 |
| |
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What you Europeans fail to grasp is that the phrase "Under God" is not ideological but merely descriptive:
We burned women to death in Salem, Mass. -- in the name of God (they were witches, after all; if we let them live, they'd eventually encourage our children to read Harry Potter).
We exterminated whole peoples living in North America -- because God gave this land to us, not them (and how do we know? God told us so).
We justified the existence of slavery in the South -- in the name of God (blacks being the children of Ham and therefore condemned to servitude; as Kent Brockman once said, "It's in the Bible, people!").
We passed laws against the employment of the Irish -- in the name of God (Who, everyone knows, is a Protestant).
We looked the other way as the Ku Klux Klan ran amok, committing violence against blacks, Jews, and Catholics -- while marching under the symbol of the Cross.
We curtailed federal investigations of abortion clinic bombing -- because those bombing were the work of God-loving Christians.
We are a nation Under God -- in much the same way that Italy was once a nation Under Mussolini. God help us all. |
Martin Luther King also liberated his black compatriots 'in the name of God'
Abraham Lincoln together with Christian abolitionists freed the slaves 'under God'
Many single mothers and their children are cared for daily by Christians 'under God' and many fight to save the lives of children from the likes of "Dr" Peter Singer and his minnions 'under God'.
The KKK was shamed and eliminated as a viable force in society by black and white Christians 'under God'
It is probably better to be under God than to be under Stalin, ot Mao, Pol Pot or several other great atheist leaders I could mention. Or maybe renouned atheists like Peter Singer should lead this nation into enlightenment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
"I believe people need to know the truth," said Smith. "I think we need to know the agenda of the liberal court, that they would make a decision predicated on the little girl being offended when, in fact, she never was. ... They made a decision without delving into the truth of the story. It would appear to me they don't want the truth of the story, but rather they want a hypothetical case upon which to make the decision." |
The rights and wrongs of this case are not dependent on whether one specific kid is offended or not. It is clearly wrong to require non-Christian kids to pledge a belief in God, even if this kid is actually a Christian. Is the article suggesting that non-Christian kids do not exist?
quote:
"The daughter has said she disagrees totally with what the father is doing," Pastor Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park told WorldNetDaily. "I'm upset and I hope there will be others who are upset. It's time for God lovers to stand up and fight the God haters." |
The parents are "embroiled in a custody battle". So the mother is probably behind this. I think it's unlikely that an 8-year-old kid would voluntarily grab a mike and declaim "I disagree totally with what my father is doing".
And note Drake's ludicrous histrionics. If you don't agree that non-Christian kids should be coerced into affirming belief in God, you're a "God-hater".
quote:
As WND reported, Drake led a hundred demonstrators in a four-hour rally outside of Judge Goodwin's Pasadena house last week to protest the court ruling. Drake plans a similar event outside Judge Stephen Reinhardt's Marina Del Rey, Calif. home on Saturday. Reinhardt joined Goodwin in the 2-1 decision.
"Reinhardt is a renegrade judge and his wife is Ramona Ripston, the executive director of the ACLU in Southern Calif.," said Drake. "The ACLU has always tried to get rid of God." |
So Drake is a raving nutcase. He appears to be a liability to his own cause. If I were Goodwin or Reinhardt...
quote:
I wish that these fanatical atheists (No, that does not mean that every atheist is a fanatic.) would stop trying to cram their religion down people's throats. |
How is a reluctance to compel people to make a religious statement "trying to cram their religion down people's throats"? Why is it that when Christians (not all Christians, but a vocal minority) squeal about their rights being trampled on, it is always their imagined right to oppress others that's at stake?
quote:
Why do some atheists have such a vehement hatred for a God that they claim does not exist? Do they also hate Tinkerbell, Snow White and the seven drawfs? What a horrible thing it must be to actually have to hear something that you don't agree with. Should we also force people to turn their radios down so that people do not have to hear anything they do not agree with? Why don't these people just start burning books that they do not agree with so that no one has to have their eyes offended? |
If others wish to profess a belief in God (or Tinkerbell, or Snow White and the seven drawfs) they are free to do so. If they seek to compel ME, or others, to profess a belief in God (or Tinkerbell, or Snow White and the seven drawfs) which we do not have, they must expect resistance.
Certain Christians are seeking to create, or perpetuate, a climate in which atheists must lie about their beliefs to avoid intimidation. That was the intent of the alteration to the Pledge, as Eisenhower clearly stated.
This is a clash of principles: liberty versus tyranny. And I am sure that Goodwin and Reinhardt will see that, thanks to the efforts of Drake and his placard-waving fundies outside their homes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The point is of course that no one is compelling you are anyone to say the pledge. Some atheists simply want to censor the word so that people do not have to hear it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Theists want to be under God
Atheists want to not be under God
I would think that Athiests would just not care, since they don't beleive in God
wanting to be not under God seems more anti-God then not beleiving in God
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Unpleasant things can happen to kids who conspicuously don't say the pledge (bullying and intimidation).
Also, what happens to soldiers who refuse the pledge? It doesn't just affect schoolkids. |
Actually Jack, I think the whole thing is stupid from both sides. This is just all more entertainment since Elien Gonzales went back to cuba.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Jack: 1) Could you explain to me how under God, In God We Trust, The Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America, the chaplain for Congress, etc. amount to a governmental suppression of your beliefs?
2) Soldiers are irrelevent to this case. |
1) It's a point of principle. Atheists should not be compelled or expected to lie. It's like expecting Christians to swear that "there is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet".
Furthermore, this ties in with Bush Senior's alleged remark that atheists don't deserve to be U.S. citizens, precisely because of "under God". WTF is a religious statement doing in a pledge of allegiance to the nation-state? How is this not an establishment of religion?
2) It's the same pledge. If soldiers are compelled to say it, then you are deemed unfit to serve unless you are a monotheist (or a liar).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
it's not saying you beleive in god
it is saying, that if there is a god, the US is under that god
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I think it shows that they are afraid of something -- maybe there is a God??? God forbid!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
eh
no
not in this decade (or in the forseable future
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The beliefs of people are strengthened in adversity if they are sincere. I may retire in Thailand someday. I have no fear of hearing about Buddha night and day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
No, it doesn't include the words 'organized religion'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Most people of other religions have no problem with the use of the word 'God' even though it historically represents Christianity. I guess they didn't give it much thought. If the pledge contained the words 'under organized religion' then it would clearly be unconctitutional because I think it would imply an established church of some kind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DetroitDave
Atheists aren't compelled or expected to lie about anything at all. They have full First Amendment protection in omitting God from the pledge, saying "under Satan or Beelzebub", not standing up to say the pledge, and not saying the pledge at all. |
It's a double standard though. 'Under God' is in the pledge officially, other phrases that people might like to put in it are not. The pledge is an affirmation of patriotism, not religion. Because of the pledge's wording it is implied that to be a patriot you also should believe in God.
Imagine how you would feel if the official wording of the pledge was changed to something you didn't want your children exposed to. The point has been raised several times in the pledge threads, and I've only seen one honest reply to it. The 'you don't have to say it' argument just avoids the real question, would you care if the teacher of your child lead theer classroom in a pledge that opposed your beliefs? Your kid might not have to say 'under Satan', but do you really want them exposed to that?
If atheists and agnostics are allowed to drop 'under God', or not participate, or include their own phrase, then why shouldn't the same apply to christians? We could take 'under God' out completely, and allow anyone to spout off about their own beliefs in whatever manner they choose in that part of the pledge.
Hopefully doing so would help everyone see that expressing personal religious convictions does not belong in the classroom, especially backed by official wording of oaths or pledges. You can say that a 5 year old can do whatever they want in kindergarten, but do you really believe they have the life experience and willpower to make these kinds of choices on their own? At 5 years old I probably would have sworn alleigance to my shoe if everyone else in the class was doing it. The pledge is just indoctrinating kids, it serves no other purpose.
Get rid of 'under God' in the pledge, by getting rid of the pledge altogether. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jac de Molay
|
 |
Detroit
Sep 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
The pledge is an affirmation of patriotism, not religion. Because of the pledge's wording it is implied that to be a patriot you also should believe in God. |
I see no specific affirmation of a specific religion in the words "Under God", or acknowledgment that the US is a theocracy. This is a distinction our wise forefathers made.
They knew that the government should never advocate or establish a specific religion, but also knew the new nation's basis was a common moral framework exemplified by a belief higher than the human condition, whether it be "God", a common purpose, or even a gaseous cloud for that matter- it's a fine distinction, but important.
Also, I personally don't see anything in those two words that individuals must "believe in God" to be a "patriot". That's reading an awful lot into two words.
quote:
Imagine how you would feel if the official wording of the pledge was changed to something you didn't want your children exposed to |
You mean like "liberty" and "justice" for all? There are a lot of civil right activists and native americans who might disagree with the two words "for all". Perhaps a more sanitized version of "for all" would be more sensitive to their concerns.
quote:
Hopefully doing so would help everyone see that expressing personal religious convictions does not belong in the classroom, especially backed by official wording of oaths or pledges |
Again, the words "under God" are too generic to espouse any specific, or personal, religious position.
Sorry for the rehash. I missed the first pledge debate. Fire away.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-07-2002 18:38
) in the US simply wants to make the US a "Christian Nation". As far as the pledge and other liturgies are concerned, they've succeeded pretty well. 
|