Pledge of Allegiance: Unconstitutional.

[shira]

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).

Excuse me, but to claim that the "God" of the pledge is the same "god" of definition 4 is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Are you really arguing that when "god" was inserted in the pledge in 1954, the inserters were thinking in terms of a metaphorical "god" that could mean anything to anyone? Do you think any serious person, when they hear "under God" in the pledge, is thinking of money, success, fame or anything OTHER than a metaphysical one?

The fact that there are multiple definitions of a word does not mean that a particular usage of the word encompasses all its definitions. In fact, it's rarely the case that a usage of a word means more than the ONE thing intended by the writer or speaker. So the fact that you can point to a comprehensive list of the definitions of the word "god" is irrelevant to what the word "god" means as used in the Pledge. And as used in the Pledge, it incontrovertably refers to the God of religion, not the wink-and-a-nod BS God that you pretend is in the pledge.

I've heard specious arguments before, but yours is the absolute Everest of nonsense.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 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.

Of course, you're still argueing semantics which I find to be utter pointless in this context. The fact is when the words "under God" were put into the Constution, they were referring to a Christian God. I have yet too meet any muslim who speak english use the word "God".

The people that "claim" to be "athiests" aren't really athiest if they beileve in the "supernatural". You're making atheism something out it isn't made out to be.

Morality is objective? Prove it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: shira

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).

Excuse me, but to claim that the "God" of the pledge is the same "god" of definition 4 is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Are you really arguing that when "god" was inserted in the pledge in 1954, the inserters were thinking in terms of a metaphorical "god" that could mean anything to anyone? Do you think any serious person, when they hear "under God" in the pledge, is thinking of money, success, fame or anything OTHER than a metaphysical one?

The fact that there are multiple definitions of a word does not mean that a particular usage of the word encompasses all its definitions. In fact, it's rarely the case that a usage of a word means more than the ONE thing intended by the writer or speaker. So the fact that you can point to a comprehensive list of the definitions of the word "god" is irrelevant to what the word "god" means as used in the Pledge. And as used in the Pledge, it incontrovertably refers to the God of religion, not the wink-and-a-nod BS God that you pretend is in the pledge.

I've heard specious arguments before, but yours is the absolute Everest of nonsense.

Who wants to bet Vic's next post will be some kinda of sappy response with a little ad hominem?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: shira

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).

Excuse me, but to claim that the "God" of the pledge is the same "god" of definition 4 is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Are you really arguing that when "god" was inserted in the pledge in 1954, the inserters were thinking in terms of a metaphorical "god" that could mean anything to anyone? Do you think any serious person, when they hear "under God" in the pledge, is thinking of money, success, fame or anything OTHER than a metaphysical one?

The fact that there are multiple definitions of a word does not mean that a particular usage of the word encompasses all its definitions. In fact, it's rarely the case that a usage of a word means more than the ONE thing intended by the writer or speaker. So the fact that you can point to a comprehensive list of the definitions of the word "god" is irrelevant to what the word "god" means as used in the Pledge. And as used in the Pledge, it incontrovertably refers to the God of religion, not the wink-and-a-nod BS God that you pretend is in the pledge.

I've heard specious arguments before, but yours is the absolute Everest of nonsense.

Who wants to bet Vic's next post will be some kinda of sappy response with a little ad hominem?

What other response could I have when the only way shira argues is through ad hominem? He doesn't know anything but his own shallow understanding, and he arrogantly insists that's the whole world.

I'm sorry you guys don't have the ability to understand this type of philosophical argument. Hey, it ain't just a river in Egypt. To help you out, I was talking up on Moonie's level.


My only issue with the "under God" argument is that it is the wrong way to attack the Pledge. I already said this, but I see you ignored it. The Pledge should be done away with entirely. I already made a complete argument on this. Go back and read. Removing the "under God" line is counter-productive to getting rid of the Pledge completely.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
Morality is objective? Prove it.

I did.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Morality is objective? Prove it.

I did.

Really? Whats the "objective" exactly?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Morality is objective? Prove it.

I did.

Really? Whats the "objective" exactly?

He means "subjective", perhaps?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: shira

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).

Excuse me, but to claim that the "God" of the pledge is the same "god" of definition 4 is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Are you really arguing that when "god" was inserted in the pledge in 1954, the inserters were thinking in terms of a metaphorical "god" that could mean anything to anyone? Do you think any serious person, when they hear "under God" in the pledge, is thinking of money, success, fame or anything OTHER than a metaphysical one?

The fact that there are multiple definitions of a word does not mean that a particular usage of the word encompasses all its definitions. In fact, it's rarely the case that a usage of a word means more than the ONE thing intended by the writer or speaker. So the fact that you can point to a comprehensive list of the definitions of the word "god" is irrelevant to what the word "god" means as used in the Pledge. And as used in the Pledge, it incontrovertably refers to the God of religion, not the wink-and-a-nod BS God that you pretend is in the pledge.

I've heard specious arguments before, but yours is the absolute Everest of nonsense.

Who wants to bet Vic's next post will be some kinda of sappy response with a little ad hominem?

What other response could I have when the only way shira argues is through ad hominem? He doesn't know anything but his own shallow understanding, and he arrogantly insists that's the whole world.

I'm sorry you guys don't have the ability to understand this type of philosophical argument. Hey, it ain't just a river in Egypt. To help you out, I was talking up on Moonie's level.


My only issue with the "under God" argument is that it is the wrong way to attack the Pledge. I already said this, but I see you ignored it. The Pledge should be done away with entirely. I already made a complete argument on this. Go back and read. Removing the "under God" line is counter-productive to getting rid of the Pledge completely.

Actually, Shria raised a very good point you just completely jumped on his personal attack and ignorned the rest of the arguement.

You never said the pledge should be done away with, you said you didn't really care. I particularly don't give crap about the situation as it's not the most important issue to me. If did ask me having the phrase "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional and its definatly "wrong" to have reciting the pledge to be mandatory.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Morality is objective? Prove it.

I did.

Really? Whats the "objective" exactly?

He means "subjective", perhaps?

The ideas of objective and subjective moralities are two completely different things, AFAIK.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Morality is objective? Prove it.

I did.

Really? Whats the "objective" exactly?

He means "subjective", perhaps?

The ideas of objective and subjective moralities are two completely different things, AFAIK.

Yar, ye have a quick reply finger there. Yeah, I posted that without thinking and then went so far as to look up the definitions of those words for the... well, I've looked them up many times.

As far as morality being objective... I don't agree at all. I especially wouldn't think Vic would agree, seeing as how he is a self-styled pragmatist. The idea that some things are inherintly "wrong" simply because they are seems like the emotional reaction he so deplores. The only thing wrong with killing another human being from a purely pragmatic standpoint is either the loss of energy and time on your part (with no significant material or other return on your investment), the potential loss of goods and/or services from that human, or the potential retribution leveled against you by that human's companions. From a pragmatic viewpoint, sure, the harm is always there. The question is whether that harm will affect you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
Actually, Shria raised a very good point you just completely jumped on his personal attack and ignorned the rest of the arguement.

You never said the pledge should be done away with, you said you didn't really care. I particularly don't give crap about the situation as it's not the most important issue to me. If did ask me having the phrase "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional and its definatly "wrong" to have reciting the pledge to be mandatory.

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm not defending the pledge, I'm merely against this form of attack on it. As I already said, I personally wish that the pledge would be done away with entirely. A free nation has no need of pledges, and especially not the enforcement of mandatory pledges. A free people defend their free nation because they love their freedom and seek to protect it. When the love of, and allegience to, freedom becomes mandatory under force of law, then it is no longer freedom, by definition.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase
Yar, ye have a quick reply finger there. Yeah, I posted that without thinking and then went so far as to look up the definitions of those words for the... well, I've looked them up many times.

As far as morality being objective... I don't agree at all. I especially wouldn't think Vic would agree, seeing as how he is a self-styled pragmatist. The idea that some things are inherintly "wrong" simply because they are seems like the emotional reaction he so deplores. The only thing wrong with killing another human being from a purely pragmatic standpoint is either the loss of energy and time on your part (with no significant material or other return on your investment), the potential loss of goods and/or services from that human, or the potential retribution leveled against you by that human's companions. From a pragmatic viewpoint, sure, the harm is always there. The question is whether that harm will affect you.

I'd say you have your moralities backwards. Objective, in this context, means "Having actual existence or reality," "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices," "Based on observable phenomena."
Objective morality says that an action is wrong because it IS, not because people think it is. I don't think I'm the pragmatist you think I am. I'm more a rational logician. I believe in and concern myself with reality, not fictions. For example, a "thing" is never evil or immoral, only living beings are capable of that.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

What's with all the communism all of a sudden? Every time the majority get's an idea in their head, they should make it a permanent part of our laws? Sounds good to me, but if I was you I'd withhold my judgement until atheists are in the majority...

Agreed.

What the hell is this 'majority rule' BS. Laws and our gov't in general should be based on principle not majority rule. What's the difference between that and communism?

Another thing... Why are atheist's brought into picture? All of us who don't think 'under God' is appropriate in the pledge are suddenly atheist? News to me.

Again, this goes back to the concept of principles. I guess when you're the majority (87%), principles go out the window, huh Zendari?

ATHEISM is only brought into the picture when people want the pledge to say "NOT under god". Got it?

Secular /= Atheism

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

Moron, that's all that needs to be said, right? I mean when you know you know and there's no point making a case. You are a moron and it's just as simple as that.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a moron. Bigoted Blind stereotypical thinking NO WAY!!!!

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

Moron, that's all that needs to be said, right? I mean when you know you know and there's no point making a case. You are a moron and it's just as simple as that.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a moron. Bigoted Blind stereotypical thinking NO WAY!!!!

I immediately clicked your profile after reading this post... I should have known you lived in SF.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

Moron, that's all that needs to be said, right? I mean when you know you know and there's no point making a case. You are a moron and it's just as simple as that.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a moron. Bigoted Blind stereotypical thinking NO WAY!!!!

I immediately clicked your profile after reading this post... I should have known you lived in SF.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are from New York and obviously an idiot, as well as a rude pugnacious little twerp, right? Damn, How do I hit these brilliant calls smack on the head. Must be the flowers in my hair.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

Moron, that's all that needs to be said, right? I mean when you know you know and there's no point making a case. You are a moron and it's just as simple as that.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a moron. Bigoted Blind stereotypical thinking NO WAY!!!!

I immediately clicked your profile after reading this post... I should have known you lived in SF.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are from New York and obviously an idiot, as well as a rude pugnacious little twerp, right? Damn, How do I hit these brilliant calls smack on the head. Must be the flowers in my hair.

Heh. It's only really funny because from the way you post you fit the stereotype perfectly. I was also surprised because I don't usually see you sounding pissed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

So if we wanted to generalize about where you are from all we would have to say is "Kentucky, that's all that needs to be said about you . BTW, how's your Mother/Girlfriend?"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

So if we wanted to generalize about where you are from all we would have to say is "Kentucky, that's all that needs to be said about you . BTW, how's your Mother/Girlfriend?"

You'll have to forgive him. He's a UK fan.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Vic
My only issue with the "under God" argument is that it is the wrong way to attack the Pledge. I already said this, but I see you ignored it. The Pledge should be done away with entirely. I already made a complete argument on this. Go back and read. Removing the "under God" line is counter-productive to getting rid of the Pledge completely.

I didn't see your earlier post (this is a LONG thread). But I completely agree with the opinion you express in the quoted paragraph.

You are completely wrong, however, in characterizing my previous post as an ad-hominem attack. Your general argument about "God" as used in the pledge was:

(1) Here is a list of definitions of a word.
(2) The word is used.
(3) Therefore, all listed definitions apply in the usage.

This argument is utter nonsense, and I do not believe YOU believe your argument (hence the phrase, "intellectual dishonesty").

To show the absurdity of your argument, consider the meaning of the statement, "I like cookies."

According to your reasoning, that sentence means ALL of the following simultaneously:

"I enjoy eating cookies."

"I have affection for cookies."

"I enjoy receiving cookie icons on Anantech threads."

"I think browser cookies are a good thing."

And many, many others (based on the multiple meanings of "like" and "cookies").

Yet, when a normal person writes or says "I like cookies,", he/she almost always intends a SINGLE meaning. To claim that a specific usage of "I like cookies" means everything that such a sentence COULD mean is absurd.

Thus, calling your argument "intellectual dishonesty" is based on the evidence at hand (your obviously flawed argument is prima facia evidence of intellectual dishonesty). It would be an "ad hominem" attack if I instead raised the subject of your education, what you do for a living, your religion, your past history, or any of a number of issues that are not directly tied to the evidence itself.

Now, I COULD have concluded that the hopelessness of your argument was based on your being completely clueless, amazingly irrational, and/or merely having a limited understanding of language. These are all certainly possible explanations for why someone would make a claim such as yours. I think using "intellectual dishonesty" is the least of evils, since it acknowleges the existence of a functioning intellect, and is thus the LEAST negative thing I could have written.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

So if we wanted to generalize about where you are from all we would have to say is "Kentucky, that's all that needs to be said about you . BTW, how's your Mother/Girlfriend?"

You'll have to forgive him. He's a UK fan.

TRUE TRUE Go Big Blue!

She's Great But She's in Illinois where I am from. Thanks Red good point I bet alot of people think that about Kentuckians I do to I see them everyday. So I guess don't be so silly to think where people live and where they are from is the same.

C'mon Frisco is a black hole of liberalism. Sorry that wasn't supposed to be a gay pun. It is not a stretch or generalism, ask them they are proud of it. Are they not?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

So if we wanted to generalize about where you are from all we would have to say is "Kentucky, that's all that needs to be said about you . BTW, how's your Mother/Girlfriend?"

You'll have to forgive him. He's a UK fan.

TRUE TRUE Go Big Blue!

She's Great But She's in Illinois where I am from. Thanks Red good point I bet alot of people think that about Kentuckians I do to I see them everyday. So I guess don't be so silly to think where people live and where they are from is the same.

C'mon Frisco is a black hole of liberalism. Sorry that wasn't supposed to be a gay pun. It is not a stretch or generalism, ask them they are proud of it. Are they not?

So you believe that because the 9th Circuit located in San Francisco they are typical San Franciscans? I think they were only interpreting the Law. I would like to say I disagree with them but my opinion is moot because I have no formal training in the law.

What I really believe is that both extreme sides of the political spectrum are using this issue to further their agenda.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Yar, ye have a quick reply finger there. Yeah, I posted that without thinking and then went so far as to look up the definitions of those words for the... well, I've looked them up many times.

As far as morality being objective... I don't agree at all. I especially wouldn't think Vic would agree, seeing as how he is a self-styled pragmatist. The idea that some things are inherintly "wrong" simply because they are seems like the emotional reaction he so deplores. The only thing wrong with killing another human being from a purely pragmatic standpoint is either the loss of energy and time on your part (with no significant material or other return on your investment), the potential loss of goods and/or services from that human, or the potential retribution leveled against you by that human's companions. From a pragmatic viewpoint, sure, the harm is always there. The question is whether that harm will affect you.

I'd say you have your moralities backwards. Objective, in this context, means "Having actual existence or reality," "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices," "Based on observable phenomena."
Objective morality says that an action is wrong because it IS, not because people think it is. I don't think I'm the pragmatist you think I am. I'm more a rational logician. I believe in and concern myself with reality, not fictions. For example, a "thing" is never evil or immoral, only living beings are capable of that.

Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.