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

talloulou · Apr 18, 2006

Kandahar said:
Looking out for one's own family before others is admirable. I don't see how looking out for one's race, or one's religion, or one's country before all others is anything other than completely reprehensible.

Well lucky for you that other men and women will work their assssses off to keep you safe should someone attack our soil. And lucky for you that you don't even have to give a crap for that to happen. That's why being American is great....and I do love my country. And yeah if it ever came down to us or France I'd go with us. :rofl When I hear Toby Keith singing about "the american way" and "putting boots in peoples assessss" I get all full of pride. I guess I'm a real sicko that way.

Kandahar · Apr 18, 2006

talloulou said:
Well lucky for you that other men and women will work their assssses off to keep you safe should someone attack our soil.

Strawman. Governments can and should maintain a military to defend themselves. That has nothing to do with patriotism. One can be in the military for the money or the prestige or the job security without being a patriot. Similarly, one can be full of those knee-jerk nationalist impulses and not serve in the military.

You're equating two completely separate things.

talloulou said:
And lucky for you that you don't even have to give a crap for that to happen.

Who says I don't give a crap, just because I don't hold a random person on the other side of this country in higher esteem than a random person on the other side of the world? I'm on a political forum, aren't I?

talloulou said:
That's why being American is great....and I do love my country. And yeah if it ever came down to us or France I'd go with us. :rofl

What on earth does that have to do with patriotism?

Columbusite · Apr 18, 2006

George_Washington said:
Well, I might argue that there is a difference between having the nation as a whole or the government if you will, containing elements of religion versus the entire legislative body endorsing or forcing individuals to practice a certain religion. For example, over in England there are many art forms, symbols, figures, etc. that are reminiscent of a monarchy. However, England does not currently still have a monarchy, nor do these decorations force any of the English people to live under one.

It's just not a good idea to start mixing in religion in government (which has taken place) as you can clearly see there are a good number of Christians who say what there is now is not enough and are pushing for more religion in the government. It is not worth the risk. People are free to express themselves religiously or not however they want without any government involvement needed. What more could one ask for?

talloulou · Apr 18, 2006

Kandahar said:
Strawman. Governments can and should maintain a military to defend themselves. That has nothing to do with patriotism. One can be in the military for the money or the prestige or the job security without being a patriot. Similarly, one can be full of those knee-jerk nationalist impulses and not serve in the military.

You're equating two completely separate things.

Who says I don't give a crap, just because I don't hold a random person on the other side of this country in higher esteem than a random person on the other side of the world? I'm on a political forum, aren't I?

What on earth does that have to do with patriotism?

I guess maybe what "patriotism" means to you is different than what it means to me. To me it's love of ones country.

Columbusite · Apr 18, 2006

talloulou said:
I guess maybe what "patriotism" means to you is different than what it means to me. To me it's love of ones country.

How can you love it if you don't even understand the very foundation upon which this country was built? I suggest reading and comprehending our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That goes for everyone.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Apr 19, 2006

independent_thinker2002 said:
The founding fathers argument is moot. It doesn't matter what dead people thought. All that matters is what we think today. Using the founding fathers argument we shouldn't even have a pledge since we didn't have one at the inception of the country. The pledge is pointless.

The FF's wrote this funny thing called a "Constitution". It's a physical record of what they thought when it was ratified. So, yeah, it matters what those men thought.

And no, it's not an accident that they didn't have a pledge of allegiance.

And yes, the pledge is pointless, rendered even more so by the imposition of those stupid lying "under god" words.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Apr 19, 2006

George_Washington said:
So yes, our founding fathers would be all over the political map if they were alive today.

And those that felt that forcing a stupid poem down the throats of a free people would be as stupid as those that actually doing it today.

Needless to say, though, enough states thought the First Amendment prohibition against the federal government putting stupid religious words in stupid flag selling poems was a good idea that the Amendment was ratified back then.

I doubt if we'd find enough intelligent people to protect us from the same mistakes today.

Kandahar · Apr 19, 2006

talloulou said:
I guess maybe what "patriotism" means to you is different than what it means to me. To me it's love of ones country.

That's a meaningless tautology if you don't define "country." The land under your feet? The government? Our country's history? The people who live here?

I don't find any of those things particularly unique in the case of the United States...There are more beautiful patches of land, more honest and better functioning governments, places with less blood in their history, and more friendly societies elsewhere in the world. That doesn't make any of them the "best," but I don't see what's unique to the United States about any of those characteristics.

The only thing that I might say I love about this country specifically is the US Constitution and its ideas of liberty...which include, among other things, the idea that government shouldn't take sides on religious issues like declaring we're "one nation under God."

talloulou · Apr 19, 2006

Kandahar said:
That's a meaningless tautology if you don't define "country." The land under your feet? The government? Our country's history? The people who live here?

My country is easily defined as the USA.

I don't find any of those things particularly unique in the case of the United States...There are more beautiful patches of land, more honest and better functioning governments, places with less blood in their history, and more friendly societies elsewhere in the world. That doesn't make any of them the "best," but I don't see what's unique to the United States about any of those characteristics.

Well there are more beautiful houses than mine on bigger and more beautiful pieces of land than mine but my house is still the house I love the most. I don't get what's hard to understand about that.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Apr 19, 2006

talloulou said:
For many it's not even about the "under God" it's about the pledge in general. They don't want "their" children pledging anything.

Not as part of a government sanctioned community ceremony, no. Morally, it's in the same class as sticking one's right arm in the sky and shouting "Sieg Heil!"

talloulou said:
In my opinion it's really sad.

Then cry. I'm making little girls that can think, not robots.

talloulou said:
But like I said why not go after the "In God We Trust" money first? Why are our schools the guinea pigs for liberal ideals?

Why our schools guinea pigs for fascist ideals? Why not teach the children how to think, how to evaluate facts, how to consider options, and how to choose? That's not a "liberal" ideal, it's called "maturity".

As for the money, that lie printed on that is under condiseration, also.

talloulou said:
You want God completely removed from the government.

No. I want delusions of god removed from government. It's not possible to remove god from government because there is no god, and hence no god in government.

talloulou said:
Then fight for that first.....then go after the schools. Or is it easier to brainwash the youth vs the parents?

Well, yeah, it's the brainwashed parents that forced the adulteration of the flag selling poem in the first place. They must have figured it's pretty easy to brainwash kids back then. Of course, mothers do start lying to their kids about god when they're just little infants, don't they?

Except for my girls. They find the concept of god to be truly bizarre. Which it is.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Apr 19, 2006

talloulou said:
Except there is a problem. Christianity is under attack in our country and evidence of this is everywhere.

Hey, if it doesn't make any sense, it should be attacked until it goes away, or until it makes sense. Since Christianity can never make sense to the sane, there's no reason to let it be.

But don't feel picked on. Don't think Christianity is special. That rule applies to all religions, since they're all equally silly to the sane.

talloulou said:
George Bush is often put down for his religious beliefs.

Oh, I don't need to make fun of Bush's religious delusions to make fun of him, and I'm not even a Democrat.

talloulou said:
A member of the supreme court was stopped on the steps of his church while a reporter tried to bait him into an argument over his religious beliefs.

So? The man makes decisions regarding MY life. Why shouldn't he be expected to be sane? Why should we trust them to keep their personal biases out of their legal decisions. The Judiciary has done as much damage to the Constitution as the other two branches combined.

talloulou said:
Every year more stores and malls are sporting holiday trees vs Christmas trees.

Well, welcome to reality. Explain what a "christmas tree" has to do with the gospel as recorded in Matt, Luke, Jack, and Mark? It doesn't. It's a pagan winter symbol celebrating the winter solstice.

talloulou said:
It's total BS. Christians had to protest Lowe's last year because for the first time their tree lot was selling holiday trees vs Christmas trees and it pissed people off.

And then they want the sane people to take them seriously?:roll:

talloulou said:
To say that there are not fanatics out there who want to see religion banned all together is wrong.

Yes, those people that want it banned are just as nuts as those that follow a religion. The sane people just want the religiously deluded to keep their illnesses to themselves and not become sources of new infection.

talloulou said:
The sick part is that the attack is generally specifically against Christianity or Judism.

Well, that is one of the nice things about living in a free country. Ever wonder what happens to people who deny Islam in Mecca?

talloulou said:
Anotherwards

Perhaps you mean "In other words"? Hmmm?

talloulou said:
it's not altogether uncommon to see a liberal bashing christianity while completely supporting the muslim religion. There is something going on there. It's weird.

That's because not only is liberalism a religion, it's full religion complete with rites and delusions and an unshakable belief that enough money will prove that they're silly ideas are right.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Apr 19, 2006

talloulou said:
What's the big deal....when you are in another country you respect their customs.[/qoute]

You don't pledge allegiance to a country unless you mean it. That's sort of the whole point, isn't it? If it means nothing, why are teachers required to parrot it? And if it means nothing, then there's no problem with removing those stupid "under god" words, either, right?

I don't pledge allegiance to any other country, and I don't bother to stand, in this country, when other countries national anthems are being played at public events. If I was in their country, freely, I would stand in respect, or do the macarena if that's what was appropriate, but I would NOT claim an allegiance not felt.

Then again, I guess I'm not built to be a prostitute.

FredFlash · Apr 19, 2006

talloulou said:
Oooh geez....Well you know I never actually figured out what crimes Satan commits in the bible.

The Sedition Act.

talloulou said:
God commits tons of acts of violence. God advocates genocide.

Was that before or after he imposed the Ten Commandments?

talloulou said:
Yet what does Satan do in the bible other than advising people they don't necessarily have to listen to God???? Hmmmm???? The snake tells Adam and Eve they won't die if they eat from the tree knowledge. God told them they would die. They didn't die! The serpant told them the truth. I always found that interesting....

Adam and Eve had a very simple religion. Their only duty was not to eat the forbidden fruit.

The Serpent tricked Adam and Eve into recognizing him as their authority on religious matters thereby rejecting God's authority over his own religion. They should have ignored the religious advice of the Serpent and listened only to God.

The lesson of Adam and Eve is don't even listen to government advice on religion even if it appears to be good advice.

talloulou said:
Satan tries to tempt Jesus out of dying on the cross....what's so wrong with that????

He was not authorized to give religious advice.

talloulou said:
Just playing Devil's advocate but honestly I find the old testament God to be way more horrifying than the "Satan" of the bible.

I do like Thomas Jefferson did and only read what Jesus said.

talloulou said:
And I had some very good deviled eggs this weekend. :rofl

Well, at least it wasn't Devil worship.

FVF

tryreading · Apr 19, 2006

talloulou said:
I really see a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Also the "under God" in the pledge is very undefined. God could mean anything in that pledge. There is nothing to suggests the term represents the Christian God? So what's the problem?

And basically my biggest problem with liberals trying to change anything in the schools comes from the knowledge that liberals have already severely damaged our public school system.

To your first line above, these two rights are the same thing. Both must exist in this country.

To the 'under God,' it is very defined. God in the pledge means the supernatural God that some people believe in. Doesn't matter if its the Christian God, it is the God that monotheists worship, and His religion should not be established in this country.

I'm not all that liberal, except on personal rights, but I have to respond to your last paragraph with the fact that many Conservatives want to substitute religious training for at least one science subject in public schools. This would be very damaging, and could make our schools substandard to some foreign schools, with which President Bush wants us to compete.

Also, I hate when there is only one person arguing a subject that so many agree with her on, and they don't participate. Not your fault, I just wish they would come out and play too.

talloulou · Apr 19, 2006

tryreading said:
I'm not all that liberal, except on personal rights, but I have to respond to your last paragraph with the fact that many Conservatives want to substitute religious training for at least one science subject in public schools. This would be very damaging, and could make our schools substandard to some foreign schools, with which President Bush wants us to compete.

Well if you are talking some sort of religous elective that teaches about different relgiions as an elective vs. cooking or woodshop in jr high or high school I don't have a problem with that.

However replacing science with religion I'm completely against.

shuku · Apr 19, 2006

opinions:
Should under God have been put in the pledge? No
Should it be removed? Yes
Does it affect me? No
Does it affect other people? Yes
Do enough people care so that it is a social problem? Yes
Is it protected by free speech? No
Is it allowed by seperation of church and state? No

I could care less if we replaced "Under God" with "Under Spaghetti Monster" or "Under Cthulhu". At least one would make the Pastafarians would be happy. If that was inserted during the cold war, I doubt you would let it be. Do you want to be held down by the noodly appendages? I don't want to be held down by a god. However, both are equal in the eyes of the government because they're both religions. Get it? When government, Cthulhu == God. The constitution did not say which is right, and it is irrelavent when you're talking about which the government can include. We're talking about ideas that cannot be proven or disproven and that are accepted on faith alone.
My view on the freedom of speech is that I don't care if people are offended by anything said. There's no amendment that makes people secure in their personal paradigm from outside opinions.
However, I believe that church and state should be very seperate. The only problem is that religion is so self-absorbed in it's struggle for survival that it forgoes it's intended purposes. It's a social institution turned into a living organism. I may be biased to dislike religion, but I'm also biased to disliking the government. Even if it pains us to be so meticulous in seperating that which is religions from the government, it will make things easier in the future when it comes to making decisions on religion and preventing America from theocrasizing. Because, face it, if the government chose to adopt an official religion, there's a 90% chance it wouldn't be yours.

FredFlash · Apr 19, 2006

I challenge anyone to show me where one of the founder's indicated his approval of anything like Congress using its legislative authority to recommend to the American people a particular religious duty like the duty to make a daily affirmation of belief in one God that is over our nation.

In the 1860's Congress assumed the authority to declare what we all believe about God. Then in the 1950's it assumed the authority to actually tell us what our duty to God is and how to discharge that duty.

The pledge of allegiance law involves a legislative decision in a religious controversy on a point which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society or endangering its liberties. It is not the legitimate providence of the Legislature to determine what is and what is not a duty which we owe to our Creator.

Who cannot see that Congress has established the principle that the Legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the duties we owe to our God and that we are headed in the direction of religious persecution.

FVF

Scarecrow Akhbar · Apr 19, 2006

FredFlash said:
Was that before or after he imposed the Ten Commandments?

After. The Jews got the 10C's, then proceeded to kill every man, woman, and child in Jericho. Thus, Isreal has no historic claim to the land they're squatting on now.

mpg · Apr 19, 2006

FredFlash said:
What noble principle of religious liberty did you apply to arrive at that conclusion? Please show me where Congress, during the the first half century of our Republic, ever assumed legislative authority over the people's religion.

Fred

I don't understand the question.

mpg · Apr 19, 2006

shuku said:
opinions:
Should under God have been put in the pledge? No
Should it be removed? Yes
Does it affect me? No
Does it affect other people? Yes
Do enough people care so that it is a social problem? Yes
Is it protected by free speech? No
Is it allowed by seperation of church and state? No

I could care less if we replaced "Under God" with "Under Spaghetti Monster" or "Under Cthulhu". At least one would make the Pastafarians would be happy. If that was inserted during the cold war, I doubt you would let it be. Do you want to be held down by the noodly appendages? I don't want to be held down by a god. However, both are equal in the eyes of the government because they're both religions. Get it? When government, Cthulhu == God. The constitution did not say which is right, and it is irrelavent when you're talking about which the government can include. We're talking about ideas that cannot be proven or disproven and that are accepted on faith alone.
My view on the freedom of speech is that I don't care if people are offended by anything said. There's no amendment that makes people secure in their personal paradigm from outside opinions.
However, I believe that church and state should be very seperate. The only problem is that religion is so self-absorbed in it's struggle for survival that it forgoes it's intended purposes. It's a social institution turned into a living organism. I may be biased to dislike religion, but I'm also biased to disliking the government. Even if it pains us to be so meticulous in seperating that which is religions from the government, it will make things easier in the future when it comes to making decisions on religion and preventing America from theocrasizing. Because, face it, if the government chose to adopt an official religion, there's a 90% chance it wouldn't be yours.

I believe in strict separation of church and state, but it's not required by the Constitution. I don't call something Unconstitutional just because I disagree with it.

shuku · Apr 19, 2006

mpg said:
I believe in strict separation of church and state, but it's not required by the Constitution. I don't call something Unconstitutional just because I disagree with it.

What? Are you saying that I called something unconstitutional? My only reference thereof is to the constitution not claiming which religion is more valid.
Addressing your other point, I believe that we're all on terms that the establishment clause of the constitution "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the constitutional source of seperation of church and state.

George_Washington · Apr 19, 2006

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And those that felt that forcing a stupid poem down the throats of a free people would be as stupid as those that actually doing it today.

Needless to say, though, enough states thought the First Amendment prohibition against the federal government putting stupid religious words in stupid flag selling poems was a good idea that the Amendment was ratified back then.

Well, actually a lot of states were very slow at adopting the Constitution. Some of the most liberal states nowadays were also some of the slowest back then to declare a separation of Church and State. Massachusetts, for example, continued to have a state supported Church until roughly the 1830's or 1840's, I forget the exact date that they finally stopped taking out tax dolalrs for it. Massachusetts is actually traditionally a very religious state, it's only until fairly recenty that they've become so liberal.

I just don't see any real extreme danger in putting religious symbols in our government like you and some other people do. I look on it as more a cultural and historical thing and less of an actual religious endorsement. I think that's how a lot of people in other countries view it, too.

Columbusite · Apr 19, 2006

George_Washington said:
Well, actually a lot of states were very slow at adopting the Constitution. Some of the most liberal states nowadays were also some of the slowest back then to declare a separation of Church and State. Massachusetts, for example, continued to have a state supported Church until roughly the 1830's or 1840's, I forget the exact date that they finally stopped taking out tax dolalrs for it. Massachusetts is actually traditionally a very religious state, it's only until fairly recenty that they've become so liberal.

I just don't see any real extreme danger in putting religious symbols in our government like you and some other people do. I look on it as more a cultural and historical thing and less of an actual religious endorsement. I think that's how a lot of people in other countries view it, too.

It's very simple really, do you prefer religion in government or no religion in government? I say aside from no good reson for government sponsored religion of any kind, allowing a little bit opens the door for more religion in government and current events prove that.

George_Washington · Apr 19, 2006

Columbusite said:
It's very simple really, do you prefer religion in government or no religion in government? I say aside from no good reson for government sponsored religion of any kind, allowing a little bit opens the door for more religion in government and current events prove that.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why can't we have religion symbols and artifacts as simply religious and cultural things? Why does it have to be like some, "inquisition" thing of doom?

Columbusite · Apr 19, 2006

George_Washington said:
Why is this so hard to understand? Why can't we have religion symbols and artifacts as simply religious and cultural things? Why does it have to be like some, "inquisition" thing of doom?

You can have those, I never said you couldn't. Government is the sole exception for what should be obvious reasons if you pay attention to what's going on in this country. Places of worship are free to display religious symbols and so can businesses, individuals, cars, etc. Hardly an "inquisition" which you trivially and laughably compare this to. Gee, someone can wear a huge cross, cover their car in Jesus fish, freely attend church every day they can, and have a Christian run bussiness, but oh no! The government might take the words "under God" out of the pledge! With that kind of persecution it's no wonder Christians are the Jews of the 21st century.

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

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

Yes

No

Enemy Combatant

Well-known member

Well-known member

Enemy Combatant

Member

Steve

Member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member