Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

39 (60%)

No

15 (23.1%)

Maybe

1 (1.5%)

Call me when it's over

10 (15.4%)

Total Members Voted: 63

[9O3q1NJ9eyz42Jf9]

Once again, you prove that there is no possible argument against what I have said.  No one is saying that people cannot believe or practice what they wish.  The only idea being put forth at all is that no particular religious notion should be forced upon the masses.  That's it.

Has the wording "under God" taken away the ability for non-theists to hold their beliefs?  Of course not.  It has not stripped them of their beliefs, but it has made them feel marginalized.  Just the same, removing those words will not strip anyone of their beliefs.

And again, no one is suggesting that we change the wording to support any particular belief system.  The suggestion is simply that no particular belief system should be supported.

In any event, it's not religious people who should be worried.  They will always be in the majority.  Let me tell you what it's like to hold a non-popular opinion where religion is concerned.  In college, I had to worry about what I wrote in essays, lest I fall into negative favor of certain professors (yes, it happens).  On the job, I have to worry about discrimination of a different sort (again, yes, it happens).  If I were ever to run for political office, I'd have to keep my beliefs to myself, or ensure certain defeat.  (And if I were to be elected, and depending on the office, I'd have to go through the motions of religious practices I did not believe in--just for appearances.  Of course, I could opt not to do this, but doing so would be career suicide because of the prejudices of the population.)  In my private life, I have to suck it up every time someone sends me religious-oriented cards, or buys religious-oriented clothes for my child.  I can't tell people that I am offended when this happens, because doing so would put a strain on my relationships.  This is pretty near off-topic, but it does exemplify the constant penalty that one pays for being in the religious minority.

[skidoo]

There is a distinct difference between god-as-specified-by-dogma and Nature's G-d. C.f. the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

There is certainly no reason to remove the concept of G-d from political discourse. Just as their is no reason to remove the sacred notion of the pursuit of happiness. Subjectivity of interpretation does not denote invalidity of concept.

This issue was debated (and put to rest) many, many years ago.

[TimB]

I'll preface by saying that I'm a Christian who has recently returned to the church (recent enough that this might the first time I've mentioned this online anywhere) and I've been happy to find a community that doesn't represent the extreme religious convervatism of Jerry, Pat and the boys.  

Some thoughts:

Its when we feel the need to impose our beliefs on others, and particularly sick to do it to other peoples children, that we run into trouble

Yet again we see people trying to get schools to handle a parental responsibility, parents should be doing their job and not pawning it off on others.

Remove the offensive words from the pledge; stop prayer in school; let parents decide what is right for their children.

-=Tim=-

[skidoo]

Us Freemasons run this country. G-d ain't goin' anywhere. Get used to it :-) .

Novus ordo seclorum. Learn it. Live it. :-)

[lee269]

This is interesting. If this was a UK issue Id be in the majority here (and we have the Queen as well as God to bow to ).

Its always struck me how overtly patriotic you guys in America are compared to here in the UK.

Stars and Stripes everywhere (even before 9/11 it seemed) - in England, until recent years, flying the cross of St George was seen as sign of racist nationalism more often than not.

The Star Spangled Banner before baseball games - wow, where I come from the local football team comes out to the theme from Rockford Files (seriously!)

I actually quite admire that type of overt, open-minded, honest pride in ones country. Apart from sporting events, we generally dont go in for that sort of thing. The idea of reciting this at school every day gets my stiff upper lip quivering. Its not really my place of course, but if youll pardon me jumping in I think it reads as a fine sentiment of unity as it is without those extra two words.

[KingSparta]

Once again, you prove that there is no possible argument against what I have said.

I am sure there is, I just don't like change, I guess.

[salsbst1]

I believe that one day we will all hunt down anyone with a religion and shoot them in the back like a rabid dog.

Just so we would not need to hear the word "God"

There is an important distinction between the word "God" in a home, private school, church or other private place vs. the word "God" in laws, public ceremonies and public schools.  Nobody here (that I can discern) has said that there is anything wrong with practicing religion in private or unofficial ways.

[9O3q1NJ9eyz42Jf9]

There is a distinct difference between god-as-specified-by-dogma and Nature's G-d. C.f. the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

There is certainly no reason to remove the concept of G-d from political discourse. Just as their is no reason to remove the sacred notion of the pursuit of happiness. Subjectivity of interpretation does not denote invalidity of concept.

This issue was debated (and put to rest) many, many years ago.

The issue was never "put to rest", or else this debate would not be occurring right now.

The idea of any "god", "providence", source of order in the universe--or anything else you want to call it--is itself a dogma.  Some people do not partake of that dogma, and that is the issue.  So once again, saying that "Hey, we're not advocating any particular god" does not resolve the issue.

Besides, it is common knowledge that when they added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954, they did it to differentiate the United States from the atheist Soviet Union.  You really think they did it as a reference to an abstract concept of "God", and not to the Christian God in particular?  Give me a break!  President Eisenhower himself said, after signing the change into law, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." (emphasis added)  Obviously, "the Almighty" does not refer to an abstract notion, but rather to a particular entity.

Senator Homer Ferguson, the person who proposed the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge, said at the time: “The phrase ‘under God’ recognizes only the guidance of God in our national affairs, it does nothing to establish a religion.”  But what about people, such as Hindus, who worship more than one god?  What about the idea that even if you don't establish a particular religion, you should not be establishing religion, period?  Oops, that serves as more proof that this whole issue marginalizes some people for the benefit of others.

Your later quote, which you may or may not have intended literally, sums up the general consensus of those who enjoy forcing the concept of god down everyone else's throat:

G-d ain't goin' anywhere. Get used to it :-) .

I'm not sure if the smiley means "Just kidding", or if it means "Nah-nah-nah-NAH-nah!", but either way, the quote speaks volumes.  And it also misses the point.  No one is trying to make god "go anywhere".

[skidoo]

The issue was never "put to rest", or else this debate would not be occurring right now.

How can I piut this gently...? The issue was put to rest by, well, most schooled in philosophy and all its sub-disciplines.

The idea of any "god", "providence", source of order in the universe--or anything else you want to call it--is itself a dogma.  Some people do not partake of that dogma, and that is the issue.  So once again, saying that "Hey, we're not advocating any particular god" does not resolve the issue.

"Good?" Who said, "good?"

Your later quote, which you may or may not have intended literally, sums up the general consensus of those who enjoy forcing the concept of god down everyone else's throat:

G-d ain't goin' anywhere. Get used to it :-) .

I'm not sure if the smiley means "Just kidding", or if it means "Nah-nah-nah-NAH-nah!", but either way, the quote speaks volumes.  And it also misses the point.  No one is trying to make god "go anywhere".

Eeeepisssstemology. And Goedel. Spend some time down that rabbit hole, then come back and tell me about G-d and politics. Or more likeley, your new-found obsession with aesthestics will distract you completely from such semantic umbrella flapping.

[JimH]

Well, that was fun while it lasted.  Most of it was clear, well thought out and respectful.  Thanks.

Closing this now.