I would also vote in favor of removing it because its not in the original rendition. I simply dont think it alters ones life in any way that it should matter to the extent it seems.

 

Believers seem to be fighting this simply because it appears to be another attack on their values abd beliefs. If they havent been pushed out of virtually every aspect of public society I doubt this would be such an ordeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has saying "under God" in the pledge actually hurt anyone? Do people actually complain about something so harmless and insignificant?

Yes it does. You, your self are complaining on the subject of people complaining. :huh: The real question is its need to be there, its not our job to make you understand what its like to be us. Or even why its important to us. Thats for the judge...

 

 

Is this what our government is wasting their time on rather than something that actually effects something in the smallest way imaginable? Might as well reprint all our currecy that says "In God we Trust" while we're at it. Oh, and "God Bless America" is just way over the boundary. If you're an aetheist, I suppose it would be like saying "Tooth Fairy Bless America!

Ah... So our pledge as a nation and the way it not only effects our citizens but also its impact on our children and state of mind is a small issue. Seperation of church and state is a small issue. Would it be a small issue if the tides were turned and they had just added "Godless" or "God doesn't exist" on it? I'm sure it would be for those that take no active part in their government and how it works.

 

And yes, we are fighting for that as well. No I am not saying lets recall all money, but any future currency printed should dang well be void of those words and in their steed the original motto of this country.

 

I don't think I have ever heard of the tooth fairy religion... :lol: Perhaps I shall start one. :rolleyes: Those are no where near the same...

 

Wow...so offensive, I think I'm gonna protest in rage.

You have that right. Just as we do.

 

The only people who are offended by this are people who are so insecure, they kill someone for looking at them funny. :bang:

Really? Hmm... The last time I killed someone... Oh but wait, I'm not supposed to talk about that anymore, my shrink said so... :erm::angel:

 

No we are offended that it was added in the first place. Why does it need to be there? Thats the real question here. Why?

 

There is no real reason other than putting religion where religion does not belong.

Edited by Highlander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand why people care about such insignificant things. Sure, if a vote came up to add "under god" I would ahve said no. I would also vote in favor of removing it because its not in the original rendition. I simply dont think it alters ones life in any way that it should matter to the extent it seems.

 

Believers seem to be fighting this simply because it appears to be another attack on their values abd beliefs. If they havent been pushed out of virtually every aspect of public society I doubt this would be such an ordeal.

I see where you are coming from, but I just don't share that understanding.

 

This effects my kids. Its like a slap in the face to anyone who believes in something other than god.

 

And people will continue to feel that way until its removed. As I mentioned in another post, not having it there is not the same as having the reverse added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me ask you this, if the pledge did not contain "under god" would you be for making it mandatory in a k-12 education structure? Do you not say the pledge due to the "under god" and if not would you now say it if it is removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me ask you this, if the pledge did not contain "under god" would you be for making it mandatory in a k-12 education structure? Do you not say the pledge due to the "under god" and if not would you now say it if it is removed?

Mandatory as in...? If you mean spoken each day or on a set schedule to build patriotism... No. Not in a free government.

 

If you mean mandatory to learn and know, yes.

 

No at this time I will not speak the pledge, nor do I encourage anyone, especially my kids to do so. The reasons for this are very simple. As long as its there, I don't feel as though it deserves respected. Although I have taught my kids to speak it without those words...

 

If it were removed then yes I would speak it during appropiate times. But to whole heartedly mean it, there are more things that need changing in other aspects of this country at current moments, most of which do not concern religion in any sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my favorite phrase in a discussion, you don't like it my way, then leave your own country. I sat through this statement three or four times during this discussion and remained silent; no longer, this is America and the last time I looked it was still supposed to be the land of the free with liberty and justice for all. Statements like this are out of line.

 

If someone doesn't like someone else's opinion then counter it with fact (or your own opinion) but do it respectfully or bite your tongue and bear with it because we are all entitled to our own opinion, this what freedom is all about.

 

chengrob, i respect your opinion but religion is nothing like eating. Eating is required to sustain your very physical existence, religion is a belief in something that can not be quantified and you can physically survive without it. Many people do live fruitful, productive and happy lives without religion. In essence religion is a personal choice in what you believe, a spiritual belief and choosing to not believe is definitely a spiritual belief. These are two sides of the same coin and like it or not not believing is a religious choice. Good try but in no way are they comparable.

 

 

And this why I choose to use the word "brainwashing" in my earlier post. Little children are impressionable empty vessels waiting to be filled and by mandating the inclusion of those words into what should be a secular Pledge, the government is telling them that God exists regardless of the parents wishes. They are exposed to this every single time that they hear the Pledge recited and they hear it each and every day that they are in school. When a trusted authority figure (and the child's friends) tells a child something often enough, the child will begin to believe. This undermines a parents rights to guide their children's spiritual development and also can undermine the child's trust and respect for their own parents.

 

When this governmental decree undermines a parents own beliefs and the spiritual training of the children in question in whether there is a God or not, I and many other other Americans believe that government has over stepped its Constitutional boundaries in the establishment clause. Like it or not the government declaring there is God is just as wrong to someone who does not believe as it would be if it declared that your own personal God was the wrong one and then had all the other children in your child's school recite this "fact" day in and day out as is happening now.

 

All Americans are entitled to their own spiritual beliefs, even those who do not believe. To deny that others beliefs do not deserve the same protections as your own is the first slippery step down a path that can lead to no other outcome than the loss of many peoples freedom and that is what this issue is all about.

No one is forced to say the pledge. If you don't like it, (like I said) say it your own way or leave. I did NOT say if you don't want to be christian, leave. I said either deal with it or forget about it. Lots of things will happen in life whether you like it or not. Whining about it isn't going to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does. You, your self are complaining on the subject of people complaining. :huh: The real question is its need to be there, its not our job to make you understand what its like to be us. Or even why its important to us. Thats for the judge...

 

 

 

 

Ah... So our pledge as a nation and the way it not only effects our citizens but also its impact on our children and state of mind is a small issue. Seperation of church and state is a small issue. Would it be a small issue if the tides were turned and they had just added "Godless" or "God doesn't exist" on it? I'm sure it would be for those that take no active part in their government and how it works.

 

And yes, we are fighting for that as well. No I am not saying lets recall all money, but any future currency printed should dang well be void of those words and in their steed the original motto of this country.

 

I don't think I have ever heard of the tooth fairy religion... :lol: Perhaps I shall start one. :rolleyes: Those are no where near the same...

 

 

 

You have that right. Just as we do.

 

 

 

Really? Hmm... The last time I killed someone... Oh but wait, I'm not supposed to talk about that anymore, my shrink said so... :erm::angel:

 

No we are offended that it was added in the first place. Why does it need to be there? Thats the real question here. Why?

 

There is no real reason other than putting religion where religion does not belong.

Why does something so harmless and insignificant offend you? Why would you or anybody else worry about something that quite frankly, isn't hurting anything? I'm not a patriot, but the pledge in general doesn't offend me. I just don't think it's a matter of concern. It's been around so far, and I haven't seen any issues erupt from it. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real agenda of most of those opposed to the pledge is not the part added about Under God. Most of the people who are opposed to the pledge are of the far left wing extremist faction of this country. It goes against everything they believe to pledge themselves loyal to a flag or country that is not a pure socialist state. They equate the flag with the form of Government we have and not the land or the people who make it up. Their agenda is to get the people of this country to equate the flag with our government and tell us how it represents the evils of capitalism. The problem with their belief is the flag predates our current form of Government by 14 years. The flag has always stood for the people of this country and that is why we should pledge allegience to it. In the US you can actually love your country and hate your Government and they are considered two different things. They tried to get the pledge thrown out in the courts on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to force people to pledge allegience to the Government. That failed on the grounds that the pledge was not compulsatory and that the pledge is to the flag and not the Government. Now they are trying the same tactics with Under God. This is about politics and not religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real agenda of most of those opposed to the pledge is not the part added about Under God. Most of the people who are opposed to the pledge are of the far left wing extremist faction of this country. It goes against everything they believe to pledge themselves loyal to a flag or country that is not a pure socialist state. They equate the flag with the form of Government we have and not the land or the people who make it up. Their agenda is to get the people of this country to equate the flag with our government and tell us how it represents the evils of capitalism. The problem with their belief is the flag predates our current form of Government by 14 years. The flag has always stood for the people of this country and that is why we should pledge allegience to it. In the US you can actually love your country and hate your Government and they are considered two different things. They tried to get the pledge thrown out in the courts on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to force people to pledge allegience to the Government. That failed on the grounds that the pledge was not compulsatory and that the pledge is to the flag and not the Government. Now they are trying the same tactics with Under God. This is about politics and not religion.

Interesting.

 

I am a Republican myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does something so harmless and insignificant offend you? Why would you or anybody else worry about something that quite frankly, isn't hurting anything? I'm not a patriot, but the pledge in general doesn't offend me. I just don't think it's a matter of concern. It's been around so far, and I haven't seen any issues erupt from it.

Re-read my post... You are missing the point.

 

It is not, and never shall be the pledge that is the problem, but the added portion that does not belong.

 

Why is it we should have to settle? How do you know what it is and isn't hurting? Do you live my life? Do you live the life of a non-believer (an obsurd term in my opinion)? If so, I can't see how you couldn't understand where I am coming from.

 

Secondly, I never said it offends me, not once. I said it doesn't belong and is in fact a way to force me to acknowledge something that I believe/know does not exist. And when it is taught to my children, it is once again forcing them to acknowledge something I personally find very distasteful, vulgar, and frankly destructive to their personalities. Regaurdless of anyone else's feelings about how I live my life and raise my kids, it is my responsibility to raise them how I see fit, and with a set of values that I agree with.

 

When you have religion stuffed down your throat every five seconds, it doesn't make things easy. And I sure as heck don't need more from the government, when that is not their job in the first place. Its not easy being an agnostic/atheist, especially when you are always trying to be converted or "saved" by some self righteous zealot.

 

Did I mention there was a church I let one of my sons go to with a friend that tried to baptise him when they found out we were atheists...? And he was only there to support his friend. It saddens me that religion can not accept people for who they are and what they believe but has to twist them into what it or they think is right. Needless to say, neither of my boys are allowed to go to any church anymore until they reach an age (or a mentality, which ever comes first) that will allow them to use their own minds, in a developed fashion, to explore a religion. I try not to force mine on them, just as I don't force it on others.

 

Kids are way too impressionable, especially under the age of 14 or 15. I have tried to explore all kinds of different faiths, and tried to keep from pushing any as the "real" one...

 

I do not tell people to worship, or not worship anything. All I ask is for the same kindness...

 

Its funny you say no issues have erupted from it, but we are discussing one in this very thread, and this isn't the first time people have tried to get it restored to its original glory...

 

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

 

:rofl2::rofl2::lol: It was changed in the first place, we are trying to change it back... This is pretty much what we are saying. So who are we telling this to? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real agenda of most of those opposed to the pledge is not the part added about Under God. Most of the people who are opposed to the pledge are of the far left wing extremist faction of this country. It goes against everything they believe to pledge themselves loyal to a flag or country that is not a pure socialist state. They equate the flag with the form of Government we have and not the land or the people who make it up. Their agenda is to get the people of this country to equate the flag with our government and tell us how it represents the evils of capitalism. The problem with their belief is the flag predates our current form of Government by 14 years. The flag has always stood for the people of this country and that is why we should pledge allegience to it. In the US you can actually love your country and hate your Government and they are considered two different things. They tried to get the pledge thrown out in the courts on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to force people to pledge allegience to the Government. That failed on the grounds that the pledge was not compulsatory and that the pledge is to the flag and not the Government. Now they are trying the same tactics with Under God. This is about politics and not religion.

Huh? :huh: Do what? Where in the world is this coming from. What is your proof?

 

Are you a mind reader? (Can you teach me? :shifty: ) But seriously, where is the proof man. This sounds like the same crap the far right (or far religious) cries every time separation of church and state is quoted...

 

There may be some people that feel this way, but that in no way means that this case is because of those people. And neither am I one. I do say the pledge from time to time with out the words... I just very rarely do anymore.

 

They equate the flag with the form of Government we have and not the land or the people who make it up.  Their agenda is to get the people of this country to equate the flag with our government and tell us how it represents the evils of capitalism.  The problem with their belief is the flag predates our current form of Government by 14 years.  The flag has always stood for the people of this country and that is why we should pledge allegience to it.

 

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...

 

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.

 

In the US you can actually love your country and hate your Government and they are considered two different things. They tried to get the pledge thrown out in the courts on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to force people to pledge allegience to the Government. That failed on the grounds that the pledge was not compulsatory and that the pledge is to the flag and not the Government. Now they are trying the same tactics with Under God.  This is about politics and not religion

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...

 

I am sure moon might back me up on this one...

 

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? wassat.gif Do what? Where in the world is this coming from. What is your proof?

 

Proof is in the numerous court actions brought against the Pledge over the last 40 + years. Most of these have been filed by far left socialist groups.

 

Are you a mind reader? (Can you teach me? shifty.gif ) But seriously, where is the proof man. This sounds like the same crap the far right (or far religious) cries every time separation of church and state is quoted...

 

I happen to be more Libertarian minded and could care less about both the far right wackos and the far left nut jobs. Just as the far right exploits the feelings of the religious, the far left exploits the feelings of the athiest.

 

There may be some people that feel this way, but that in no way means that this case is because of those people. And neither am I one. I do say the pledge from time to time with out the words... I just very rarely do anymore.

 

No one ever said (or implied) that you personally or any number of athiest were responsible for the actions of a few nut jobs that just happen to exploit how you personally feel about the words Under God.

 

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:

Edited by mstlyevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highlander;

 

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...

 

I am sure moon might back me up on this one...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it....

 

I hate it when polititions ramble on about "god will helps us" etc

It makes no sense to talk about god in a speech intended to be heard by a nation and indeed, the global population. Different peple believe different things, if you are trying to associate with a massive group of people, you shouldnt include your own personal beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pronouns used to describe Him are because of the way most languages defaulted to male terms in situations where gender is ambiguious, unkown, or unimportant.

That's not exactly true. Many, if not most languages (including English) have historically classified nouns by gender, which has nothing to do with sexual identification. Some nouns are masculine, some are feminine and each is inflected accordiningly, with no occult or oppresive metaphor governing their relative values. It is the deterioration of grammatical rules based on linguistic gender combined with the persistence of archaic historical documentation favouring men that has led to the shallow conceit that language itself -- English in particular -- is insidiously chauvinist.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the deterioration of grammatical rules based on linguistic gender combined with the persistence of archaic historical documentation favouring men that has led to the shallow conceit that language itself -- English in particular -- is insidiously chauvinist.

 

I

Reads Iain's post

 

:blink::bang:

 

reads Iain's post agin

 

:eek::bang:

 

Reads Iains post again

 

:chill: ok, I need to lie down now....

 

 

Man my head hurts...

 

Well said Iain (I think) :)

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...