Score 1 for America!

yeah i replied to this on another forum.....


Basically I dont give a flying **** either way.
 
I don't care. I would say it with or without "Under God". What would we say otherwise? "One nation, under Bush." :frown:
 
huh? hunter I cant tell who you're calling anal ...the aethists or the religious zealots

I'm glad I dont have swear fealty to a non-existant god in my country of orgin
 
We don't swear fealty to any god. Its just the highest authority you can appeal to in the matter of trustworthiness.
 
I'm glad I don't have to swear an oath of allegiance to the country I live in.
 
No pledge here. Hell, we usually give the boot to the second verse of the national anthem, 'cos it's just more of the same :E.
 
Its a rather harmless practice anyway. If you swear to uphold America's core beliefs, then you swear to uphold the belief that you have the right to disagree with anything America does. :D
 
Eejit said:
I'm glad I don't have to swear an oath of allegiance to the country I live in.
Click to expand...

Me too, I always thought that pledging to the flag in the us was stupid. Just something to brainwash children.
 
Direwolf said:
We don't swear fealty to any god. Its just the highest authority you can appeal to in the matter of trustworthiness.
Click to expand...


yes but to any americans who dont believe in god it's meaningless
 
well I'd be pissed if say I was Hindu and I had to swear allegiance to a christian god
 
CptStern said:
well I'd be pissed if say I was Hindu and I had to swear allegiance to a christian god
Click to expand...
It says "god." Doesn't say which god. The idea is for "god" to be the highest authority, so whoever you believe in is who it refers to.
 
yes but to hindis there is no one god, but thousands
 
Granted, but its just a word. Theres no way to make it apply to absolutely every religion, but the basic sentiment is understandable.
 
k fair enough...but you can see how it implies one god, even though in practice it may not. I dont know, with all th ereligious ferver in politics of late, you'd think they'd want to stay away from religion as much as possible
 
To me its just a word, I do believe in God, but I wouldnt make that big of a deal out of it if I didnt.
 
Whether you believe you god or not, you should believe in what god stands for.

He has a right not to say those particular lines in the pledge, but forcing it on the whole nation due to his problems is disgusting.
 
Well the pledge isn't exactly new. Its likely that they meant christian god when it was first written, but everyone has adjusted their understanding of it with time. Its certainly easier than adjusting the actual pledge, which would take an army.
 
I remember reading somewhere about a student who refused to pledge allegience, and was allowed, because it would be deemed unconstitutional to force him to say it....funny....
 
Church and state should always be seperated, ALWAYS. Small stuff like this maybe being anal, but it's more about principle than practical use. No one wants to go back to the medieval ages where church WAS state. I think church and state should be seperated in all instances, no exceptions.
For example, the EU constitution will have no mention of any God or whatever.
 
Well the pledge isn't exactly new. Its likely that they meant christian god when it was first written, but everyone has adjusted their understanding of it with time. Its certainly easier than adjusting the actual pledge, which would take an army.
Click to expand...

You're misinformed. The pledge was first developed by a socialist in the 1900s. It wasn't officially adopted until the 1920s (when kids, amusingly enough, recited a different pledge while doing a Hitler salute (this was changed during WW2, obviously)) and it didn't have the words "under God" in it until the 1950s when a bunch of zealots decided that they had enough power during the McCarthy era to add it. It was, of course, specifically the Christian God, and of course to many religions, a single God, or referencing "God" in that fashion is blasphemous (conservative Jews cannot write or utter the word God so glibly, which is why they always write G-d, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot take pledges, Muslims don't call God God, they call him Allah, etc.). To a nation that's supposed to be inclusive and non-religious, it was exlcusionary and nasty: it existed purely to be a pointless slap in the face of non-Christians and non-believers.

It's amazing how misinformed people are about this issue, in part because I think they are being lied to. Many people on this very thread seem to think that the case has something to do with allowing people to talk about God in schools or to say the pledge. It doesn't. At all. The case concerned solely the issue of teachers, who are government officials, LEADING people in a pledge that includes an affirmation of a particular religious theology. Even if the court had not dodged the issue, and found the Congressional act unconstitutional, nobody would have been barred from saying the pledge any way they pleased, any time they pleased. Government employees just wouldn't be able to direct people to say the pledge in that religious form. It's really tragic when people seem to think that the only way they can ever do something is if the government tells them too.

Personally, I think there are more important issues, and the way this turned out is for the best (i.e. the court basically dodged the entire issue). If the court had struck down the law, we'd have to put up with sanctimonious politicians acting like they are being all brave and edgy in proudly saying the pledge (thus showing they have no understanding of the issue) and starting all sorts of culture wars. I mean, the court rightly decided that flag-burning was free speech decades ago: a legal issue that seems beyond obvious, and yet people are STILL up in arms about it. And we'd have to deal with all the hypocritical Christians who claimed "it's no big deal, why are you making such a big deal about it" screaming bloody murder about how they lost the power to have the government tell people to recite religious beliefs. How dare they!
 
it's a tricky one, we have similar things in England but on a very different scale...'God save our Queen' springs to mind. It is a part opf the heritage of America, it was founded by Christians and has always been a part of the Christian West, in some ways that pledge of alleigance is a nod to the heritage that allowed the country to blossom, on the other hand the idea of a pledge being enforced can be a little backward, freedom of speech issues maybe?
 
The problem with America separating church and state in politics is that the whole nation was founded upon the belief of god. The currency, congress before they start sessions, the pledge, courtrooms, everything has at least some reference to god.

It's stupid to argue against this sort of stuff unless it's something important, it's not like someone's being forced to say either pledge or prayer, or even believe in the ideals. It's just the whole political correctness idea of the past decade resurfacing.

To separate church from state in America would be to completely change the institution, something that's probably not worth doing. Personally I never said the pledge when I went to highschool in America, it was my choice and chose not to do it because I wasn't American and the only country that deserves my allegiance is my home.
 
If it was a nod to heritage, it would say "... the United States of America, full of lots of religious people and religious heritage, indivisible..." what it says now isn't heritage, it's preaching.

Furthermore, it wasn't founded by Christians, end of sentance. Most of the Founding Fathers were diests: i.e. not Christians. And if you read their words, they are clear that the whole point of this government was that it was limited both in scope and in claimed authority. The business of government was, in this new view, not supposed to be any more religious than the business of brushing your teeth. The whole point of SoCaS is that the people are better able to decide how and when and if they will acknowledge a God than the government: the government should have no authority to do so, since all its authority comes from the people, and the people should never have to give up their own religious authority.
 
I actually was aware of the origins of the pledge and the under god clause, since its been a popular topic of debate in recent years, but I didn't feel like throwing down the history lesson.
I've always thought the entire debate to be somewhat humorous, because its not anything the average person even cares about.
 
The problem with America separating church and state in politics is that the whole nation was founded upon the belief of god.
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought that it was founded by the authority of "we the people..." Try finding any reference to the importance of belief in God in the Constitution. There's only one: in the date.

The currency, congress before they start sessions, the pledge, courtrooms, everything has at least some reference to god.
Click to expand...

Most of it added very recently, within the last 50 years, by zealots who declare that we must overturn SoCas, put teacher-led prayer back in the schools, and so on.

It's just the whole political correctness idea of the past decade resurfacing.
Click to expand...

Funny how it's the people trying to force this "Christian Nation" ideology down everyone's throats who are crying "political correctness": when they are the only ones trying to get people to do and say the same things. They are the ones trying to bully people into one "correct" stance.
 
I actually was aware of the origins of the pledge and the under god clause, since its been a popular topic of debate in recent years, but I didn't feel like throwing down the history lesson.
Click to expand...

So... what: you felt that your only alternative was to misrepresent history?

I've always thought the entire debate to be somewhat humorous, because its not anything the average person even cares about.
Click to expand...

True... or so they claim. Then, change the pledge, and all of a sudden it's OMFG!!!

I agree that it's a small issue on the scale of things. Yet that isn't any reason for people to claim it's okay, no matter how minor an issue it is.
 
well reasoned! I have never read the pledge so i couldn't understand it's full significance, nor have i ever heard it recited, i don't follow its intricacies but my understanding is that it is an patriotic oath, i would hate to argue about it due to my ignorance but it seems to me that using 'under God' would not be an addition purely based in Christian bigotry.

Could it not simply be a calling to a higher authority regarding the sanctity of the oath and simply a sign of the more conservative climate (whenever that may be) in which the addition was made?

P.S. i'm being devil's advocate for no good reason than it's interesting :devil:
 
Direwolf said:
Well the pledge isn't exactly new. Its likely that they meant christian god when it was first written, but everyone has adjusted their understanding of it with time. Its certainly easier than adjusting the actual pledge, which would take an army.
Click to expand...
Apos said:
So... what: you felt that your only alternative was to misrepresent history?
Click to expand...
Other than being a bit more wishy-washy then I should have (the intent was to defuse feelings over an often controversial conflict) I don't see where I actually misrepresented history. I could have maybe specified that the "under God" portion was in fact not written at the same time, but I wasn't going to go that far into depth over a small comment.
 
The nation was indeed founded with the ideals of a god in mind, the fact that it was founded by puritans with strict beliefs on the ideals of a superior power cannot be denied. It is also known that while the political system was initially designed to be as independent from the church and religion as possible the people who designed the system were debout in their faith (which involved a single all-knowing entity). The political system was designed under the belief that there is a right path and a wrong path, the right path is dictated by the commandments (which I believe have always been rules to live your life by, civil and correct) which were then implemented as laws within the system. The idea that religion didn't affect the way the system works and how it was created is preposterous. These last few things you mention may have been additions to the system later but the fact still stands, the nation was founded with these beliefs in mind, just like the puritans chose to build their town "on the highest hill, so as to provide an example to the rest of the world".
 
i would hate to argue about it due to my ignorance but it seems to me that using 'under God' would not be an addition purely based in Christian bigotry.
People may not see it that way today, but it most certainly was when it was first added. The whole point of it was to set Americans apart from the so-called "godless Commies" (nevermind that many loyal Americans, including many of our greatest, were godless, and nevermind that a huge portion of the Commies were, in fact, theists) which was a real and intended insult to non-believers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rico:
I suppose the best idea is to say that it was based upon certain ideals that were derived from religion, but its likely they used them as a guide for what is right and what is wrong, which few people can disagree with. Its rather obvious that they never meant for it to actually be the state religion or anything so embedded.
 
The nation was indeed founded with the ideals of a god in mind, the fact that it was founded by puritans with strict beliefs on the ideals of a superior power cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

Which Puritans signed the Constitution, exactly? Because that's the one and only document that "founded" the country we now live in. The Puritans were just one of many many different people all with different beliefs that made up and founded this nation.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a person was religious, that everything they did was done out of a religious motive or was founded on religion. Eli Whitney was religious, but that doesn't mean the invention of the American form of the cotton gin was "founded on religion."

It is also known that while the political system was initially designed to be as independent from the church and religion as possible the people who designed the system were debout in their faith (which involved a single all-knowing entity).
Click to expand...

Deists believed in a creator, but not much more in common beyond that. Most believed that it was blasphemous to think that this Creator concerned itself in the petty affairs of man or took any notice of us, let alone ruled over us with its authority. And it's hard to call them "devout" to strongly when the religious conservatives of their time considered them heathens.

The political system was designed under the belief that there is a right path and a wrong path, the right path is dictated by the commandments (which I believe have always been rules to live your life by, civil and correct) which were then implemented as laws within the system.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If so, then why was this sort of language explictly rejected when people wanted to put it in the constitution? How can we have both a first commandment, which commands people worship the one true god, and a first amendment which says that people are free to believe whatever they want?

In short: how can your argument make any sense at all? If the commandments were meant to be law, they would have been made law. They weren't. And none of the founders thought that we should enforce the commandments. Several of them didn't even believe the commandments were anything other than historical, for goodness sakes.

The idea that religion didn't affect the way the system works and how it was created is preposterous.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that religion played no role in our society, but few people back then thought that religion was a sound basis for civil law. Preachers would enforce the religious law: the government existed to keep the civil peace. Jefferson himself wrote a book about this, part of which concludes that the common law (the basis for our system of law) is not based on Christianity. Where in the Bible do you find the concept of an adversarial system? The right to own firearms? The concept of a bicameral legislature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
Big VAC Bans + Changes For Steam Reviews! - ValveTime News Round-Up (20th September 2016)
Replies
1
Views
15K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
Hectic Glenn
Cold Case #1: Valve Voice Actress - October Moore
Replies
1
Views
18K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
Omnomnick
TF2 "Meet Your Match" Update - Day 1
Replies
0
Views
6K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Back
Top