View Poll Results: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Voters
236. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    133 56.36%
  • No

    103 43.64%
Page 104 of 107 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1064

Thread: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

  1. #1031
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    10-20-06 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    863

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride
    Well and activist liberal judge from the 9th circuit court in San Francisco has struck again today striking the word "Under God" from the Pledge of Alegiance....

    It will go to the SCOTUS and be struck down but what are your thoughts?
    My thoughts are that most people are unaware that this was added in 1954 and didn't always exist.

    An additional thought is that goverment, by its nature, should be inclusive as much as possible and this phrase exluded people that lack faith.

    My last thought is I am sick of the religious fighting and I find this issue to be about the least important thing this country has to worry about.

  2. #1032
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    First, in reading some of this thread, I find it truly Ironic that liberals in the US , and I'm assuming that the anti-christian movement in this country is primarily the liberal wing of our society but I may be wrong, have decided to behave so anti-liberal by attacking and attempting to dis-credit Christians because Christians happen to strongly believe in their religion.
    1. I'm no liberal.

    2. It's not anti-liberal to discredit Christians. It's pro-freedom to ensure Christians don't impose their warped views on the rest of us, especially me. I'm the only one that matters, after all.

    You guys can believe in your religion all you want. That doesn't give you the authority to make it part of the law of the land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    You're all willing to attack christian symbolism because you disagree with Christians politically and what they stand for and mask it under the separation of Church and state. I ask you, did you give the same argument against memorializing Rosa Parks in the Nations capital that you have with "under god" in the pledge?
    Oh? They made a statue to that broad? Hope is was paid for by private funds. (I'm sure it wasn't). But my kids aren't required to do homage to Rosie everyday in school, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Or is the fair and equal treatment of all races, religions and movements that are recognized by our country as important mile stones in our history not applicable to christianity as much as African American Civil Rights?
    I'm all for fair an equal treatment. That means the atheists wishes that the lie of "under god" be stricken from the Pledge should be granted, since that's the only fair and equal thing to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    For you "Rational Thinkers" I think a little tolerance is in order considering the country that has allowed you to become rational and reject the sacred in favor of the secular was founded and built by these "Irrational" Christians.
    "Allowed"? I would be rational anywhere. And yes, the founders of this country specifically excluded all religion from the formal structure of this country. And many of them weren't "christians", either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    As a matter of fact it was in large part the protestant reformation spear headed by Martin Luther that lead to the adoption of the separation of Church and State and the focus on individual liberty in Europe and thus America in the first place. The argument that religion leads to violence and intolerance is mis-placed, mis-represented and mis-used in here, recognizing none of these facts, in an effort to dis-credit the faithful and eliminate any remnants of the sacred part of our past that was equally if not more important to the development of this nation than any other movement in our history.
    Oh, so the Reformation was a peaceful process whereby all persons of all religious beliefs were allowed to practice their faiths without disturbance from others.

    We have no "sacred" part of our past. This country was founded by people seeking to hold thir money against theives, and it was grown by people seeking to make money and keep it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Its absolutely rediculous to attempt to separate the founding of this country, and the creation of its laws and culture from the Protestant movement that migrated to this country in the late middle ages and has propagated itself to the present day.
    The moral ethos of the founding colonies was european, no doubt. But advances in Western civilization vary inversely with the growth of Christianity. Why do you think there was a Dark Ages in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Its equally rediculous to postulate that the separation of church and state emobidied in our constitution was premised on any other notion than the need to secure the freedom of all Americans to practice their religion without the interference of the state or imposition of pre-determined religious doctrine by the state.
    Well, exactly. And atheists don't want to be bothered by irrational nonsense cluttering up an already clueless poem that supposedly represents them as well as everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    And to that end, no american is being denied their freedom to live and practice their faith (or lack thereof) or being forced to practice religion by our government and rather its the opposite, our government and country, composed primarily of christians, has demonstrated great tolerance in the face of secular changes that have been just as threatening to the moral fabric of our society as religious extremism.
    Oh. Well, the socialist wave that's done harm to this country is merely the latest in a wave of religions that have swept the world. Like I said, we should do our best to get religion out of government. See? It's not really secular, it's just not old-thyme religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Quite Frankly I don't care what your opinion is about the rationality of religion because it carries no weight in this argument. Believe what you want to believe, that's american. What's not American is attacking symbolism in this country that represents what this country's culture and society was founded upon simply because you don't believe what those symbols represent (although i'd gather that most of you believe in the non-god specific commandments of the 10 commandments).
    The Pledge of Allegiance symbolizes American culture? What did all those Americans do before 1900 to be patriotic and loyal, when they didn't have a poem written by a flag salesman?

    No, most of the Ten Suggestions are bunk, except the ones about murder, lying, and stealing.

  3. #1033
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by zymurgy
    My thoughts are that most people are unaware that this was added in 1954 and didn't always exist.

    An additional thought is that goverment, by its nature, should be inclusive as much as possible and this phrase exluded people that lack faith.

    My last thought is I am sick of the religious fighting and I find this issue to be about the least important thing this country has to worry about.

    Natalee Holloway.

    American Idol.

    Britney's baby.

    Tom Cruise's baby.

    We could start a thread on the least important things taking up news time in America.

    Edit:

    Here it is
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 04-26-06 at 02:58 PM.

  4. #1034
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    10-20-06 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    863

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Natalee Holloway.

    American Idol.

    Britney's baby.

    Tom Cruise's baby.

    We could start a thread on the least important things taking up news time in America.
    Ok, obviously you didn't care for my third thought undermining the importance of this topic. Fair enough, I could of kept that opinion to myself.

  5. #1035
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by zymurgy
    Ok, obviously you didn't care for my third thought undermining the importance of this topic. Fair enough, I could of kept that opinion to myself.

    No no. I thought your opinion in that regards was valuable, and certainly agree to the extent that the debate on the Pledge of Allegiance isn't the most important thing going.

    Don't get mad, and I'll give you the last word. Oh, wait, you are the last word.

    Never mind. But I did respect your thoughts.

  6. #1036
    Educator Columbusite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Columbus
    Last Seen
    01-04-07 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    808

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    First, in reading some of this thread, I find it truly Ironic that liberals in the US , and I'm assuming that the anti-christian movement in this country is primarily the liberal wing of our society but I may be wrong, have decided to behave so anti-liberal by attacking and attempting to dis-credit Christians because Christians happen to strongly believe in their religion. You're all willing to attack christian symbolism because you disagree with Christians politically and what they stand for and mask it under the separation of Church and state. I ask you, did you give the same argument against memorializing Rosa Parks in the Nations capital that you have with "under god" in the pledge? Or is the fair and equal treatment of all races, religions and movements that are recognized by our country as important mile stones in our history not applicable to christianity as much as African American Civil Rights?
    You do know that the majority of people who support separation of church & state in this country are Christians, right? So I guess Christians are discriminating against themselves. Where was I anti-Christian in this thread? We were off topic (as usual) and I simply pointed out that the Bible was the source of a lot of killing whereas with Atheism you can't point to the "Atheist Bible", quote a verse, and have them all murder people over that. So I'm anti-Christian for wanting religious freedom for everyone and for Christians to be able to practice their religion. Wow, I didn't see it that way...I'm a terrible person. Christian symbolism is perfectly fine everywhere, except for the government. That's plenty of room for crosses and Commandments. Rosa Park's monument can reflect her beliefs as it's not the government endorsing them in any way like it does with the pledge. Yet another example of why critical thinking needs to be taught in schools.

    For you "Rational Thinkers" I think a little tolerance is in order considering the country that has allowed you to become rational and reject the sacred in favor of the secular was founded and built by these "Irrational" Christians. As a matter of fact it was in large part the protestant reformation spear headed by Martin Luther that lead to the adoption of the separation of Church and State and the focus on individual liberty in Europe and thus America in the first place. The argument that religion leads to violence and intolerance is mis-placed, mis-represented and mis-used in here, recognizing none of these facts, in an effort to dis-credit the faithful and eliminate any remnants of the sacred part of our past that was equally if not more important to the development of this nation than any other movement in our history.
    I do tolerate Christianity, I just don't accept it. The Christians who founded this country were products of the Enlightenment. These were not fire and brimstone Christians we're talking about. I mean, they came up with a secular document for government in order to ensure the highest amount of religous freedom. Martin Luther didn't advocate separation of church & state from what I understand, but heretics were a great part in leading up to that separation. I said that religion can lead to violence and intolerance, but obviously not all the time. With Christians who use reason and are religious you can be sure that you won't have to worry about them wanting to reenact the OT laws. I did nothing to discredit the faithful, but lying about what role faith had in the foundation of our government is a different thing altogether and I will discredit that.

    Its absolutely rediculous to attempt to separate the founding of this country, and the creation of its laws and culture from the Protestant movement that migrated to this country in the late middle ages and has propagated itself to the present day.
    It's not ridiculous. Culture, duh. Laws, no. Our Constitution isn't made up of Bible verses or even re-worded Bible verses. Try reading it sometime.

    Its equally rediculous to postulate that the separation of church and state emobidied in our constitution was premised on any other notion than the need to secure the freedom of all Americans to practice their religion without the interference of the state or imposition of pre-determined religious doctrine by the state. And to that end, no american is being denied their freedom to live and practice their faith (or lack thereof) or being forced to practice religion by our government and rather its the opposite, our government and country, composed primarily of christians, has demonstrated great tolerance in the face of secular changes that have been just as threatening to the moral fabric of our society as religious extremism.
    Yes, the Constitution guarantees the free practice of religion, but it also keeps the government out of religion and does not allow our government to practice any religion OR non-religion. The government is to take a neutral stance on religion. What secular changes are you even talking about? What threat just as great as religious extremism?

    Quite Frankly I don't care what your opinion is about the rationality of religion because it carries no weight in this argument. Believe what you want to believe, that's american. What's not American is attacking symbolism in this country that represents what this country's culture and society was founded upon simply because you don't believe what those symbols represent (although i'd gather that most of you believe in the non-god specific commandments of the 10 commandments).
    I don't recall arguing the rationality of religion in this thread, but like I said we'd gone off topic.

    No, what's not American is trying to go back and revise history to make this country something it never was in a governmental sense : a "Christian nation". Religious symbolism simply doesn't belong there, but they can be everywhere else. Gee, what a vicious attack on Christian symbolism. You'd think I was burning down every building that displayed a cross from what you're saying. Of course, how could I forget. Christian are the Jews of the 21st century and they're being persecuted by themselves. You have fun with your persecution complex.

    You still didn't give a well-reasoned argument as to why we should jeopordize our separation of church & state just so that people can acknowledge God, which they were/are already free to do at their leisure.
    "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
    - Thomas Paine


    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    - Thomas Jefferson


    "Ours is the first government made by the people and for the people. It is the only nation with which the gods have had nothing to do."
    - Robert G. Ingersoll

  7. #1037
    Educator Columbusite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Columbus
    Last Seen
    01-04-07 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    808

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Its equally rediculous to postulate that the separation of church and state emobidied in our constitution was premised on any other notion than the need to secure the freedom of all Americans to practice their religion without the interference of the state or imposition of pre-determined religious doctrine by the state.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Well, exactly. And atheists don't want to be bothered by irrational nonsense cluttering up an already clueless poem that supposedly represents them as well as everyone else.
    Remember, it's not just the non-believers, but many Christians and other people of faith who support separation of church & state because they see why it's so important for religious freedom. This is not just an Atheist vs Christian thing, it's an American vs anti-American thing.
    "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
    - Thomas Paine


    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    - Thomas Jefferson


    "Ours is the first government made by the people and for the people. It is the only nation with which the gods have had nothing to do."
    - Robert G. Ingersoll

  8. #1038
    Student
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    08-21-07 @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    246

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Ok Scarecrow,

    I'll back up for a sec here because I don't completely disagree with your points and I failed to Illustrate my points concisely and without bias.

    First I'm not against those who feel that Official institutions in the US should represent all americans and not favor certain americans over others which when the argument is presented without bias, I'll support and say let the courts do their thing.

    Second, to clarify, I'm not a religious Christian. I was raised Lutheran, rejected religion in college the way many adolscents do and developed my stance on religion and ideology now based on those experiences supplemented by my adult life insights.

    That said now, let me address your specific points,

    Much of this argument stems from political activism that is rejecting the religious right, adolescent intolerant "rationalism" that fails to accept other beliefs and faith over their view (sound familiar so far), and a general refusal to accept religion as an important part of world and american culture, history and society. This is what I reject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Oh, so the Reformation was a peaceful process whereby all persons of all religious beliefs were allowed to practice their faiths without disturbance from others.
    I didn't say the reformation was peaceful. You've chosen though to only view those aspects of religious history such as the crusades, the inquisitions, and the violent uprising against the catholic church and don't acknowlege that it was the movement Luther started and went head to head against the catholic church with that set the precedent for the separation of church and state. It was also this movement that sought to place faith in the hands of the individual which radically altered the perception of how christianity and religion in general was practiced and gave rise to the notion of individual liberty. These principles developed themselves into what we now see as our religious and individual freedoms and rights and this as true as the violence of the middle ages that resulted from this movement.

    I can pick all of the negatives from history and formulate a bashing campaign against Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the rest of the ideological movements in history to discredit them too but then I put myself in the same narrow and un-insightful category as the rest of you and you know what that leads to? The very religous and social bias and intolerance that brings extremists of any ideology to blows. Your ideology of "rejection of ideology" is just as dangerous and counterproductive as the religous right when practiced as an extremist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    We have no "sacred" part of our past. This country was founded by people seeking to hold thir money against theives, and it was grown by people seeking to make money and keep it.
    So would you say the original population of this country was secular? Considering that amoung the first buildings errected in new towns, without exception, were churches, the idea that they weren't "sacred" (or perhaps you'd prefer the term "devoutly religious") is just ignoring the type of people that inhabited this country in its early years. You'd be hard pressed to find a wealth of Atheists in American history. This country was founded by Bugeouis elite and europeans seeking freedoms and opportunity, most of who were Christian, many persecuted as christians. Because their were economic motivations does not remove the religious motivations or role that it played in american's lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    The moral ethos of the founding colonies was european, no doubt. But advances in Western civilization vary inversely with the growth of Christianity. Why do you think there was a Dark Ages in the first place?
    The Dark ages in western europe were a product of many more phenomena than just religion and this point doesn't refute or negate the religious beliefs of those who migrated to america. Nor does the advances in Western Civilization directly apply to my points. I understand and appreciate what secularization has accomplished and never said I didn't. I've just chosen to include those positive elements of various Ideologies as well which you have chosen not to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Oh. Well, the socialist wave that's done harm to this country is merely the latest in a wave of religions that have swept the world. Like I said, we should do our best to get religion out of government. See? It's not really secular, it's just not old-thyme religion.
    Ideology has been used for many purposes, good and bad. Those who were marginalized by government and social and economic class structure have turned to Ideology as a means to precipitate revolution, those who have sought power have exploited ideology to propell themselves into positions of power, those who sought to understand themselves and their world have turned to ideology to seek clarity and vision, those who needed social purpose and interaction have turned to ideology for those things. Its not the ideology, its the reasons why people turned to the ideology that have dictated how the ideology was practiced. From your argument the phenomena of Islamic extremism is symptomatic of Islam and not those who use Islam for their own anti-social purposes. Choosing to paint religion and ideology with such broad strokes does a dis-service to those who practice their ideologies for the good of all and serves to dimish their efforts and further isoloate antagonist and protaganist from each other. If you'd actually investigate the reasons why such movements had come to be instead of just seeing actions of certain groups of those movements and judging the ideology based on that, you might be able to see past the historical events which only provide a limited insight into what the movement and beliefs were about. In this sense you are as prejudiced to different Ideologies as many are against Islam, and many are against the west solely based on the actions of a certain few.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    The Pledge of Allegiance symbolizes American culture? What did all those Americans do before 1900 to be patriotic and loyal, when they didn't have a poem written by a flag salesman?
    Your firm grasp of the obvious is outstanding. Before that Flag salesman wrote the poem, no, it didn't. Since its become the standard pledge, it has represented our country and its words have resonated in America with patriotic ferver.

    The problem I see in your stance and those rejectionists of religion and idealogy is that you place more weight on the idealogy than those who practice the ideology. My bubble was burst in college too when I saw the horrors brought on by movements that I had come to believe were benevolent and right but I also learned there after that both good and bad co-existed together in all of these facts. Is every Muslim a terroist? no, is every christian anti-abortion? no, is every socialist anti-establishment and anti american? no.

    Those who believe their faith shouldn't have to tolerate your bias either unless they've chosen to force it down your throat in the process. They shouldn't have to tolerate being labeled as ignorant because they use faith as well as reason to conduct their life.

    I could care less if we removed "under god" from the pledge or removed all religious symbols from the public domain but when the argument is underscored by rejecting others beliefs as opposed to respecting others beliefs I see the very same symptoms that have led to ideological conflict in the past. I see the nit picking of religious symbolism as its been presented in this thread and in much of this debate in the country as petty and anti religious, not genuine concern for equality (and to those who do stand for the equality alone this doesn't apply).
    Ticks, Habits or Behaviors either finds dislikeable in the other gotta be overlooked and taken with a grain of salt.

    Al Swearengen, HBO series Deadwood.

  9. #1039
    Student
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    08-21-07 @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    246

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Columbusite
    You do know that the majority of people who support separation of church & state in this country are Christians, right? So I guess Christians are discriminating against themselves. Where was I anti-Christian in this thread? We were off topic (as usual) and I simply pointed out that the Bible was the source of a lot of killing whereas with Atheism you can't point to the "Atheist Bible", quote a verse, and have them all murder people over that. So I'm anti-Christian for wanting religious freedom for everyone and for Christians to be able to practice their religion. Wow, I didn't see it that way...I'm a terrible person. Christian symbolism is perfectly fine everywhere, except for the government. That's plenty of room for crosses and Commandments. Rosa Park's monument can reflect her beliefs as it's not the government endorsing them in any way like it does with the pledge. Yet another example of why critical thinking needs to be taught in schools.



    I do tolerate Christianity, I just don't accept it. The Christians who founded this country were products of the Enlightenment. These were not fire and brimstone Christians we're talking about. I mean, they came up with a secular document for government in order to ensure the highest amount of religous freedom. Martin Luther didn't advocate separation of church & state from what I understand, but heretics were a great part in leading up to that separation. I said that religion can lead to violence and intolerance, but obviously not all the time. With Christians who use reason and are religious you can be sure that you won't have to worry about them wanting to reenact the OT laws. I did nothing to discredit the faithful, but lying about what role faith had in the foundation of our government is a different thing altogether and I will discredit that.



    It's not ridiculous. Culture, duh. Laws, no. Our Constitution isn't made up of Bible verses or even re-worded Bible verses. Try reading it sometime.



    Yes, the Constitution guarantees the free practice of religion, but it also keeps the government out of religion and does not allow our government to practice any religion OR non-religion. The government is to take a neutral stance on religion. What secular changes are you even talking about? What threat just as great as religious extremism?



    I don't recall arguing the rationality of religion in this thread, but like I said we'd gone off topic.

    No, what's not American is trying to go back and revise history to make this country something it never was in a governmental sense : a "Christian nation". Religious symbolism simply doesn't belong there, but they can be everywhere else. Gee, what a vicious attack on Christian symbolism. You'd think I was burning down every building that displayed a cross from what you're saying. Of course, how could I forget. Christian are the Jews of the 21st century and they're being persecuted by themselves. You have fun with your persecution complex.

    You still didn't give a well-reasoned argument as to why we should jeopordize our separation of church & state just so that people can acknowledge God, which they were/are already free to do at their leisure.
    I know I responded to your post but it all wasn't directed entirely at you. Apologies. I should've responded generally. I was just responding to your query for an argument for "Under God" and rather expressing an argument against those who want such things removed. Read my follow up to Scarecrow.
    Ticks, Habits or Behaviors either finds dislikeable in the other gotta be overlooked and taken with a grain of salt.

    Al Swearengen, HBO series Deadwood.

  10. #1040
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Much of this argument stems from political activism that is rejecting the religious right, adolescent intolerant "rationalism" that fails to accept other beliefs and faith over their view (sound familiar so far), and a general refusal to accept religion as an important part of world and american culture, history and society. This is what I reject.
    Regardless of their motivation, the issue at hand is if the deluded majority can impose their beliefs on the rational minority. Morally, no, they should not be allowed to do so, and they should be opposed at every opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    I didn't say the reformation was peaceful. You've chosen though to only view those aspects of religious history such as the crusades, the inquisitions, and the violent uprising against the catholic church and don't acknowlege that it was the movement Luther started and went head to head against the catholic church with that set the precedent for the separation of church and state. It was also this movement that sought to place faith in the hands of the individual which radically altered the perception of how christianity and religion in general was practiced and gave rise to the notion of individual liberty. These principles developed themselves into what we now see as our religious and individual freedoms and rights and this as true as the violence of the middle ages that resulted from this movement.
    The notion of individual liberty arose out of the reformation? There were these people called "greeks" that had some words to say about that.

    All religions contain the seeds violence. They exploit unconscious instinctual motivations pertaining to fear and survival needs. By their nature they're violent. This is why peaceful religions fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    I can pick all of the negatives from history and formulate a bashing campaign against Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the rest of the ideological movements in history to discredit them too but then I put myself in the same narrow and un-insightful category as the rest of you and you know what that leads to?
    Oh, don't worry about that, you just did. But don't include me in it. I'm neither narrow nor uninsightful. That's for the dishonest people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    So would you say the original population of this country was secular? Considering that amoung the first buildings errected in new towns, without exception, were churches, the idea that they weren't "sacred" (or perhaps you'd prefer the term "devoutly religious") is just ignoring the type of people that inhabited this country in its early years. You'd be hard pressed to find a wealth of Atheists in American history. This country was founded by Bugeouis elite and europeans seeking freedoms and opportunity, most of who were Christian, many persecuted as christians. Because their were economic motivations does not remove the religious motivations or role that it played in american's lives.
    No, this country was founded by people seeking the freedom to impose their own religious strait-jackets on society. It was the secular avarice of man that built the country to what it is.

    People moved to places to make a living first, then to practice their delusions second. Guaranteed that before they found a spot to build a chuch they already knew where the farmhouses were going to be and who would have which parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    The Dark ages in western europe were a product of many more phenomena than just religion and this point doesn't refute or negate the religious beliefs of those who migrated to america. Nor does the advances in Western Civilization directly apply to my points. I understand and appreciate what secularization has accomplished and never said I didn't. I've just chosen to include those positive elements of various Ideologies as well which you have chosen not to do.
    You brought in the Middle Ages, not me. If you wish to dismantle your argument now, I won't stop you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Choosing to paint religion and ideology with such broad strokes does a dis-service to those who practice their ideologies for the good of all and serves to dimish their efforts and further isoloate antagonist and protaganist from each other.
    Isolation is good. If we'd had enough isolation before September 11th, it's more than likely that our double phallus would still be standing, and 3000 people would mostly still be alive today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    If you'd actually investigate the reasons why such movements had come to be instead of just seeing actions of certain groups of those movements and judging the ideology based on that, you might be able to see past the historical events which only provide a limited insight into what the movement and beliefs were about. In this sense you are as prejudiced to different Ideologies as many are against Islam, and many are against the west solely based on the actions of a certain few.
    Oh, if it's a religious ideology, you can be certain that the leaders are expecting to make money off it, or to control the minds of the masses following them. Neither is good, and no one should become entangled in them.

    The only ideology that doesn't require surrendering one's mind to the control of others is libertarianism, which basically says, go do what you want, go think what you want, go feel what you want, I don't care what you do so long as you don't hurt me or others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Your firm grasp of the obvious is outstanding. Before that Flag salesman wrote the poem, no, it didn't. Since its become the standard pledge, it has represented our country and its words have resonated in America with patriotic ferver.
    Right, until that nonsense about God was forced into it, anyway.

    But that whole poem thing should have been left in the realm of pop culture where the people can decide on it individually, not forced into federal law. The last edit was merely the turd on top of the compost heap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    The problem I see in your stance and those rejectionists of religion and idealogy is that you place more weight on the idealogy than those who practice the ideology. My bubble was burst in college too when I saw the horrors brought on by movements that I had come to believe were benevolent and right but I also learned there after that both good and bad co-existed together in all of these facts. Is every Muslim a terroist? no, is every christian anti-abortion? no, is every socialist anti-establishment and anti american? no.
    No socialist can be "anti-establishment", they can only be "anti-this-establisment", they need the mighty arm of government and it's guns to steal from people. As for the rest, I never had any bubble to begin with, it's always been perfectly clear that institutions run by men are corrupt. I was raised Catholic, so I had early insights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    Those who believe their faith shouldn't have to tolerate your bias either unless they've chosen to force it down your throat in the process.
    And a federal law mandating the words "under god" be in the Pledge isn't "forcing something down my throat"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    They shouldn't have to tolerate being labeled as ignorant because they use faith as well as reason to conduct their life.
    Sure they do. One, they're ignorant, and two, they don't have the authority to shut me up. It's a free society, supposedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy
    I could care less if we removed "under god" from the pledge or removed all religious symbols from the public domain but when the argument is underscored by rejecting others beliefs as opposed to respecting others beliefs I see the very same symptoms that have led to ideological conflict in the past. I see the nit picking of religious symbolism as its been presented in this thread and in much of this debate in the country as petty and anti religious, not genuine concern for equality (and to those who do stand for the equality alone this doesn't apply).
    What's wrong with "anti-religious", so long as the offered alternative is "reason"?

    And the genuine concern is for freedom, I don't give a crap about the chimera called "equality".

Posting Permissions

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