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.)
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.
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".
The said, my additional ssue which is the same I'll have with Allah below is this. Even if you're using Vishnu or Allah as a generic term for "god", the fact that it is not common vernacular or the word for "deity" in our language is enough for me to say its not worth it.
For example, I wouldn't want to change it to "Debajo god" any more than I'd want to change it to "Under Allah" because its purposefully changing something from the common vernacular used by the majority of people in the country for that particular word (under / diety) to something that is still technically the same but is far less common.
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.
The problem is that if you don't believe it should be bothered to removed because its more trouble than its worth why would you agree to thinking it needs to be CHANGED when it'd also be more trouble than its worth?
If I was able to just snap my fingers and boom, it'd instantly be removed I honestly don't know what I'd choose. I'd likely be fifty fifty on it and I've not thought of that hypothetical. if I could snap my fingers and instantly change it to "under godS" plural so it could fit more under it, or "under my diety" or "Under Allah" if "allah" was common vernacular for diety or well, for god in this country. However god is the common vernacular for god for the vast majority of people in this country.
IF we're going to have that as part of the pledge, and I don't particular have an issue with that, I would think it to be rather idiotic to have it in such a way that it is the common vernacular for the smallest amount of people than the largest.
If however I was christian and I call my god GOD and the majority of people in this country use the vernacular of "allah" to say "god" or ie "diety" then I'd have absolutely no issue with it being "one nation under Allah", just as I would feel that if the majority of the countries common vernacular was spanish that we'd say "debajo god".
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)
Which makes no sense. If you're not okay with it being removed because it doesn't matter much either way and that is just going to take time, resources, and effort then why in the world would you be okay with it being changed when it would ALSO take time, resources, and effort.
That's like saying that given the choice between going out to eat and staying home and eating I say I could take do either but I'd not have to go anywhere to stay at home and eat so I'll stay at home. Then you tell me "well will you come to my house to eat instead then" and I go "no, that still doesn't change the fact I don't have to go anywhere to eat" and you telling me that that just proves I didn't want to go out to eat because i'm a cheap skate.
When the reasons I'm saying I would lean more towards keeping it then removing it at this point are equally applicable to CHANGING, why does me being against changing it mean I'm really for keeping it because I'm a bible thumper?
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.
Yes, its ridiculous that it'd be more controversial. Its ridiculous that it's controversial now. Its ridiculous that it'd be controversial if we remove it. If you get my point, its
ALWAYS going to be controversial no matter WHAT we do with it. To me, the controversy would be far greater if its changed then it would be if its removed, which would be more controversial then if it stays.
The greater the controversy the more time, resources, and effort is put into attempting to alter it.
The whole reason I don't really care to support having it changed is because I don't think its in any way problematic enough to warrant time, resources, and effort to do so.
If that's my issue, why in the world am I going to support changing it in such a way that will likely generate MORE wasted time, resources, and effort?
That's idiotic.
If the controversy of the proposed change would be greater than the current controversy, the it should be removed altogether. This is because:
Except you ignore the fact that option three, remove it all together, ALSO comes with controversy and in my opinion would be less than changing it but more than keeping it.
If there is no valid reason for the controversy now, then there is no valid reason for the controversy if changed.
The controversy being VALID and the controversy happening are two very, very, very different things.
There'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
