Page 19 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 262

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

  1. #181
    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

    Moderator's Warning:
    Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of AllegianceThere's actual conversation going on here, between those that are religious, rather areligious, and those that are athiests. Take the trolling one liners meant to do nothing but poke, prod, and laugh at religious people elsewhere or you'll soon be shown the door from the thread

  2. #182
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Then I'd suggest to your niece's parents if it bothers them they should contact the school OR to first simply tell their niece not to say it if she doesn't want and then contact the school if she's told she has to.

    Not implicating specifically that there is a choice != FORCED to say it.
    In the eyes of children, it most certainly is the same thing. When the teacher tells them to do something, they are not supposed to question it. They are supposed to DO it.

    As CC already pointed out:



    It is unconstitutional to FORCE a child to say the pledge.

    Again, "under god" shouldn't be removed because schools are doing something unconstitutional. If its a case of the schools doing something wrong then the schools need to be cahnged.
    They shouldn't be saying it AT ALL in school, whether it has 'under god' or not. But they most definitely shouldn't be saying it while it contains references to mythical deities. It shouldn't be forced, it shouldn't be implied to be forced, it shouldn't be encouraged. As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't even be ****ing mentioned.

  3. #183
    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 rivrrat View Post
    In the eyes of children, it most certainly is the same thing. When the teacher tells them to do something, they are not supposed to question it. They are supposed to DO it.
    Whether children incorrectly assume it is or not does not magically make it forcing. To FORCE someone to say it they must be made to do it no matter what their own choice is under some kind of pressure of penalty. That is not the case, or if its the case the school is in the wrong.

    The vast majority of people in this country likely have little issue with "under god" being there. There's nothing keeping any parent from knowing that they're kid is going to be in this position and telling them "don't say it" or, if they REALLY don't want kids to be "indoctrinated" telling the kid "you can CHOOSE if YOU want to do it", but a school is not forcing children to do it unless they're making them do it under legitimate fear of penalty if they do not.

    They shouldn't be saying it AT ALL in school, whether it has 'under god' or not. But they most definitely shouldn't be saying it while it contains references to mythical deities. It shouldn't be forced, it shouldn't be implied to be forced, it shouldn't be encouraged. As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't even be ****ing mentioned.
    Which again is an entirely different conversation (and actually an entirely different thread from just a few days ago) than whether or not its consitutitional for "under god" to be in the pledge.

  4. #184
    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
    You're taking a large stretch to claim that Judeo-Christian beliefs are a polythesistic religion. A LARGE stretch, one held by a minority of theologins from my understanding or academics not to mention the actual practioners. You're manipulating information for your own well being to make an argument because your argument doesn't work with the generally held version of the religion.

    The only portion of Judeo-Christian beliefs I've ever heard of theologists argue as potentially being polythesistic is Catholics, and even that is a higly contested notion due to the fact that the Trinity is viewed as three seperate being and yet all the same being at the same time.
    Just because it is contested doesn't mean I'm not accurate. These religions talk about the existence of angels, which would be classified as Gods for any other non-Judeo Christian Religion. Plus, the bible and torah both mention that other gods exist.

    The commandment is against taking other gods before him, not worshiping false gods.

    I say the evidnce is in favor of polytheism, but the tendency is to ignore that.

    Additionally, Vishnu is still a god of a very specific, definite religion. "God", generic "god", is 100% impossible to say "It belongs to [x] religion and [x] religion alone".
    Big "g" God is very specifically referencing the Hebrew God. If one has a knowledge of Hinduism, then one knows that Hinduism is more comparaqble to the "Religions of the book" than it is to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam respectively.

    And going further, about the polytheism, Hinduism has so many variations, it spans such a wide variety of beliefs from monotheism, to polytheism to pantheism and more.

    But in order to prevent confusion, staying with hinduism, perhaps a better example for me to have used would have been "Under Ishvara" which would exclude absolutely no religion at all, including the Judeo-Christian ones.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #185
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    But in order to prevent confusion, staying with hinduism, perhaps a better example for me to have used would have been "Under Ishvara" which would exclude absolutely no religion at all, including the Judeo-Christian ones.
    Absolutely. As I said in my other post, if I could snap my fingers and make it change immedietely with no fuss or muss, and Ishvara (supreme controller) was a common vernacular for a majority of americans that's synonymous with "diety" or "god", I would have abosutely zero reservations with that change.

    As it would stand I would rather keep it the same than change it, even if I could just snap my fingers and make the change happen, for the same reason I'd rather it be "under god" then "debajo god". I don't think there's a point in using something completely and utterly foriegn to the vernacular of 80 to 90% of the American population.

  6. #186
    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
    Absolutely. As I said in my other post, if I could snap my fingers and make it change immedietely with no fuss or muss, and Ishvara (supreme controller) was a common vernacular for a majority of americans that's synonymous with "diety" or "god", I would have abosutely zero reservations with that change.

    As it would stand I would rather keep it the same than change it, even if I could just snap my fingers and make the change happen, for the same reason I'd rather it be "under god" then "debajo god". I don't think there's a point in using something completely and utterly foriegn to the vernacular of 80 to 90% of the American population.
    Au contraire

    In this case, the concept being described by Ishvara is more inclusive than the concept described by the word "God" with a big "g".

    Our legal system often adopts foreign terms for official purposes, even though the terms are utterly foreign to 80-90% of the American population, especially when the concept described is more adequately represented by the foreign term.

    For example: Habeus Corpus.

    As a quid quo pro, the loss of the exclusive term gains the benefit of have a more accurate, inclusive term.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 03-12-10 at 04:06 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #187
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Au contraire

    In this case, the concept being described by Ishvara is more inclusive than the concept described by the word "God" with a big "g".
    Oh, I don't disagree at all that hte concept of Ishvara is more inclusive. I absolutely admit that. However it is completely and utterly a foreign concept and term within the American vernacular so I don't think it would be more beneficial to be in place of "under god". If it was "under Ishvara" I wouldn't particularly care, but if I was given the choice of the two and only the two I'd go with "under god" simply because that's a much more commonly identified vernacular for diety or god of any kind oin this country than Ishvara is so would be more appropriate for a pledge that is meant for the common citizenry, not the court of law.

    Our legal system often adopts foreign terms for official purposes, even though the terms are utterly foreign to 80-90% of the American population, especially when the concept described is more adequately represented by the foreign term.

    For example: Habeus Corpus.

    As a quid quo pro, the loss of the exclusive term gains the benefit of have a more accurate, inclusive term.
    First, comparing our legal system which, sadly, is generally not something that cares much about the easy understanding of the common population of its words and principles to something that is meant to be held and used by the general population doesn't really refute my argument.

    Second, Habeus Corpus and Quid quo pro came from a time where the care for what the common people would speak or understand was likely even less due to the larger divergence between the "average" person and the intellegencia, and are now part of the common vernacular simply because they are ingrained within the country.

    Showing that its been done before doesn't counter in any way my reasoning that I would prefer one to the other if given the choice between the two because having a word that is common vernacular and commonly identifiable that is not unconstitutional would be more important to me than having a word that is more inclusive that is not unconsitutional.

  8. #188
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    There are more Christians than any other religion, so we win.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #189
    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
    Oh, I don't disagree at all that hte concept of Ishvara is more inclusive. I absolutely admit that. However it is completely and utterly a foreign concept and term within the American vernacular so I don't think it would be more beneficial to be in place of "under god". If it was "under Ishvara" I wouldn't particularly care, but if I was given the choice of the two and only the two I'd go with "under god" simply because that's a much more commonly identified vernacular for diety or god of any kind oin this country than Ishvara is so would be more appropriate for a pledge that is meant for the common citizenry, not the court of law.



    First, comparing our legal system which, sadly, is generally not something that cares much about the easy understanding of the common population of its words and principles to something that is meant to be held and used by the general population doesn't really refute my argument.

    Second, Habeus Corpus and Quid quo pro came from a time where the care for what the common people would speak or understand was likely even less due to the larger divergence between the "average" person and the intellegencia, and are now part of the common vernacular simply because they are ingrained within the country.

    Showing that its been done before doesn't counter in any way my reasoning that I would prefer one to the other if given the choice between the two because having a word that is common vernacular and commonly identifiable that is not unconstitutional would be more important to me than having a word that is more inclusive that is not unconsitutional.
    You're right, it doesn't negate or counter your reasoning at all. I just wanted to go with the dry humor of tossing in a bunch of foreign terms we use everyday (starting with the french term) and presenting what was essentially a weak argument.

    However, I would support the alteration because I don't think that the resources involved in making the alteration are all that great, and if it happened, the word would become common usage in short order. Not to mention that the change would be just plain good Karma
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 03-12-10 at 04:35 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #190
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    You're right, it doesn't negate or counter your reasoning at all. I just wanted to go with the dry humor of tossing in a bunch of foreign terms we use everyday (starting with the french term) and presenting what was essentially a weak argument.

    However, I would support the alteration because I don't think that the resources involved in making the alteration are all that great, and if it happened, the word would become common usage in short order. Not to mention that the change would be just plain good Karma
    Well I already pointed out my disagreement with you about it being a weak argument :P

    And I simply disagree. While I do believe it would become common usage I don't think "short order" would be the case. Additionally, I disagree that the resources involved (time, effort, energy, and money) wouldn't be that great as I already stated I imagine you'd have even MORE controversy and thus problems with changing this because:

    1. It wouldn't make those that want it out because they don't like religion being a part of it happy
    2. It wouldn't make those that like it because they're christian or jewish and they like seeing "god" there happy
    3. It wouldn't make everday American happy that are completely unfamiliar with the word and concept
    4. It wouldn't make those people who don't want to mess with tradition happy
    5. It wouldn't make those that don't want it to be changed cause its not worth the effort happy.

    By doing what you propose what you'd accomplish is bringing both side into agreement ABOUT their disagreements, thus creating even MORE disagreement.

    It is an irrefutable truth that the majority of this country is made up of Juedo-Christian people. Its also evident from polls that a majority of the country leans conservative, followed by indepedent, and then democrat to my understanding. Based on this my view is that:

    Changing "Under god" to some other religious term would generate more controversy than removing "Under god" completely which would generate more controversy than leaving "Under god" in it.

    essentially:

    Change > Remove > Keep in regards of the "controversy" scale.

    Therefore I disagree with the notion that your Change option could be done with relatively little resource expenditure based on the nature of the change, as I think you'd have the majority of the "remove under god" crowd STILL fighting it and then you'd add the majority of the "keep under god" crowd ALSO fighting it.

    Its like people in a city arguing if they should change the name of the Chicago Bears to the Chicago Polticians or keep the name the same and so you go with the third option...move them to Oklahoma City. The third option isn't going to create less arguments within your base (in our case the citizenry), it's going to create an argument even larger than either of the two by joining them together with their common disdain.

Page 19 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... 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
  •