Pledge of Allegiance: Unconstitutional.

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
About atheists... there is no single person on this earth that does not worship a god in some form (especially under definition 4 in that link, although not necessarily the idolatry of money). That so-called atheists usually don't recognize this fact never surprises me -- the very heart of atheism is an irrational denial of belief (only agnostics are truly honest on this subject). Now go pop a diet pill and dream that that new car will get you laid.

I guess I'm the one exception.

There are no exceptions. Everyone worships an idol god in some fashion. Most modern people don't realize that the origin of idolatry was charms, i.e. lucky rabbit's foot, etc. Anything outside yourself that you think can fix you or help you that obviously cannot. Even modern religions are most idolatrous than as they were originally taught in ancient times.

As I said in another thread just a couple of days ago:
"Tell me about yourself long enough, and I guarantee I will find your god(s). TV, news, car, government, money, diet pills, environmentalism, patriotism, pseudoscience, sex, drugs, something. Everyone has an irrational faith in something to save them that cannot possibly save them. Everyone has a scapegoat that obviously is not at fault. Everyone holds an obvious falsehood to be the supreme truth. To be otherwise would be to have no humanity. You dream of something, do you not?"

Hmmm, I guess because you say so it must be true:roll:

I'm not interested if you believe it or not. I know it to be a fact.

At least you think you do.

It is his religion.

That we are all led astray by believing in external idols and scapegoats when we should believe in ourselves?
Yes, Moonie, that is my religion. "Thou art God."

Hehe, I know.

But I know that all the things that lead people astray in their belief in external idols lead them astray when they replace them with a belief in the self. The problem is that who we think we are isn't who we are. We identify with the ego and it is a false construction. You have to loose yourself to find your self.

 

[tooltime]

another rant to remove God from this country?

 

[piasabird]

What makes you think the Supreme Court will not overturn this just like they did last time?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What makes you think the Supreme Court will not overturn this just like they did last time?

Actually what they said was that Newdow didn't have the right to bring the suit, because he wasn't the primary guardian. They didn't rule for or against it, they ruled against him.

This time the people he's representing ARE the full guardians, so the court will very likely HAVE to hear it. Most experts agreed that Newdows presentation before was masterful. The bottom line is, he's got the facts and reason on his side, emotion and political influence stand against him. It will be a very interesting case.

 

[Sledgehamer70]

This country was found under 1 Religion which was Christianity, and as far as I know and what I could find "Under God" has always been apart of the pledge. If people don?t like it tell them to go take some beef with the founding fathers....

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Sledgehamer70
This country was found under 1 Religion which was christianity, and as far as I know and what I could find "Under God" has always been apart of the pledge. If people doin't liek it tell them to go take some beef with the founding fathers....

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer."

that took me all of 5 seconds to find.

 

[Legend]

This country was found under 1 Religion which was christianity, and as far as I know and what I could find "Under God" has always been apart of the pledge. If people doin't liek it tell them to go take some beef with the founding fathers....

So many things wrong in two lines...

The United States has nothing to do with religion. It is not a theocracy and was not founded on Christianity. There's actually something in the constitution about the seperation of church and state.

The founding fathers have nothing to do with the pledge. They were actually liberal deists for their time raised in the enlightenment.

The pledge was written in 1892 by a priest that chose not to include anything with God in it.

The pledge was revised in 1954 during the McCarthyism period in order to give a sense of superiority to sheep in thinking that they are better that the atheist Soviet Union because they are religious.

 

[Sledgehamer70]

Yeah! Im over it! my schools didn't even do the pledge! lol shows how hard I really look for it. people need to get over little issues like this. if it was put up to vote it would never pass and it would stay the way it is I guess we will see soon!

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What makes you think the Supreme Court will not overturn this just like they did last time?

That was overturned based on STANDING. in this case there is no question of standing, or should not be.

ALso, this fed DISTRICT court is just applying the law he has to, case law decided by his superiors just 2 years prior. this isn't a shock to anybody.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Hafen
Also,


The pledge does not say "under Jesus" or anything like that. People say it refers to the Judeo/Xian Jehova, but only if you are letting it be defined as that.

"God" is generic. If you don't like the term, create a new meaning for yourself. God could be "force of Nature," "spirit flowing through all life," "greater humanity" or "lifeforce" or any other way you wish to define God. It does not require it to be a sentient big bearded man in the sky unless you let it.

Thnk of the strategy as in martial arts, deflect and redirect the energy instead of trying just repel it.

What if you're an atheist... atheists have rights in this country too, don't they?

Like he said, the word "god" in English is generic. The pledge is not "under the Christian god," for example, so the arguments that it does imply that are incorrect. The generic word "god" can (and does) include Allah (which is Arabic for "god" FYI, but more specific in that it is singular non-gender and cannot be made otherwise), Buddha, Mother Nature, "the Planet," the universe, Jehovah, Adonai, Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, Great Spirit, what have you. To insist that the word "god" in English only refers to the Christian god, under the context of this argument, is to be an ass.

About atheists... there is no single person on this earth that does not worship a god in some form (especially under definition 4 in that link, although not necessarily the idolatry of money). That so-called atheists usually don't recognize this fact never surprises me -- the very heart of atheism is an irrational denial of belief (only agnostics are truly honest on this subject). Now go pop a diet pill and dream that that new car will get you laid.

Back on topic, I really don't care about the pledge. The entire thing should be completely voluntary, if not done away with. The "under God" passage doesn't concern me so much as the entire pledge in itself, which IMO when made mandatory is the propaganda of fascism. What does concern me is that this attack on the pledge from the left is just as ignorant as the defenders of it on the right. "OMG it says 'god'!!" :roll:

Depends who you ask, the english word "God" doesn't refer to the same god expressed in the Koran, it directly relates to a "Christian" God - whatever the hell a Christian God is... Find me a english speaking muslim who uses the word "God" when they talk about the "God" expressed in their own religious texts, they won't use it.

I'll admit the word is a little ambigious in some cases, but thats not the case in the pledge. It should have never been put in their in the first place. The intent is clear what they wanted to do when they added the word "God" into the pledge, they are referring to a Christian God.

Thats crap, atheism is the disbeilef of supernatural deites. You're taking athiesm completely out of context.

I will admit trying to "prove" a world without god is just as difficult when trying to "prove" a world with a god. I've been reading "Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God" it's very good so far and his background is somewhat simaller to mine. Personally, I'd love to agrue that morality isn't just a social construct but our morality is objective towards human rights. Though, I can't prove that and it's nothing but a personal beilef, that'll stay personal.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Vic
About atheists... there is no single person on this earth that does not worship a god in some form (especially under definition 4 in that link, although not necessarily the idolatry of money). That so-called atheists usually don't recognize this fact never surprises me -- the very heart of atheism is an irrational denial of belief (only agnostics are truly honest on this subject). Now go pop a diet pill and dream that that new car will get you laid.

I've seen you debate here enough to think you should be above using semantic arguments. I'm quite sure that when you talk about worshipping god, people understand that you are referring to a deity of some sort.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Sledgehamer70
This country was found under 1 Religion which was Christianity, and as far as I know and what I could find "Under God" has always been apart of the pledge. If people don?t like it tell them to go take some beef with the founding fathers....

Then you know aboutsolutely nothing of our history whatsoever.

Religion was kept almost totally out of all founding aspect: documents, pledge, money, etc. It's only after that such things were added. This is well known established fact.

Furthermore a large number of our founders were NOT generic Christians as would currently be considered. They were deists and quakers and so on. And the practice of religion then was entirely different than now, so don't go confusing your period paradigms.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

I'm pretty sure that if they meant it to mean something other than the Christian God then it wouldn't be a proper noun. You can tell its specific because it says, "One nation under God". Not "One nation under god(s)", "One nation under a god", or "One nation under various forms of god". Its context is pretty clear.

 

[engineereeyore]

I have one question about this, and I guess it's similar to the whole "prayer in public" thing. I don't really understand how it's a violation anyones rights to have the pledge of allegience. You're not required to repeat it. No one is standing there with a gun to your head. You're not sent to the office, or shouldn't be (i don't know, maybe some back woods place would), if you don't repeat it. However, if it's taken out of public schools, my right to recite the pledge with my classmates is being taken away. Personally, I don't care all that much about the pledge. I think it's a nice idea, don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. But I really don't see what's unconstitutional about it when you're not required to recite it. Heck, when I went to school, the teacher was about the only one you could hear anyway. So what is the point of wasting all the money we are on law suit such as this when no real right see to be violated. Just trying to understand, so if someone could enlighten me, that would be great.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Legend

So many things wrong in two lines...

The United States has nothing to do with religion. It is not a theocracy and was not founded on Christianity. There's actually something in the constitution about the seperation of church and state.

The founding fathers have nothing to do with the pledge. They were actually liberal deists for their time raised in the enlightenment.

The pledge was written in 1892 by a priest that chose not to include anything with God in it.

The pledge was revised in 1954 during the McCarthyism period in order to give a sense of superiority to sheep in thinking that they are better that the atheist Soviet Union because they are religious.

Actually, the only thing that was really "wrong" was the statement about that being how the pledge was originally written. Separation of church and state is all dependant on your interpretation of the first ammendment. People who believe this means there should be a separation of church and state use quotes about the need for it to be seperate, while those who don't think it is in the constitution use quotes of how the founding fathers included religion in government. It all comes down to accepting the points that confirm your perspective and rejecting the ones that contradict it. That is what this case is about. It isn't about the pledge of allegiance. It is about the polarization in this country as each side's fears continue to grow that they are losing ground, and so they fight harder and the country becomes more polarized.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I have one question about this, and I guess it's similar to the whole "prayer in public" thing. I don't really understand how it's a violation anyones rights to have the pledge of allegience. You're not required to repeat it. No one is standing there with a gun to your head. You're not sent to the office, or shouldn't be (i don't know, maybe some back woods place would), if you don't repeat it. However, if it's taken out of public schools, my right to recite the pledge with my classmates is being taken away. Personally, I don't care all that much about the pledge. I think it's a nice idea, don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. But I really don't see what's unconstitutional about it when you're not required to recite it. Heck, when I went to school, the teacher was about the only one you could hear anyway. So what is the point of wasting all the money we are on law suit such as this when no real right see to be violated. Just trying to understand, so if someone could enlighten me, that would be great.

Because it benefits two religions (Christianity and Judaism, and whatever other religions worship God) in government schools while Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and many other religions don't get the same treatment. So to be fair to the tax paying citizens who are of another religions their religion (or absence of) should either have their own pledge or get rid of the line altogether. There's no reason why Christians/Jews should get special treatment because they're the majority.

Hell if its no big deal for Christians then let's just take out God and put in Allah. I mean Christians don't have to say it right? I'm sure Muslims would like to have Allah in there. Then again, I'm sure Christians would too..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Sledgehamer70
This country was found under 1 Religion which was Christianity, and as far as I know and what I could find "Under God" has always been apart of the pledge. If people don?t like it tell them to go take some beef with the founding fathers....

This is entirely untrue. Most of the Founding Fathers weren't even Christians, they were deists.
The Treaty of Tripoli (please click link for complete details) contained the line, "... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." While there is some dispute regarding all the circumstances, that line was approved by George Washington, ratified by the Senate, and signed into law by John Adams.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Sledgehamer70
This country was found under 1 Religion which was Christianity, and as far as I know and what I could find "Under God" has always been apart of the pledge. If people don?t like it tell them to go take some beef with the founding fathers....

This is entirely untrue. Most of the Founding Fathers weren't even Christians, they were deists.
The Treaty of Tripoli (please click link for complete details) contained the line, "... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." While there is some dispute regarding all the circumstances, that line was approved by George Washington, ratified by the Senate, and signed into law by John Adams.

i was waiting for that to be posted up. wondering how long the partisan bickering was the continue before someone noted that the treaty crushes the argument of "founding fathers came to establish a seperate land for their own faith." well, if the country was a christian theocracy, then the founding fathers wouldn't have been any better off than in England (in terms of a state-established religion).

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I have one question about this, and I guess it's similar to the whole "prayer in public" thing. I don't really understand how it's a violation anyones rights to have the pledge of allegience. You're not required to repeat it. No one is standing there with a gun to your head. You're not sent to the office, or shouldn't be (i don't know, maybe some back woods place would), if you don't repeat it. However, if it's taken out of public schools, my right to recite the pledge with my classmates is being taken away. Personally, I don't care all that much about the pledge. I think it's a nice idea, don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. But I really don't see what's unconstitutional about it when you're not required to recite it. Heck, when I went to school, the teacher was about the only one you could hear anyway. So what is the point of wasting all the money we are on law suit such as this when no real right see to be violated. Just trying to understand, so if someone could enlighten me, that would be great.

Because it benefits two religions (Christianity and Judaism, and whatever other religions worship God) in government schools while Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and many other religions don't get the same treatment. So to be fair to the tax paying citizens who are of another religions their religion (or absence of) should either have their own pledge or get rid of the line altogether. There's no reason why Christians/Jews should get special treatment because they're the majority.

Hell if its no big deal for Christians then let's just take out God and put in Allah. I mean Christians don't have to say it right? I'm sure Muslims would like to have Allah in there. Then again, I'm sure Christians would too..

As far as religion goes, I think they made a pretty smart move by using the title "God." It's rather all encompassing. It doesn't really signify Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion individually. If it was only to benefit Christian or Jews, it would have been Jehovah, or Elohim, or Jesus. The title God is not specific to Christians and Jews. Allah is "God" in the Islamic religion, therefore I don't see the word God being offensive. Though granted, I'm not muslim, so I couldn't say for sure.

Still wanting to understand the rights problem though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
Depends who you ask, the english word "God" doesn't refer to the same god expressed in the Koran, it directly relates to a "Christian" God - whatever the hell a Christian God is... Find me a english speaking muslim who uses the word "God" when they talk about the "God" expressed in their own religious texts, they won't use it.

I'll admit the word is a little ambigious in some cases, but thats not the case in the pledge. It should have never been put in their in the first place. The intent is clear what they wanted to do when they added the word "God" into the pledge, they are referring to a Christian God.

Thats crap, atheism is the disbeilef of supernatural deites. You're taking athiesm completely out of context.

I will admit trying to "prove" a world without god is just as difficult when trying to "prove" a world with a god. I've been reading "Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God" it's very good so far and his background is somewhat simaller to mine. Personally, I'd love to agrue that morality isn't just a social construct but our morality is objective towards human rights. Though, I can't prove that and it's nothing but a personal beilef, that'll stay personal.

Allah means God. Specifically, it means THE GOD. English-speaking Muslims use the word Allah instead of God because of they typically feel the word Allah is more respectful as it cannot be made plural. Muslims place a great deal of importance in making sure that God is respected properly. The translation of the word is still "god."

Atheism is the "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." The worship of petty gods is idolatry, which is the "worship of idols" or the "blind or excessive devotion to something." You will find that many people who claim to be atheists do believe in the supernatural or the mystical, usually in the myth that humanity is not a part of nature, or in "mother nature."

Morality IS objective, and not a social construct. If one person harms another, that harm is real. No matter how many constructs a society might create trying to say that the harm is not immoral, the harm still exists, and is still real.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I've seen you debate here enough to think you should be above using semantic arguments. I'm quite sure that when you talk about worshipping god, people understand that you are referring to a deity of some sort.

I was and am referring to a diety of some sort.


Gah... I have to remind myself that this is the society that believes that inanimate objects are capable of being evil, and not the the people who abuse them. Now THAT is a belief in the supernatural, let me tell ya...

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I have one question about this, and I guess it's similar to the whole "prayer in public" thing. I don't really understand how it's a violation anyones rights to have the pledge of allegience. You're not required to repeat it. No one is standing there with a gun to your head. You're not sent to the office, or shouldn't be (i don't know, maybe some back woods place would), if you don't repeat it. However, if it's taken out of public schools, my right to recite the pledge with my classmates is being taken away. Personally, I don't care all that much about the pledge. I think it's a nice idea, don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. But I really don't see what's unconstitutional about it when you're not required to recite it. Heck, when I went to school, the teacher was about the only one you could hear anyway. So what is the point of wasting all the money we are on law suit such as this when no real right see to be violated. Just trying to understand, so if someone could enlighten me, that would be great.

Because it benefits two religions (Christianity and Judaism, and whatever other religions worship God) in government schools while Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and many other religions don't get the same treatment. So to be fair to the tax paying citizens who are of another religions their religion (or absence of) should either have their own pledge or get rid of the line altogether. There's no reason why Christians/Jews should get special treatment because they're the majority.

Hell if its no big deal for Christians then let's just take out God and put in Allah. I mean Christians don't have to say it right? I'm sure Muslims would like to have Allah in there. Then again, I'm sure Christians would too..

As far as religion goes, I think they made a pretty smart move by using the title "God." It's rather all encompassing. It doesn't really signify Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion individually. If it was only to benefit Christian or Jews, it would have been Jehovah, or Elohim, or Jesus. The title God is not specific to Christians and Jews. Allah is "God" in the Islamic religion, therefore I don't see the word God being offensive. Though granted, I'm not muslim, so I couldn't say for sure.

Still wanting to understand the rights problem though.

Read my other post about the context. Now assuming Muslims agree (I'm not sure if they have a problem with it) then you're leaving out Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, and probably other small religions. Right now its not all encompasing. That's why its a problem.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Read my other post about the context. Now assuming Muslims agree (I'm not sure if they have a problem with it) then you're leaving out Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, and probably other small religions. Right now its not all encompasing. That's why its a problem.

I can understand that. And again, I really don't care one way or the other. But if they don't agree with the pledge, they don't have to say it. And if you stop people from saying it because it contains the word God, which might offend people, how much longer till you prohibit the word God entirely because it offends. I'm offended by profanity, but that's my problem, not everyone elses. I guess I just don't understand why people can't just ignore it since they don't have to be involved in it.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Read my other post about the context. Now assuming Muslims agree (I'm not sure if they have a problem with it) then you're leaving out Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, and probably other small religions. Right now its not all encompasing. That's why its a problem.

I can understand that. And again, I really don't care one way or the other. But if they don't agree with the pledge, they don't have to say it. And if you stop people from saying it because it contains the word God, which might offend people, how much longer till you prohibit the word God entirely because it offends. I'm offended by profanity, but that's my problem, not everyone elses. I guess I just don't understand why people can't just ignore it since they don't have to be involved in it.

Its not about agreeing with the pledge, its about equal representation.

Its not about being offended by the word god, its about being offended that they aren't being represented in an institution's school's pledge that they pay taxes for just as any other person who believes in a god.

Think of it this way, "WTF, I am an atheist parent and I'm pissed off. I payed for this school in taxes just like any other person and yet in their pledge they acknowledge this nation only under "a god"? That's not right. If you don't represent me then I shouldn't have to pay." Something like that.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Read my other post about the context. Now assuming Muslims agree (I'm not sure if they have a problem with it) then you're leaving out Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, and probably other small religions. Right now its not all encompasing. That's why its a problem.

I can understand that. And again, I really don't care one way or the other. But if they don't agree with the pledge, they don't have to say it. And if you stop people from saying it because it contains the word God, which might offend people, how much longer till you prohibit the word God entirely because it offends. I'm offended by profanity, but that's my problem, not everyone elses. I guess I just don't understand why people can't just ignore it since they don't have to be involved in it.

Its not about agreeing with the pledge, its about equal representation.

Its not about being offended by the word god, its about being offended that they aren't being represented in an institution's school's pledge that they pay taxes for just as any other person who believes in a god.

Think of it this way, "WTF, I am an atheist parent and I'm pissed off. I payed for this school in taxes just like any other person and yet in their pledge they acknowledge this nation only under "a god"? That's not right. If you don't represent me then I shouldn't have to pay." Something like that.

That's actually a good argument. Since schools are publically funded through taxes collected, they should represent the views of all its people. Since some choose not to believe in a god, their voices should be represented and the term "under God" shouldn't be there.