Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 262

Thread: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

  1. #161
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post


    So? It was recited for decades without 'under god' and then it was changed. It can be changed again.
    Why change our money and our pledge because of a few people have their panties in a bunch?


    Allah is just another name for 'god'.
    Most real Christians do not consider the Muslim God and the Christian God to be the same.

    So, why not change it to under godS, or under goddess?
    Why not just leave it as it is and you can can say under Gods,Goddesses or leave it out?

    But there was one day where it DID happen yesterday.
    Where you around that day? And even if you were do you have any actual memory of having to suddenly say one Nation under God in the pledge of allegiance?




    Tradition was already changed. Not to mention, we change tradition all the ****ing time. It's usually called progress.
    Change is not always good,sometimes it is. It merely depends on what that change is.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #162
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    I also kind of find it funny and ironic that "under God" was put in before the word indivisible, which means "not separable"...but by adding "under God" into the Pledge you've already done just that.

  3. #163
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Sorry, I must've missed that, could you point me out which Religion "under god" caused to become the State Religion or how it prohibits someones free expression of their religion?

    Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

    Or maybe you're just playing stupid?

  4. #164
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    I also kind of find it funny and ironic that "under God" was put in before the word indivisible, which means "not separable"...but by adding "under God" into the Pledge you've already done just that.
    ???
    Together or seperate, the states are still under God.

  5. #165
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Most real unknowledgable Christians do not consider the Muslim God and the Christian God to be the same.
    Fixed it for you. Its generally those not knowledgable of their religion, its ACTUAL real world history, and the real world history of the other religion that believe they're two absolutely two seperate gods.

    Those actually studied on the religions would make the far more reasonable argument that while both worship to the same god, the variations in their holy text brought forth by men were given by false prophets and as such are either performing false actions or beliefs under the name of God. I imagine this is likely similar to how Jews view Christians and their heretical following of such false teachings that are in the New Testiment.

    At best one could possibly argue that while at the root both gods are the same Jews could imagine Christians have been mislead to follow a false idol than God and Christians could believe that Muslims have been mislead to follow a False Idol than God as well. However to say at their theological roots that the "God" of all three religions was not the same being is to basically ignore history and fact.

    It can not be denied that the root god of all 3 is the same, the only argument one could make is that perhaps they now over time came to follow a false idol or that htey simply are following the wrong teachings and thus misinterpriting gods will.

  6. #166
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    ???
    Together or seperate, the states are still under God.
    Yes, but a nation is made up of its people. I realize it makes sense in that context, which I'm sure is the proper and correct context. I'm just saying that I find it funny that there is a word in the Pledge about not dividing or separating, but by adding "under God" you have kind of excluded a fairly large group of people from the Pledge. Do you really not see the irony in that?

  7. #167
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here would be my general view on this...

    To my understanding Vishnu is a very specific god, not a generalized word, of a very specific religion. This is not the same as little g "god".
    Vishnu is the Supreme god of a polytheisitic religion. Just like the Judeo-Christian god is a Supreme god in a polytheistic religion (Angels are technically sub-deities, and the trinity in Christianity is clearly polytheistic. Not to mention saints etc.)

    They are, for all intents and purposes, identical because the big "G" god isn't really all that generalized.



    Allah, again, is specific to a particular religion even though theologically is the same "god". I would feel the same about it being "Under Allah" as I would if it was "Under Jesus Christ our Lord". Suddenly that takes it from an ambiguous non-specific religion to a specific "Muslim" or "Christian" religion based on its use.
    But Jesus is not the same god as Jehovah or Allah, but Allah is the same god as Jehovah or the Christian God. That's a huge difference between the two.

    The Jesus argument works better for Vishnu than it does for Allah because Allah is a synonym for big "G" "God", while Jesus is not a synonym for big "G" God.



    Furthermore this goes back to our prior argument. I don't see a big deal to keep it, or to leave it. I see it being a far more trouble and difficult thing to go about changing it...be it removing it or using a different word...than not doing it. If I think its pointless to take the time, energy, and resources to remove it why should I think its worth while to take the time, energy, and resources to change it?
    My stance is that if the people who want to keep it are OK with it being changed (not removed, just changed), then it might as well stay as there is no real difference between them and it's not actually worth the effort to change it.

    But if they aren't OK with it being changed, then clearly it is worth the effort to change it or have it removed for the simple fact that they pretend it's not a big deal and non-Judeo Christians should "suck it up, it does not harm" when they themselves disagree with that statement (as the alterations I've described would not, in any way shape or form, harm anyone either)

    Thus, they don't actually believe their own arguments in favor of the inclusion, thus validating the argument for exclusion.

    This is doubly so to change it to something that is far more likely to be controversial and come under fire due to the immensely more defined, immensely less traditional, and immensely less acceptable by the majority.
    Look at the statement there, Zyph. If it is far more likely to be controversial, even though it harms no one, to make the alterations I've described, then there is a legitimate case for removal.

    If the controversy of the proposed change would be greater than the current controversy, the it should be removed altogether. This is because:

    If there is no valid reason for the controversy now, then there is no valid reason for the controversy if changed.

    If there is valid controversy if changed, then there is valid controversy from the status quo.

    If the point is to avoid controversy, then remove it altogether. It should not be controversial to remove it unless there is a valid reason to remove it.



    If I don't care either way and yet feel slightly more apt to keep then remove because I see nothing particular WRONG with it and don't see the point in spending the time, energy, and resources to change it why in the world then would I say I'd be fine with supporting attempts to change it that would cause even greater amount of time, energy, and resources to be expended?
    I would argue that the controversy over removing it is the reason why the time energy and resources (which are not much. It's pretty much an official decree of "The pledge no longer contains "under God". The time energy and resources involved are equal to the time energy and resources it takes to type and print a sentence on a piece of paper) should be expended.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #168
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

    Or maybe you're just playing stupid?
    Oh?

    So please enlighten me the specific religion it establishes as a State Religion or how it prohibits the free expression of individuals religion?

    I'm clueless apparently. Please give me a clue.

  9. #169
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    I also kind of find it funny and ironic that "under God" was put in before the word indivisible, which means "not separable"...but by adding "under God" into the Pledge you've already done just that.
    Strangely I have a much bigger issue with indivisible then I have with "under god" based on an argument made by Tucker in another thread. The Nation isn't indivisible, by its very nature under the consitution it is most defintively potentially divisible...

  10. #170
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Fixed it for you. Its generally those not knowledgable of their religion, its ACTUAL real world history, and the real world history of the other religion that believe they're two absolutely two seperate gods .

    Myth #3 - Allah is the Same as the God of the Bible

    http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Pre-Islamic_Arabia
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-12-10 at 02:51 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •