War on Terrorism--6/19/2004--Under God stuff

War on Terrorism
Fallen Tabris (32) : Board List  | Topic List  | Post New Message  | Log Out  | Help
Page 1 of 4 | Next Page  | Last Page
How would christans react if the pledge said "devoid of god"?

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 1:54:18 PM | Message Detail
Would they take it as well as athiests are taking "under god"?
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: LordofthePandas  | Posted: 6/19/2004 1:56:32 PM | Message Detail
This is a meaningless hypothetical situation as, if it said this, our entire culture would have been changed hundreds of years ago.

However, the main difference I see is that would be a clear snub towards religion, as opposed to what was assumedly not intended to be a clear snub towards atheists.
---
Tavern Keep -[35 Stars]- of The Intrepid Genesis

From: Blackjack946  | Posted: 6/19/2004 1:57:24 PM | Message Detail
I really don't care about the under god or whatever. Its a free country, I don't care if your atheist of Muslim or Christian or whatever, and i'm not gonna force my religion on you. And the "devoid of god" thing does make sense. I mean, did God actually come down and help us write the Constitution or build the Capitol? No.
---
Just another American that hates George Bush.
http://www.stopfcc.com/

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 1:59:03 PM | Message Detail
Oh, and thanks to Mike McConnel for bringing this up
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: His Shadow  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:00:40 PM | Message Detail
However, most protestant religions and other cults do believe that the Untied States is the new promised land by god. I mean, certain Christian Protestant Puritans came over here from being persecuted and of course advocate Freedom of reilgon. However, the hypocrisy is, is that they force an entire race of people to join there reilgon or else.

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:05:01 PM | Message Detail
-

"Under god" infringes on the rights of the minority
"devoid of god" infringes on the rights of the majority
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:09:46 PM | Message Detail
the orginial pledge didnt have the phrase, "under god", it was added in the 1950s.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:11:11 PM | Message Detail
landofthepandas: Except that "Under God" IS a snub torwards atheists, specifically communist russia. Keep in mind when this extension to the pledge was added during the cold war.

mysticbelmont: under god infringes on the right of EVERYONE to have a secular pledge of alleigance.

From: Pretty Boy Floyd  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:13:05 PM | Message Detail
Why don't they just do a simple yes or no vote to see if it stays in the pledge during the elections...


---
Detroit Pistons: Eastern Champions [ 88 - 89 - 90 - 04 ]
Detroit Pistons: World Champions [ 89 - 90 - 04 ]

From: vdb17  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:13:08 PM | Message Detail
Removing "under God" from the pledge is as much an endorsement of atheism as leaving it is an endorsement for any other religion.
---
Live tag: USAF05

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:21:19 PM | Message Detail
PBF, the answer is very smple: The majority of americans are christian. You would get as far if you put down "should we change "under god" to "under lucifer""
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:46:50 PM | Message Detail
Under God = endorsing religion.

NOT having Under God = NOT endorsing religion, not saying anything about it one way or the other. Which is what the goverment should do.

The next person to say "No Under God endorses atheism" or "Christainz r teh majority!!" - check the "Million Mom March" thread. There's a discussion about guns there. Find a good one, and lighten the gene pool of some idiocy genes.

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: FiringSquad  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:52:41 PM | Message Detail
There's a reason Mike is stuck doing a weekend show. What an idiot.

---
When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for the future. -Reagan

From: Born Lucky  | Posted: 6/19/2004 2:57:39 PM | Message Detail
I mean, did God actually come down and help us write the Constitution or build the Capitol? No.

I've read letters written by the men who wrote the
Constitution. They actually stated that without God, they could not have created such a brilliant document.

But, like most atheists, you think you know more about the Constitution than the men who wrote it.

The first Presidential Proclamation issued by George Washington, called for a National Day Of Prayer, in order for the people of the United States to thank God , and was approved by these same men.

They didn't believe they were in violation of the First Amendment , and I think they would have more expertise in this area than you would.

---
"I've done...questionable things." - Roy from Blade Runner

From: wuhoo  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:05:39 PM | Message Detail
So...anything NOT mentioning God is some sort of attack on religion? Is my wristwatch a testament for atheism? How about stop signs? Were all those textbooks I had in school a collective **** you to God?

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:08:38 PM | Message Detail
If you leave it in: It will bother the atheists.
If you take it out: It will bother the Christians.

Therefore, no one is happy. The End.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:14:21 PM | Message Detail
being happy and being right is 2 very different things.

leaving it in and forcing school children to recite it is in direct violation of the constituation of separation of church and state.

i for one, do not want my children to be christan, unless they choose to be on their own, and i do not want something like the pledge of alligiance influencing their decision.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:15:27 PM | Message Detail
how would it influence their decision to be Christian?

God is in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:17:05 PM | Message Detail
leaving it in and forcing school children to recite it is in direct violation of the constituation of separation of church and state.

People don't force it, your kid could choose to say it or not. We weren't forced to do the Pledge in Grammer school, or maybe that was just me.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:17:34 PM | Message Detail


I've read letters written by the men who wrote the
Constitution. They actually stated that without God, they could not have created such a brilliant document.

But, like most atheists, you think you know more about the Constitution than the men who wrote it.

The first Presidential Proclamation issued by George Washington, called for a National Day Of Prayer, in order for the people of the United States to thank God , and was approved by these same men.

They didn't believe they were in violation of the First Amendment , and I think they would have more expertise in this area than you would.

Yep, Jefferson was clearly in agreement there:

"State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists, 1808.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Thankee kindly, http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Morality/MoralWithoutGod.shtml

Find a really good gun, Born...
---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:19:35 PM | Message Detail
if it will make you any happier, you can add any religion towards the list.

it doesnt change the fact that it implies god somehow exist, and there is more then enough scientific evidence to make an argument for just how wrong that is.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: Alvino 2  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:22:28 PM | Message Detail
*waits for more evidence to show up, documenting more than TJ*
---
Dark Terror controlled.
Proud to be a USLess

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:22:43 PM | Message Detail
People don't force it, your kid could choose to say it or not. We weren't forced to do the Pledge in Grammer school, or maybe that was just me.

only in recent years are you able to choose. when i went to school, the teachers didnt anyone much of a choice on reciting the pledge.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:23:44 PM | Message Detail
Actually, science can't prove the existence of God. Therefore, all that "evidence" is obselete.

But that's another debate, which I would like to debate but we can't since its a TOS violation, but I don't really care.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:24:53 PM | Message Detail
People don't force it, your kid could choose to say it or not. We weren't forced to do the Pledge in Grammer school, or maybe that was just me.

Than whats the problem with having "devoid of god"? Your kid isn't forced to say it. He can choose to say it or not.

---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:25:31 PM | Message Detail
Then what would be the problem with having "under God" in the pledge, your kid can choose to say it or not.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: FiringSquad  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:29:17 PM | Message Detail
I've read letters written by the men who wrote the
Constitution.



Yep, Jefferson was clearly in agreement

Not to be a wet blanket but....Jefferson didn't write the Constitution. He was in France during the Convention.

---
When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for the future. -Reagan

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:29:33 PM | Message Detail
-

Uh, it puts weight behind the theory that god exists? My previous post was sarcastic.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:30:50 PM | Message Detail
oh, it was? heh, sorry, sometimes a "" is needed to show if you are being sarcastic cause texting alone doesn't show it.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:58:24 PM | Message Detail
herocatholic: by your logic, we could add "under satan" to the pledge and it would be alright, because the children can choose to not say it.

by my logic, it's still wrong because it isn't secular.

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 3:59:34 PM | Message Detail
actually, I was being sarcastic too.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:01:07 PM | Message Detail
wait a minute, we would have never had to argue about it if an atheist from California didn't bring it up. Seesh, why do we only argue it when it becomes a big deal to ONE person who complains about it when it was around for 50 some odd years.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:05:33 PM | Message Detail
women also didnt vote for 150 years in our history, so if no said anything in the 20s, that somehow justify prejudice against 50% of the population?
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:06:49 PM | Message Detail
yea, but women's right to vote is a bigger issue than God in the pledge.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:06:49 PM | Message Detail
To take it out would be mean to theists? Tough ****. It wasn't nice to put it in there in the first place.
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:08:02 PM | Message Detail
yea, but women's right to vote is a bigger issue than God in the pledge.

Given that people's rights are people's rights regardless of minority or majority, there is no "bigger issue". An infringement of rights is an infringement of rights.
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:09:01 PM | Message Detail
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:13:29 PM | Message Detail
Given that people's rights are people's rights regardless of minority or majority, there is no "bigger issue". An infringement of rights is an infringement of rights.

True, but you can't deny that the issue of slavery (along with others) didn't help cause the biggest number of American Soldier casualties. As for now (as far as I know without knowing a lot of history), the issue of "God" in the pledge hasn't killed that many people.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:14:48 PM | Message Detail
To take it out would be mean to theists? Tough ****. It wasn't nice to put it in there in the first place.

Atheism is a religion too you know. By taking God out of the pledge, you are cooperating with atheism, which, in turn, violates seperation of church and state.

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:15:19 PM | Message Detail
Atheism is a religion too you know

Being an atheist, I actually used to believe this. Overall, though, it's not really true. You could possibly get by on a couple definitions of "religion", but overall atheism's not a religious belief. It's the lack thereof as well as a singular negative claim against a positive affirmation ("there is a God"), which is a belief, but not every belief is in itself a religion. A religion is commonly construed as a collection of beliefs.
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 4:26:23 PM | Message Detail
There are 50 definitions of religion, one being, as you said,
overall atheism's not a religious belief. It's the lack thereof as well as a singular negative claim against a positive affirmation ("there is a God"), which is a belief, but not every belief is in itself a religion. A religion is commonly construed as a collection of beliefs

not believing in a God. However, there are religions that have no God, such as Buddhism and Confuciusism are considered religions. I do not know what your beliefs are, but if your belief could be "do good things, you have one life so make use of it" then you could be a Buddhist for all I know.

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: J Anderson  | Posted: 6/19/2004 5:19:00 PM | Message Detail
Give it 25 years and god worshippers will be a minority. Assuming my generation doesn't just ban religion outright when we take power. More and more people are getting sick of a lie perpetrated so a group can commit murder.

From: Ryo Ohki  | Posted: 6/19/2004 5:28:52 PM | Message Detail
I know a bunch of atheists, as well as agnostics, and not one of them was ever offended by the pledge. Back in school, before I became religious, I'd say the pledge and I was never offended by saying "under god'. It was just two more words to memorize and say out loud, it had no influence or impact whatsoever, and I'm sure most kids feel the same way.
---
"The answer to global warming is to evacuate the coast and construct gigantic walls"---some liberal professor

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 5:37:51 PM | Message Detail
More and more people are getting sick of a lie perpetrated so a group can commit murder.

What lie? Who commits murder?
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 6:45:47 PM | Message Detail
-

By taking God out of the pledge, you are cooperating with atheism, which, in turn, violates seperation of church and state.

So what was with putting it in there to begin with? It was unjust and unconstitutional to put it there to begin with. Taking it out simply balances it out

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/19/2004 6:54:19 PM | Message Detail
So what was with putting it in there to begin with? It was unjust and unconstitutional to put it there to begin with. Taking it out simply balances it out

Well, we can measure the amount Christianity in the Constitution and try to subtract it from the Constitution so it may be equal for all.

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/19/2004 6:55:40 PM | Message Detail
Give it 25 years and god worshippers will be a minority. Assuming my generation doesn't just ban religion outright when we take power. More and more people are getting sick of a lie perpetrated so a group can commit murder.

Angst'D Teenager.


ROFL here's actual statistics.

Christianity 30 CE The Bible 2,015 million 33% (dropping) 5
Islam 622 CE Qur'an & Hadith 1,215 million 20% (growing) 5
No religion * No date None 925 million 15% (dropping) 5
Hinduism 1,500 BCE The Veda 786 million 13% (stable) 5
Buddhism 523 BCE The Tripitaka 362 million 6% (stable) 5
Atheists No date None 211 million 4%
Chinese folk rel. 270 BCE None 188 million 4%
New Asian rel. Various Various 106 million 2%
Tribal Religions, Animism Prehistory Oral tradition 91 million 2%
Other Various Various 19 million less than 1%
Judaism No consensus Torah, Talmud 18 million less than 1%
Sikhism 1500 CE Guru Granth Sahib 16 million less than 1%
Shamanists Prehistory Oral Tradition 12 million less than 1%
Spiritism 7 million less than 1%
Confucianism 520 BCE Lun Yu 5 million less than 1%
Baha'i Faith 1863 CE Most Holy Book 4 million less than 1%
Jainism 570 BCE Siddhanta, Pakrit 3 million less than 1%
Shinto 500 CE Kojiki, Nohon Shoki 3 million less than 1%
Wicca 800 BCE, 1940 CE None 500,000? less than 1%
Zoroastrianism No consensus Avesta 0.2 million less than 1%
---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: Bejita San  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:05:01 PM | Message Detail
Why must I mention god when pledging allegiance to my country/

The original intent of putting "under god" into the pledge was to offend people, with that said, it should be removed. Christians to this day refuse to stop trying to spread their crap to others.
---
Your gonna tell me NOW, or eventually!!!- Homer J. Simpson
Did that cat and that mouse just kiss? Cause if they did!!Homer J. Simpson

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:08:20 PM | Message Detail
OMG STOP IT PEOPLE THE PHRASE UNDER GOD DOES NOT APPLY ONLY TO CHRISTIANS.


Stop making stuff up like "OMG LIEK IT INSULTS HINDUS!" or OMG LIEK HOW WOULD U LIEK IT IF IT WAS UNDER ALLAH?" because both of those statements have falsehood.


We really need a religion FAQ for this board.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: Bejita San  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:16:26 PM | Message Detail
OMG STOP IT PEOPLE THE PHRASE UNDER GOD DOES NOT APPLY ONLY TO CHRISTIANS.


Stop making stuff up like "OMG LIEK IT INSULTS HINDUS!" or OMG LIEK HOW WOULD U LIEK IT IF IT WAS UNDER ALLAH?" because both of those statements have falsehood.


We really need a religion FAQ for this board.

Your lying if you think the law makers who put "under god" in the pledge were not making a reference to the christian god.
---
Your gonna tell me NOW, or eventually!!!- Homer J. Simpson
Did that cat and that mouse just kiss? Cause if they did!!Homer J. Simpson
Jump to Page: 1 |  |  |

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:18:04 PM | Message Detail

Your lying if you think the law makers who put "under god" in the pledge were not making a reference to the christian god.

SEE EVERYONE??? RIGHT THERE!!! IGNORANT POST!!

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Baha'is, Sikhs, Hindus, and lots more all believe in the same god.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: Plushie  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:20:22 PM | Message Detail
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Baha'is, Sikhs, Hindus, and lots more all believe in the same god.

-_-

Monotheism doesn't imply the same god.

That statement would have been correct had you said: Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in the same god (Abraham's god).
---
There's a funnel cloud one county to the west. Ask me anything! - Da Jerk
Where will you be when your diarrhea sets in? - BVMatt

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:22:07 PM | Message Detail

Monotheism doesn't imply the same god.

That statement would have been correct had you said: Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in the same god (Abraham's god).

EVEN MORE IGNORANT POST!

Why? All those other faiths believe in the same Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent god.

You haven't studied world religions.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:23:09 PM | Message Detail
It was put in to seperate the US from the atheist Soviet russia.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:26:53 PM | Message Detail
It was put in to seperate the US from the atheist Soviet russia.

That doesn't matter. The thing is, this statement is for all monotheists, not just Christians. (Even if it was intended for Christians)

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:36:27 PM | Message Detail
That doesn't matter. The thing is, this statement is for all monotheists, not just Christians. (Even if it was intended for Christians)

So Its okay to infringe on athiests rights, because they are the minority?

---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:38:11 PM | Message Detail

So Its okay to infringe on athiests rights, because they are the minority?

So Its okay to infringe on monotheists' rights, because they are the majority?

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:41:41 PM | Message Detail
kirby, the modification to the song was made to distance us from Russia. It infringes on the rights of athiests. To take away the line is not infringing on the christians, but simply takeing something away that was made originally to stomp on someones rights
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:48:06 PM | Message Detail
kirby, the modification to the song was made to distance us from Russia. It infringes on the rights of athiests. To take away the line is not infringing on the christians, but simply takeing something away that was made originally to stomp on someones rights

Welcome to America where the Christians pray, and we talk to them priests like every day. Muslims got Masjids see Muezzin's shoutin'! and barmitzvahs don't stop till 8 in the mornin'...

 (Kudos to who knows the original)

I just have to say that America isn't perfect, and that it makes mistakes. But now, 50 years after it happened, it isn't going to be reversed because the minority don't like it. It hasn't caused a big problem. I mean it is like when a non-Christian gets asked to go to a Chruch. Nobody is forcing him, but he doesn't have to make people go out of there way to stop people from asking him to go to church.
---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:52:37 PM | Message Detail
Infringing on rights is infringing on rights. Doesn't matter if it somehow interupts someones day, its still wrong.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: MegaloSaro  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:55:32 PM | Message Detail
There is no need for it anymore. The Cold War is over

but off topic. I have been forced to go to church. Ever friend I have told has gave me the option of going to church or ending my friendship with them. I went to church a few times, but then I eventually killed my relationship with them.
---
Hail Manveru Encaitar, member of the Fellowship of the Gamefaqs"Official Gwaihir fanboy"

From: vdb17  | Posted: 6/19/2004 7:58:21 PM | Message Detail
Well how come I can't have a howitzer? I believe I have the right to own arms. A howitzer is just a really big one. Why can't I carry a sawed off shotgun? I mean it's right there in the Constitution. All these weapon bans are infringing on my rights.

Anyone who supports removing "under God" from the pledge cannot support assault weapon bans or anything of the sort. Anything else is just hypocrisy.
---
Live tag: USAF05

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/19/2004 8:05:46 PM | Message Detail
I am anti gun ban and pro concealed weapons.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: XboxCreature  | Posted: 6/19/2004 8:30:18 PM | Message Detail
now let's not try to become terrorists ourselves
this has been an issue for a long time and the christians including myself might get mad but there is nothing that we can do about the pledge and what people say during it.
---
A room full of nOObs and still no one knows how to get past level one

From: Falkus  | Posted: 6/19/2004 9:36:54 PM | Message Detail
"So Its okay to infringe on monotheists' rights, because they are the majority?"

I'd love to see how not mentioning god is infringing upon montheists' rights.

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/20/2004 1:38:47 AM | Message Detail

I'd love to see how not mentioning god is infringing upon montheists' rights.

They want their children to be in a pro-faith environment. How's that? The same way I want my child to strengthen his faith at school or anywhere.

Infringing on rights is infringing on rights. Doesn't matter if it somehow interupts someones day, its still wrong.

Leaving God in the pledge is the lesser of two evils.

There is no need for it anymore. The Cold War is over

If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you do however, then just ignore it.

A room full of nOObs and still no one knows how to get past level one

Sven Co-op: RE mod-omg how do I leave the starting room??

--Actual noob who didn't see the window to leave the room from.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/20/2004 1:47:52 AM | Message Detail
Once more, with clarity - REMOVING UNDER GOD INFRINGES ON NO ONE'S RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The goverment is not allowed to endorse ANY religion, not just Christianity. It's that annoying "seperation of Church and State" thing....

If it's removed, the goverment fixes a mistake. That's it. If it stays, it's a violation of U.S goverment principles.

Is that clear enough? If change could be pushed back on grounds of "it's always been this way"(which it wasn't - only since the McCarthy era), we'd be living in caves.
---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: Bejita San  | Posted: 6/20/2004 1:49:15 AM | Message Detail
They want their children to be in a pro-faith environment. How's that? The same way I want my child to strengthen his faith at school or anywhere.

A pro-faith environment is not guaranteed by our constitution whether it be the living constitution or the written constitution. Government not establishing religion is a guaranteed right and therefore under god should be removed.

Also, your point about the Christian god is also the Islamic and Jewish god is irrelevant. The legislators who added these two words were doing it with christianity in mind. Denying that is simply foolish. The supreme court has already ruled in other cases that the intent of legislators has to be taken into acount.

Leaving God in the pledge is the lesser of two evils.

What? How is it evil to pledge allegiance to your country without mentioning god?

If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you do however, then just ignore it.

So if the majority didn't mind having free speech infringed on....would you support it? Of course not. But because you are in the majority, you some how feel that you are "right."
---
Your gonna tell me NOW, or eventually!!!- Homer J. Simpson
Did that cat and that mouse just kiss? Cause if they did!!Homer J. Simpson

From: Quicksilverturk  | Posted: 6/20/2004 1:53:44 AM | Message Detail
"They want their children to be in a pro-faith environment. How's that? The same way I want my child to strengthen his faith at school or anywhere."
-
How is that any different than someone wanting their child to not want to hear religion? or "anti-faith" as you might say. Not a difference at all, and the same right
-
How is taking God out evil at all?
-
That is a metaphor for something working. How is "Under God" working? Did it seperate us from the Soviet Union? I guess, if you think so. Is there a Soviet Union? No.

---
-Scratches ass.-
So you want my autograph?

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:07:39 AM | Message Detail
The goverment is not allowed to endorse ANY religion, not just Christianity. It's that annoying "seperation of Church and State" thing....

Which religion is the government endorsing? Please tell me.

If it's removed, the goverment fixes a mistake. That's it. If it stays, it's a violation of U.S goverment principles.

Where's the mistake? As long as it is not endorsing A religion it's ok.

Is that clear enough? If change could be pushed back on grounds of "it's always been this way"(which it wasn't - only since the McCarthy era), we'd be living in caves.

You do know that religion causes science right? Why do you think Arab knowledge flourished after Muhammed?

A pro-faith environment is not guaranteed by our constitution whether it be the living constitution or the written constitution. Government not establishing religion is a guaranteed right and therefore under god should be removed.

Again, which religion is it establishing??

What? How is it evil to pledge allegiance to your country without mentioning god?

We are not talking about any "god" here. We are talking about God. It makes you look smarter. And besides, the thing about the "under God" phrase is like that of the "dumb" laws of the US. Nobody bothers with them.

So if the majority didn't mind having free speech infringed on....would you support it? Of course not. But because you are in the majority, you some how feel that you are "right."

Reguardless, if the majority wants it in, and it is reasonable, it should be in. Do you understand that? That's why we have elections for president. How bizarre to pick the candidate with LESS votes!

How is that any different than someone wanting their child to not want to hear religion? or "anti-faith" as you might say. Not a difference at all, and the same right

Listen, what is wrong with hearing religion? Why WOULDN'T you want your child not to hear religion?


How is taking God out evil at all?

You have 2 choices: Leave it in, and piss off atheists/pagans. Or, take it out and piss off the other 6/7th of America. Which one is the lesser of 2 evils?

That is a metaphor for something working. How is "Under God" working? Did it seperate us from the Soviet Union? I guess, if you think so. Is there a Soviet Union? No.

Yeah well, ever since America put its money in God's trust... isn't the US dollar the most powerful currency?

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:19:51 AM | Message Detail
Kirby:

You don't seem to understand - "Under God" endorses the idea that God exists, whatever faith it may be from.THAT is wrong. Endorsment of a the existance of a deity is a Church-State violation. Get over it.

And what was with the "after Muhammed, science flourished" red herring? How is it REMOTELY connected to the point here?

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: Papadoc80  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:20:08 AM | Message Detail
If we have Freedom OF Religion, and not Freedom FROM Religion, I don't see any reason for 'under God' to be removed. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a voluntary action. If you object to "under God', simply pass on saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

For this to be a seperation of church and State issue, IMO, I think this would have to concern something that is mandatory. Which the Pledge is not.

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:25:37 AM | Message Detail
It's endorsed by the State. That's enough for the violation(and, BTW, the U.S DOES have Freedom from Religion, like most of the West).

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: Quicksilverturk  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:26:14 AM | Message Detail
What about atheists who wish to say the pledge to honor the country they live in? Or do you assume atheists don't want to pledge and want to do this because their asses?
---
-Scratches ass.-
So you want my autograph?

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:39:41 AM | Message Detail
so, papadoc, are you saying that we don't have the freedom to be atheists?

Anyway, get it through your thick skulls that we don't ask that the state endorse atheism. We ask that the state endorse secularism, which is simply the LACK of religious text, neither advocating NOR disproving a god. It's fair, it's nuetral, accept it already.

And to answer a personal question that kirby posed (which has no relevence, btw.) I would want my child to think for himself, and not have anyone dictate their beliefs to him, thank you very much.

From: Papadoc80  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:47:20 AM | Message Detail
I don't see why you have your panties in a bunch over this. The Pledge isn't a mandatory thing. Neither is saying 'under God.' If you wish to say the Pledge, but happen to be Aethiest, simply say 'under no God' or leave that part out all together. There is no need to cry about it.

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:52:31 AM | Message Detail
you didn't answer my question

here's another, let's see if you have the mental capacity to read it this one, why can't we just modify it and let you modify it how you want?

From: Papadoc80  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:54:10 AM | Message Detail
That's cool with me. Let's do it man! If it will stop the babies from crying, I am all for it!

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:59:20 AM | Message Detail
you still didn't answer my first question.
in response to you having said this "If we have Freedom OF Religion, and not Freedom FROM Religion"

I asked "so, papadoc, are you saying that we don't have the freedom to be atheists?"

now, I believe that we do have the right to be free FROM religion, because the state is secular. Explain YOUR resoning, assuming you have one.

From: Ryo Ohki  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:59:33 AM | Message Detail
It's endorsed by the State. That's enough for the violation(and, BTW, the U.S DOES have Freedom from Religion, like most of the West).

So is the Declaration of Independence, but you don't see anyone getting huffy about that. Every school child has to read it, and a lot have to memorize and recite it...yet...oh dear..it mentions GOD!!
---
"The answer to global warming is to evacuate the coast and construct gigantic walls"---some liberal professor

From: Papadoc80  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:08:40 AM | Message Detail
What I ment by the Freedom from religion comment is this, this is not a country that is banned from worshipping a God. Like say...China. If you want to be atheist, go for it. I have never had a problem with anyone wanting to worship, not worship, or whatever they see fit to do. That is your choice, and luckily you and I live in a country where we can both be what we want to be.

I know your face is red, and you are angry with the way the Pledge is right now. Good luck getting the Pledge changed. For me, it doesn't really matter if 'under God' is in or not. I will sleep just fine either way. The Pledge, for me, has always been about our country, and not the 'under God' text.

United we stand, divided we fall.

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:11:59 AM | Message Detail
the chinese doesnt ban christanity. they are about as mixed religiously as any other country in the world. only difference is they some what promotes athelism.

only countries that actually hostile towards other religions are the muslim countries. i assure you, they will shoot jehova's witness on sight.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:15:54 AM | Message Detail


So is the Declaration of Independence, but you don't see anyone getting huffy about that. Every school child has to read it, and a lot have to memorize and recite it...yet...oh dear..it mentions GOD!!

It's a historical document. You can't exactly change it if you're going to study it(which can't be applied to the Pledge, which isn't an object of STUDY, it's a statement of loyalty and, well, alleigance).

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: Papadoc80  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:20:07 AM | Message Detail
Thanks for the info WasEvil. I was mistaken about China. I was under the impression that they had banned religious worship. It's good to hear that they are open to that.

From: Spybreak001  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:26:02 AM | Message Detail
One nation completely screwed, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice For At Least Half of the Population At Any Given Time.
---

From: Papadoc80  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:27:20 AM | Message Detail
I believe North Korea is still putting people in jail for worship. That country is in such a sad state right now. With all the problems they have, you'd think free worship would be the last thing they'd be worrying about.

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:36:59 AM | Message Detail
i highly doubt the ability of north korea to actually finically enforce something like that.

at least in jail they feed you 3 times a day, where in public, the north koreans are getting starved to death by the thousands each day.

i saw a article about north korea, they were fighting over who gets to eat the grass roots and tree bark, rather sad when you think about it.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/20/2004 6:32:43 AM | Message Detail
They want their children to be in a pro-faith environment. How's that? The same way I want my child to strengthen his faith at school or anywhere.

Send your kid to a private christian school. He can strengthen his faith in school

The question I posed is what would of happend if back in the 50's, instead of "under god" the govermetn had decided to put "devoid of god". Would you be mad that it is in?
If we take out "devoid of god" is that the goverment endorsing that a god exists? Does keeping it in endorse that god doesn't exist?
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/20/2004 7:59:38 AM | Message Detail
but off topic. I have been forced to go to church. Ever friend I have told has gave me the option of going to church or ending my friendship with them. I went to church a few times, but then I eventually killed my relationship with them.

What kind of friends do you have? Are they nuts? (no offense to your friends).

Anyway, If the US were to be a secular nation, then everyone should protest to the One dollar bill. On the back of the one dollar bill, above the capitalized ONE, is "In God We Trust." Now, I know that we don't know if God exists or not, but still, it is obvious that if we were a true secular nation, then we wouldn't have a one dollar bill with IN GOD WE TRUST, which I'm pretty sure there was one dollar bills BEFORE the McCarthy era.

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/20/2004 8:49:45 AM | Message Detail
^Another problem. Like the Pledge, it's not big enough to worry about, but if it came to public debate, I'd support the change(like I am now, for the Pledge).

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:14:36 PM | Message Detail

You don't seem to understand - "Under God" endorses the idea that God exists, whatever faith it may be from.THAT is wrong. Endorsment of a the existance of a deity is a Church-State violation. Get over it.

Look, nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere in US government does it say that it is not ok to endorse the idea of religion itself.

And what was with the "after Muhammed, science flourished" red herring? How is it REMOTELY connected to the point here?

I said that in response to that wierdo who said that we'd be living in the stone age it it were for religion.

Oh yeah and one more Quote:

"I don't know what the key to success is, but the key to failure is to try to please everybody."

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:25:09 PM | Message Detail
go read, the united states consitutation, article 6, section 3, last sentence.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:31:26 PM | Message Detail
go read, the united states consitutation, article 6, section 3, last sentence.

Article. VI.

Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

1. Article 6 has no sections, but 3 clauses.

2. That clause is talking about taking a religious text and using it for examination in order to enter government.

3. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

4. j00 h4v3 ju57 b33n pwn3|)!1!!!
---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/20/2004 2:35:59 PM | Message Detail
Send your kid to a private christian school. He can strengthen his faith in school

I am not Christian. Ask anyone who knows me on this board.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/20/2004 3:52:08 PM | Message Detail
Look, nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere in US government does it say that it is not ok to endorse the idea of religion itself.

endorse: "To sign one's name on a document to authorize its content or transfer. "

Seems by signing that the pledge be changed, they endorsed that there is a god

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I said that in response to that wierdo who said that we'd be living in the stone age it it were for religion.

http://nosha.secularhumanism.net/essays/sierichs2.html

Read that. The church has tortured and killed people, and excommunicated galileo for supporting the heliocentric universe.
The church has said it is a sin to believe in a heliocentric theory.

The church has been shown to opress ideas that it finds wrong, going tot he point of banning someone from church, or even killing them (salem witch trials anyone?)
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/20/2004 4:25:31 PM | Message Detail
endorse: "To sign one's name on a document to authorize its content or transfer. "

Seems by signing that the pledge be changed, they endorsed that there is a god

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And I can't find anyone disproving God. So therefore it is ok.

Read that. The church has tortured and killed people, and excommunicated galileo for supporting the heliocentric universe.
The church has said it is a sin to believe in a heliocentric theory.

The church has been shown to opress ideas that it finds wrong, going tot he point of banning someone from church, or even killing them (salem witch trials anyone?)

I don't care what the church does. All I said is that the revelation of the Quran stirred scientific interest during the dark ages.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/20/2004 6:27:27 PM | Message Detail
And I can't find anyone disproving God. So therefore it is ok.

What? Could you expand on that please

---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: Born Lucky  | Posted: 6/20/2004 7:42:41 PM | Message Detail
I've noticed that everytime an atheist wants to prove a point, they always use some obscure quote from Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin.

I ask again. Why did these men approve a government sponsored national day of prayer to thank God? They obviously didn't believe that it violated the First Amendment.

By the way, Jefferson renounced those anti religous quotes a few years after he said them. I noticed you "forgot" to mention that.

Benjamin Franklin said that a Bible should be in every public school classroom. I notice the atheists always "forget" to mention that too.
---
"I've done...questionable things." - Roy from Blade Runner

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/20/2004 8:16:02 PM | Message Detail
That doesn't make the national day of prayer rigt. It is still wrong. He was still right about seperating church from state.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: DeathNemesis14  | Posted: 6/20/2004 8:29:05 PM | Message Detail
stop breathing, also stop posting
---
"Crazier than Tupac in that flick called Juice
**** is longer than the hat worn by Dr. Seuss" - A Tribe Called Quest
Jump to Page:  | 2 |  |

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/20/2004 8:47:53 PM | Message Detail
stop breathing, also stop posting

Why, because I don't like the fact that the goverment is supporting the fact that an invisible entity exists, even though the constitution forbids it?

You sound like a sunday christian.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: Bejita San  | Posted: 6/20/2004 9:17:19 PM | Message Detail
As far as I'm concerned, the founding fathers are not people to look to for answers.

They can obviously contradict themselves with the constitution because the same people that guaranteed freedom to the populace were the same that owned slaves. National day of prayer, religious figures conducting ceremonies in congress, in god we trust all that stuff needs to go.
---
Your gonna tell me NOW, or eventually!!!- Homer J. Simpson
Did that cat and that mouse just kiss? Cause if they did!!Homer J. Simpson

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/20/2004 9:53:47 PM | Message Detail
However, there are religions that have no God, such as Buddhism and Confuciusism are considered religions.
Yes, but that does not mean that believing there is no god in itself is a religion. Buddhism and Confuciusism are both belief systems--that's what makes them religions. You're missing the big picture.

Well, we can measure the amount Christianity in the Constitution and try to subtract it from the Constitution so it may be equal for all.
...except there is no Christianity in the constitution.

MG STOP IT PEOPLE THE PHRASE UNDER GOD DOES NOT APPLY ONLY TO CHRISTIANS.
It applies to ONE TYPE OF GOD. Those who believe in more than one or none matter just as much as those who believe in one in this country, and our national pledge is supporting monotheists over them. That is not fair.

EVEN MORE IGNORANT POST!

Why? All those other faiths believe in the same Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent god.
This is assuming that the singular God exists, which is a decision that government has NO RIGHT TO MAKE FOR THE PEOPLE.

Anyone who supports removing "under God" from the pledge cannot support assault weapon bans or anything of the sort. Anything else is just hypocrisy.
No. Supporting assault weapon bans has absolutely nothing to do with any of this--I don't believe the words should be taken out simply because I believe the words should be taken out. Your logic is lacking.

They want their children to be in a pro-faith environment
Rofl.

And atheists want their children to be an an environment lacking of faith.
Government has no right to cater to either party, but, as you explicitly stated, having this in the pledge caters to monotheists; therefore, it is a bridge between church and state, condoning one form of religious belief.

Which religion is the government endorsing
Monotheisms.

Look, nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere in US government does it say that it is not ok to endorse the idea of religion itself
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE ****ING CHURCH IS?!
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: TheDarkshineKnight  | Posted: 6/20/2004 11:27:06 PM | Message Detail
Fallen Tabris wins. Hands down.
---
TheDarkshineKnight: The Anti-Wyldcard
Hey, you want to fit your I-block into my two J-blocks? ~ Scani

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/20/2004 11:44:24 PM | Message Detail
look, you can ramble on about whatever social praying events that the founding fathers attended, but it all amounts to nothing.

We have SEVERAL quotes from the constitution that promote a secular state. You don't have a SINGLE quote from any document that endorses a christian state. You're arguing on theory. Present to us something else and maybe we'll think for just a moment that you aren't simply defending your religion with a lack of regard for constitutional law.

From: XboxCreature  | Posted: 6/20/2004 11:56:08 PM | Message Detail
WHO CARES ABOUT ALL THIS CRAP IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! so just stop debating.
---
Got Milk?

From: Quicksilverturk  | Posted: 6/20/2004 11:57:20 PM | Message Detail
^^^ Guess he's given up.
---
-Scratches ass.-
So you want my autograph?

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 12:27:11 AM | Message Detail
What? Could you expand on that please

I mean that who cares if its in the pledge. If it isn't mandatory it is ok. Because as far as I am concerned, it is not against the constitution in any way.

Yes, but that does not mean that believing there is no god in itself is a religion. Buddhism and Confuciusism are both belief systems--that's what makes them religions. You're missing the big picture.

Buddhism=religion.

Confucianism =/= religion

Wow, did you just get pwned?

It applies to ONE TYPE OF GOD. Those who believe in more than one or none matter just as much as those who believe in one in this country, and our national pledge is supporting monotheists over them. That is not fair.

Dude, 6/7s of America is monotheistic. Do you also advocate the right of illegal immigrants to run for President? "WHOAMG LIEK U GOTTA BE BORN IN TEH US IF U WANNA RUN FER PREZ!!1! OMG IMBA!!

This is assuming that the singular God exists, which is a decision that government has NO RIGHT TO MAKE FOR THE PEOPLE.

LOL, why shouldn't it? I am sorry, but America isn't this "religious freedom" or "equal rights" utopia that you pretend it was. America is a monotheistic nation! And as a democracy, you have the right to complain about it. And, I want you to start a petition on getting it removed. And you know what? I would sign it. LOL though, last time I checked you gotta have more than 1/7 of the population sign of petition in order to have it passed.

And atheists want their children to be an an environment lacking of faith.
Government has no right to cater to either party, but, as you explicitly stated, having this in the pledge caters to monotheists; therefore, it is a bridge between church and state, condoning one form of religious belief.

LOL, what kind of atheists wouldn't want their children exposed to religion?

Monotheisms.

I said religion. Not religions. And as long as it is not endorsing a SINGLE religion it is ok.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE ****ING CHURCH IS?!

Christian place of worship.

Fallen Tabris wins. Hands down.

And you win first place in cheerleading.

We have SEVERAL quotes from the constitution that promote a secular state. You don't have a SINGLE quote from any document that endorses a christian state. You're arguing on theory. Present to us something else and maybe we'll think for just a moment that you aren't simply defending your religion with a lack of regard for constitutional law.

What quotes? And of course there aren't any Christian state quotes in any document, and that is not what I am pushing for. And besides, I would like to know where your "anti-religion" quotes you are referring to are.


---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:03:24 AM | Message Detail
I mean that who cares if its in the pledge. If it isn't mandatory it is ok. Because as far as I am concerned, it is not against the constitution in any way.

Well, its not your concern, its the supreme courts concern. And I care that its in the pledge, the same if "Devoid of god" "under lucifer" or "under allah" would be to you

Dude, 6/7s of America is monotheistic. Do you also advocate the right of illegal immigrants to run for President? "WHOAMG LIEK U GOTTA BE BORN IN TEH US IF U WANNA RUN FER PREZ!!1! OMG IMBA!!

This has what to do with seperation of church and state? If we elected a really good president, but he was found out to be foreigner, and 6/7 of the population liked him, does that make it right to keep him?

LOL, why shouldn't it? I am sorry, but America isn't this "religious freedom" or "equal rights" utopia that you pretend it was. America is a monotheistic nation! And as a democracy, you have the right to complain about it. And, I want you to start a petition on getting it removed. And you know what? I would sign it. LOL though, last time I checked you gotta have more than 1/7 of the population sign of petition in order to have it passed.

The people may be mostly monotheistic, but the govermetn isn't supposed to take a stance on it. Its int he first amendment. The goverment is not supposed to say whether christainity is right or not, but they did. Did you think the christian president was thinking of Islam when he put in "under god" in the pledge?
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:07:57 AM | Message Detail
Well, its not your concern, its the supreme courts concern. And I care that its in the pledge, the same if "Devoid of god" "under lucifer" or "under allah" would be to you

Enough with this crap about "under allah". Why the hell would the US use a foreign word??????????

And guess what, it does say "under God". Because what's wrong with having a fact? The US is under God, and I really can't see what your problem is.


This has what to do with seperation of church and state? If we elected a really good president, but he was found out to be foreigner, and 6/7 of the population liked him, does that make it right to keep him?

That's why we have amendments.


The people may be mostly monotheistic, but the govermetn isn't supposed to take a stance on it. Its int he first amendment. The goverment is not supposed to say whether christainity is right or not, but they did. Did you think the christian president was thinking of Islam when he put in "under god" in the pledge?

That doesn't matter whether or not he was thinking about Islam. And nowhere in the first amendment does it say that it is not ok to endorse religion!!!
---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:19:34 AM | Message Detail
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
that is the first one, as posted earlier

"congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion."
this is the second one, as mentioned several times already

Also, ever heard of the treaty of tripoli?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
read article 11
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


these three CLEARLY endorse a secular state, one which does not meddle in religious affairs, nor lets itself be influenced by them. As far as I know, there is no document in the constitution, (or anywhere else for that matter) which endorses the idea of a state religion.

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:23:11 AM | Message Detail
these three CLEARLY endorse a secular state, one which does not meddle in religious affairs, nor lets itself be influenced by them. As far as I know, there is no document in the constitution, (or anywhere else for that matter) which endorses the idea of a state religion.

You don't understand that the US government is not endorsing ANY religion by having the phrase "under God". It is merely endorsing the IDEA of religion. And that, my friend, is not against any US ideal.


---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:32:33 AM | Message Detail
show me a DOCUMENT, then! I just presented THREE to you that promote secular ideas. Give me a major national document that promotes your IDEA of religion, do you even have ONE? I can't take your statements seriously when you don't have any proof, can I?

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:38:33 AM | Message Detail
show me a DOCUMENT, then! I just presented THREE to you that promote secular ideas. Give me a major national document that promotes your IDEA of religion, do you even have ONE? I can't take your statements seriously when you don't have any proof, can I?

"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court wrote in its decision.

How's that? The court itself pwns you. You think you are smarter than a Supreme Court Justice?

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:44:08 AM | Message Detail
he said that is was normative, normative means normal, what is standard. Basically, he said that we are used to it, but it doesn't really say anything about how constitutional it is, or whether it is just or unjust.

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:49:42 AM | Message Detail
he said that is was normative, normative means normal, what is standard. Basically, he said that we are used to it, but it doesn't really say anything about how constitutional it is, or whether it is just or unjust.

So what? The court says it stays. And there is nothing that you or any of your pesky anti-god friends can do about it.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:53:05 AM | Message Detail
the court didnt say it stays, the court said the girl's father who is sueing doesnt have enough legal ground to make the law suit (he doesnt have full custody of the girl, and he is sueing on her behalf).

they didnt decide if "under god" is consitituational or not.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:55:44 AM | Message Detail
and i would rather be pesky and anti god, rather then still being able to fooled into believing talking snakes in the garden of edan.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:01:03 AM | Message Detail
the court didnt say it stays, the court said the girl's father who is sueing doesnt have enough legal ground to make the law suit (he doesnt have full custody of the girl, and he is sueing on her behalf).

they didnt decide if "under god" is consitituational or not.

Yes they did:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5208621/

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

Boom!

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:02:07 AM | Message Detail
and i would rather be pesky and anti god, rather then still being able to fooled into believing talking snakes in the garden of edan.

I am not Christian, so you making fun of nonsense Christian doctrines does abso****inglutely nothing.

---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: Quicksilverturk  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:05:17 AM | Message Detail
Kirby, are you arguing with yourself?
---
-Scratches ass.-
So you want my autograph?

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:06:45 AM | Message Detail
apparently not only are you clueless about whats going on here, you have no idea how the surpreme court works.

you'd realize they have to vote on the issue, and guess what, thats only 3 justices who supports under god, and guess again how many justices actually exists? 9.

go learn something, you are making a fool out of yourself.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:14:49 AM | Message Detail
here is something for you to read...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/index.html

and i quote

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.


Gordon expressed disappointment that the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the pledge.

---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:21:06 AM | Message Detail
Kirby, are you arguing with yourself?

I am not a solipsist dude.

apparently not only are you clueless about whats going on here, you have no idea how the surpreme court works.

Yes, I am completely clueless. Please "educate" me.

you'd realize they have to vote on the issue, and guess what, thats only 3 justices who supports under god, and guess again how many justices actually exists? 9.

LOLOLOLOL! Dude it never said that the other 6 want it out. All I said was the 3 wanted it in. I am pretty sure the next time this thing comes up its gona be a 6-3 margin.


go learn something, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Me? Learn something? You need to stop believing EVERYTHING you read on the Internet dude.

And JTLYK, I am a philosophy teacher at California High School, San Ramon, California.

And it doesn't matter how many quotes you bring, unless you have a direct quote that says at least 5 of the justices want the phrase out.


---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:27:47 AM | Message Detail
you dont have 5 phrases of 5 justices wants it in either. which bring back to your wrongfully stated that the court decided the phrase is constituational.

in case you forgot, let me remind you.

they didnt decide if "under god" is consitituational or not. that's me, making a correct statement.

Yes they did: and thats you, making a fool out of yourself, again.

and you being a school teacher? now i know why california is among the worst in the country in test scores and literacy skills. i hope the next round of budget cuts would fire incompetent teachers such as yourself.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: WasEvil  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:41:13 AM | Message Detail
You need to stop believing EVERYTHING you read on the Internet dude.

and arent we being quite the little hypocritical wannabe teacher here.

werent you the one posting the msn link, how about you take your own advice for once.
---
I want you to remember the way as I am, filled with murderous rage. -Homer Simpson

From: kirbytime  | Posted: 6/21/2004 2:48:43 AM | Message Detail
you dont have 5 phrases of 5 justices wants it in either. which bring back to your wrongfully stated that the court decided the phrase is constituational.

in case you forgot, let me remind you.

OK, but here's another one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56322,00.html

"the Senate has already voted 99-0 in full support of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court will not allow such a measure to transpire."

Mr. Justice Stewart:

"I cannot see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation."
"...we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so."

Oh yeah, and if you really think that references to God must be taken out of government, then you must say that you do not want the following:

Each day's session of the Supreme Court starts with the invocation: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

he National Anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner" contains the words "Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation."

The Declaration of Independence includes the phrase: "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."


and you being a school teacher? now i know why california is among the worst in the country in test scores and literacy skills. i hope the next round of budget cuts would fire incompetent teachers such as yourself.

whoamg direct insult to me. wow ur teh coolest now! You do know that when you insult people like this you lose credibility?

and arent we being quite the little hypocritical wannabe teacher here.

You are the whiny one who can't stand the word "God".

werent you the one posting the msn link, how about you take your own advice for once.

Yeahm if you want I can site multiple sources
.
---
"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
MY Board: 5265

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/21/2004 5:48:43 AM | Message Detail
Confucianism =/= religion

Wow, did you just get pwned?
Wow, this is a new tactic--contradicting yourself in order to make a point. Earlier, you stated it was a religion:
"there are religions that have no God, such as Buddhism and Confuciusism "
I'm uneducated on Confuciusism, so I was merely going off what you stated. If it is a belief system composed of many philosophies, it very well could be called a religion, and whether or not it is is a matter of opinion. Rather, you pwned yourself, and did a good job of it.

Dude, 6/7s of America is monotheistic
Does not matter in the least; be it the minority or the majority, when people's individual freedoms are infringed upon, people's individual freedoms are infringed upon. Blacks always made up less than a fifth of the American population, but that doesn't mean that their rights are any lesser than anyone else's.

Do you also advocate the right of illegal immigrants to run for President
Irrelevent.

America is a monotheistic nation!
Wow, what a whopper this is.

First, whether or not America is a monotheistic nation is not determined by percentages of people in the country--in order for you to say that we are a monotheistic country, and therefore it is alright to infringe upon the rights of those who are not monotheists, our very legislature and constitution, the law of the land, would have to be monotheistic. However, as Jefferson said in his autobiography, the infidel is protected along with the Christian, Hindu, etc. What you're claiming is preposterous.

LOL, what kind of atheists wouldn't want their children exposed to religion?
Those who believe that there is no God? Wow, isn't that spectacular.

I said religion. Not religions. And as long as it is not endorsing a SINGLE religion it is ok.
Okay, so if the pledge explicitly states "Under the gods", it cannot be changed because there is no endorsement of religion? What if it panders to a religious belief held by more than one, but not all, religions? That's essentially what's happening now--a group of religious beliefs is being pandered to as opposed to another group of religious beliefs, as well as atheism.

You don't seem to grasp, though, that belief in a God is a religious belief. You don't have to officially join any specific worldly religion in order for it to be a religious belief.

Christian place of worship
So the separation of Church and state only applies to Christianity? Whoo, dog. One nation under Allah might not be so far off. Hell, we might as well include Jewish prayer sessions in our schools! After all, it's not Separation of TEMPLE and state!

Why the hell would the US use a foreign word
Foreign? I have news for you: God is technically a foreign word. Its ORIGINS do not lie in English; same thing with Jehovah. Our English has only been around for half a century or so *gasp*. What is or isn't a *foreign* word is very, very vague.

So what? The court says it stays
Jesus, are you so ignorant that you don't even know why it stayed? The judges sidestepped the whole thing; the pledge is not intact because, necessarily, they believe it should be. The supreme court ruled that Newdow has no right to take a stance for his daughter like he is doing. The ruling itself had nothing to do with the issue of separation of church and state. Meanwhile, you're utterly ignorant about the works behind and implications of this entire case.

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/21/2004 5:48:57 AM | Message Detail
Yes they did:
No, they didn't. Rehnquist commented on the issue itself, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY RULED ON. Rehnquist is, of course, going to uphold the pledge--he's one of the most conservative members on the board.

I am a philosophy teacher at California High School
ROFL

No, you're not.

I'm faded from a bit of pot smoke, and even I can see that, as far as philisophical potential, you're as deep as a kiddie pool.

OK, but here's another one:
The senate does not determine whether or not the pledge stays. Irrelevant.

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/21/2004 6:06:34 AM | Message Detail

I've noticed that everytime an atheist wants to prove a point, they always use some obscure quote from Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin.

I ask again. Why did these men approve a government sponsored national day of prayer to thank God? They obviously didn't believe that it violated the First Amendment.

By the way, Jefferson renounced those anti religous quotes a few years after he said them. I noticed you "forgot" to mention that.

Benjamin Franklin said that a Bible should be in every public school classroom. I notice the atheists always "forget" to mention that too.

I notice you "forgot" to source your assertions.

Kirby:

I pity your students. Because:

A) America is not monotheistic, it is SECULAR(there's more than Christians in it) and PERMITING OF ALL RELIGIONS WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT.

B) THE PHRASE GOD IMPLIES A DEITY, WHICH IMPLIES RELIGION WHICH IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which part of that didn't you understand?

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/21/2004 6:09:43 AM | Message Detail
Yes, but that does not mean that believing there is no god in itself is a religion. Buddhism and Confuciusism are both belief systems--that's what makes them religions. You're missing the big picture.

Everyone has their own belief systems, but they are not major. Buddhism and Confuciusism are major religions, but you have your own seperate system of beleifs. As an atheist, I presume you decide was is right or wrong. You have your own "commandments" that you follow to what you think that society would be able to accomplish. Technically, you have your own religion, which I shall dubb thee as Tabrisism. Tabrisism (it has a nice ring to it actually) is your own set of beliefs in a system. You have your own rituals, commandments, etc. The only thing lacking is your belief in "An absolute, an ultimate, and a Holy" (Modschiedler Richter 42). Techncially, everyone is religious. You have those who are religious to their work (work-aholics), to sex (sex-aholic), and/or money too. So, atheists, too are religious in their own speaking because an atheist could practice the idea that God doesn't exist in public. You are presenting your beliefs, even if a God doesn't exist in your aspect. Then aren't you practicing your "religion"?

Buddhism=religion.

Confucianism =/= religion

Wow, did you just get pwned?

Confuciusism is considered a religion. What doesn't it make a religion?

The people may be mostly monotheistic, but the govermetn isn't supposed to take a stance on it. Its int he first amendment.

Our government isn't perfect, get over it. It never was truley secular to begin with, and I doubt that it will be at the end of time (assuming there is one).

I am a philosophy teacher at California High School, San Ramon, California.

Nice, I too, would like to be a philosophy teacher.

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/21/2004 6:18:01 AM | Message Detail
Oh, yes, another one:



Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

I hear a lot of renouncement there....

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/21/2004 6:28:35 AM | Message Detail
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

Two questions:

A) Who said this?

B) Is he God's lawyer in any way, shape, or form?

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: ISR Gamer  | Posted: 6/21/2004 6:45:10 AM | Message Detail
A)Thomas J
B)No, but a great man.

I wasn't replying to you with that post, if that's what you were thinking. I was replying to Lucky One's assertion that Jefferson repented of atheism.

---
I'm all for it, but then I'm always for anything that might involve me having sex with hot green women - Zombie Nixon on the space program

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/21/2004 6:46:49 AM | Message Detail
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/21/2004 6:47:42 AM | Message Detail
I understand, most people don't reply to my posts until a couple of pages afterward.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/21/2004 7:17:03 AM | Message Detail
Hero, we may be religious, but atleast we didn't change the pledge in order to further our religious ideals.
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/21/2004 11:11:28 AM | Message Detail
Hero, we may be religious, but at least we didn't change the pledge in order to further our religious ideals.

True.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: Bejita San  | Posted: 6/21/2004 11:55:07 AM | Message Detail
Christians who support this will never concede that they are wrong.

If the pledge said "under no god because he doesn't exist" Christians would riot. How is that any different than stating god does exists?

De Tocqueville warned us about this. The majority of the American people support these two words staying in the pledge because they are Christian. That bias makes them unable to see that this is wrong and it is indeed quite clear.
---
Your gonna tell me NOW, or eventually!!!- Homer J. Simpson
Did that cat and that mouse just kiss? Cause if they did!!Homer J. Simpson

From: DeathNemesis14  | Posted: 6/21/2004 12:03:08 PM | Message Detail
You sound like a sunday christian.

ironic as i am athiestic

i just hate seeing angsty know-it-all teenagers
---
"Crazier than Tupac in that flick called Juice
**** is longer than the hat worn by Dr. Seuss" - A Tribe Called Quest

From: webermg  | Posted: 6/21/2004 12:06:17 PM | Message Detail
Atheism may not be a religion as commonly understood, but I have yet to know of an atheist who is not religious.

The civil god referred to in the Pledge is so watered down and populist that I can't understand the hoopla. Christian efforts to engage the culture are better served elsewhere.

Despite the beliefs of many, neutrality is not possible with respect to God. Many think that if references to God are never made, then we have achieved neutrality. However, not acknowledging God's existence or nonexistence constitutes institutionalized apathy. Apathy, rather than saying "God exists" or "God doesn't exist", says "We consider the matter of God's existence so inconsequential to the universe and our place in it as to not merit any serious reflection." It's as far from neutrality as you can get.

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/21/2004 12:27:08 PM | Message Detail
Okay, citing inconsequential court decisions and congressional hearings does not amount to a solid document that our government has been operating around for more than 200 years. Despite what people do, and despite what people say, this government was established as secular by the three documents I presented to you earlier. Come up with something substantial already, you're making fools of yourselves by not doing so.

Secondly, atheism is not a religion. As you pointed out yourself, it holds no holy reverence for anything, and believes in nothing supernatural. Much more than that, unlike religion, it also DOES NOT DICTATE MORALS. Which is certainly a large aspect of any religion. Quit trying to invalidate it, because it's not even like that's what we promote. Once again, we promote secularism, the simple abscence of religious doctrine.

And, there is a belief which is nuetral, webermg, it is called agnosticism; it is the belief that it is impossible to determine the existence or non-existence of god, and as such, takes no opinion on the matter.

Also, whether a secular state is nuetral in regards to a god or not is irrelevant. Our state was established to serve the people, and as long as a secular state is nuetral to them, that is what is important.

From: webermg  | Posted: 6/21/2004 12:36:21 PM | Message Detail
And, there is a belief which is nuetral, webermg, it is called agnosticism; it is the belief that it is impossible to determine the existence or non-existence of god, and as such, takes no opinion on the matter.

That's just a rephrasing of apathy. Indeed, secularism is closely related to agnosticism.

Also, whether a secular state is nuetral in regards to a god or not is irrelevant. Our state was established to serve the people, and as long as a secular state is nuetral to them, that is what is important.

If you change a few words, I agree. That is, what I'm saying is that neutrality is impossible, and that we shouldn't be striving for it or deluding ourselves into thinking we've found it. If secularism is institutionalized, then that is an institutionalized religious outlook. Same with any other. Once we accept that no neutrality exists, then the debate between secular and religious takes on a whole new meaning--which outlook is correct (or desirable, as per your thoughts), not which one is neutral.

From: mystic belmont  | Posted: 6/21/2004 12:52:48 PM | Message Detail
atheism- belief that god doesn't exist
agnosticism- belief that god may or may not exist
---
"Misleading is lying." "it wasn't a lie. But it was misleading"- nolimitz13
Times defeated wadatah: 2 (1/19/04, 2/16/04)

From: The Cardinal  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:11:45 PM | Message Detail
Removing the 'Under God' from the pledge seems eminently reasonable to me, and it is almost pedestrian to explain why, but here goes:

A pledge that makes no mention of God is neutral. On the subject of God it has no more to say than it does about Ice Cream. It is non-contentious.

A pledge that mentions God unavoidably exerts an influence on those who read it.

Intellectually, the former is more fair. I mean, please deny it if you disagree, but I'd take some persuading on the matter. It makes no-one's mind up for them, presumes nothing, sticks to the nation-stuff without getting into the (non)existence of one or more Gods. It's not even agnostic, but rather indifferent.

The problem is that people aren't viewing the statement 'One Nation' in isolation, but are viewing it as the negation of the statement 'One Nation Under God'.

Why? Because everyone knows damn well what the pledge currently says. You can't change it without everyone being aware of what it once said, drawing a comparison and then reading the new Pledge against its original script to form an imaginary combination Pledge that reads atheistically. Say 'One Nation' and the 'Under God' will still be there, all the louder to those who care for remaining unsaid.

But this is the short term. We now act as if the pledge has always said 'Under God' even though it's a comparatively recent phenomenon. Give it a decade or so and the schoolchildren reading it will have no idea that it once said 'Under God'. They'll be approaching a neutral script from a neutral perspective, unconscious of what it omits.
---
O,'tis excellent / To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous / To use it like a giant.

From: webermg  | Posted: 6/21/2004 1:16:31 PM | Message Detail
I agree that such a pledge would be indifferent, but I do not agree that indifference is neutral. Rather, indifference is callous and dismissive, especially on this subject.

I have no investment in the pledge, and I don't even think there should be one. So do to the pledge what you will, but let's stop kidding ourselves about neutrality.

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/21/2004 4:16:12 PM | Message Detail
By the way, Jefferson renounced those anti religous quotes
Oh, those "anti-religious quotes" that just happened to be in his autobiography? Please do link me.

seperate system of beleifs. As an atheist, I presume you decide was is right or wrong. You have your own "commandments" that you follow to what you think that society would be able to accomplish. Technically, you have your own religion
You can claim that everyone has their own religion, but even so, that does not mean that atheism in itself is a religion because the atheist has other religious beliefs independant of it.

Our government isn't perfect, get over it
Wow, this nation would be such a better place if everyone since its founding ascribed to that simple tenet.
-_-

That's just a rephrasing of apathy
Apathy is the closest to neutrality you can get, given that apathy is making no claims on something. The pledge doesn't have to mention fluffy bunnies, also, in order for you to know that it has nothing against them.
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: Freddy Pickle  | Posted: 6/21/2004 5:44:36 PM | Message Detail
And the "devoid of god" thing does make sense. I mean, did God actually come down and help us write the Constitution or build the Capitol? No.

Thats why it makes sense, Einstein. We made this country without the help of god.
---
"Strippers are nothing but manipulative gold diggers. That's their job." -- Optimus Nine

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/22/2004 6:27:45 PM | Message Detail
*bump* (unless the other side admits to defeat)

From: Freddy Pickle  | Posted: 6/22/2004 6:41:58 PM | Message Detail
Atheism may not be a religion as commonly understood, but I have yet to know of an atheist who is not religious.

I'm not religious and I'm an atheist. So are 99.9% of all atheists.

And, there is a belief which is nuetral, webermg, it is called agnosticism; it is the belief that it is impossible to determine the existence or non-existence of god, and as such, takes no opinion on the matter.

No, agnosticicism isn't neutral. Agnostics are just inches away from Bible thumping, daughter circumcizing, suicide bombing, and wife-enslaving masses that are your typical theists.

The true neutrality is secularism. Secularism isn't anti-religious. Secularism is pro-things-that-we-can-see-touch-feel-and-know-are-real. Removing "Under God" from the pledge isn't an attack against christianity, its a defense of the Constitution. And the Constitution is something that protects and provides for ALL of us.

---
"Strippers are nothing but manipulative gold diggers. That's their job." -- Optimus Nine
Jump to Page:  |  | 3 |

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:18:43 AM | Message Detail
I'm not religious and I'm an atheist. So are 99.9% of all atheists.

Read my post again.

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:24:13 AM | Message Detail
atheism is not a religion. As you pointed out yourself, it holds no holy reverence for anything, and believes in nothing supernatural. Much more than that, unlike religion, it also DOES NOT DICTATE MORALS. Which is certainly a large aspect of any religion.

First off, Atheism is a major religion due to its general nature: i.e. there are many forms of atheism. Buddhism holds NO supernatural being, and yet it is called a religion, so that invalidates your point on that.

Second, That's true, but you do have a set of morals, do you not? Where do you get your morals from? Atheism itself does not dictate morals, true, however, that doesn't mean that you don't have any morals of your own, so you have to choose where to get it from or establish your own. The thing about atheism is that you can get your morals from any source (Christianity, Buddhism, nature...etc.) but usually, the atheists I know agree with nature's laws, which says that we should reproduce as many times as we want.
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: Falkus  | Posted: 6/23/2004 10:06:03 AM | Message Detail
"No, agnosticicism isn't neutral. Agnostics are just inches away from Bible thumping, daughter circumcizing, suicide bombing, and wife-enslaving masses that are your typical theists."

Agnosicism is simply saying that you don't know whether god exists or not.

"First off, Atheism is a major religion due to its general nature: i.e. there are many forms of atheism. Buddhism holds NO supernatural being, and yet it is called a religion, so that invalidates your point on that. "

Irrelevant. Buddhism has other beliefs that cause it to fit within the definition of religion. Atheism doesn't.

"Second, That's true, but you do have a set of morals, do you not? Where do you get your morals from?"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

From: Dengar  | Posted: 6/23/2004 10:56:44 AM | Message Detail
The Declaration and the Constitution talk about our God given rights. They speak of them as being our rights given to us by our Creator. If you believe no higher power was involved in your creation then why does it matter. What do you have to tell you when something's right or wrong? Shouldn't the very thought of right and wrong hint that our existence didn't just happen? If we were just organic matter shaped into a certain way by nature and time then would we have a sense of right and wrong. A rock has no rights. I believe my Creator intended me to have certain rights from the time I was born. That is what the founding fathers meant. I am a Christian and yes it would offend me to remove it from the pledge. By the way, Jefferson did believe in God. He was a deist. He didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. He still believed we have a creator who put in us a type of moral code. Sorry but I had to right that. I feel better now.

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/23/2004 11:15:20 AM | Message Detail
Irrelevant. Buddhism has other beliefs that cause it to fit within the definition of religion. Atheism doesn't.

You stated before that a major componet of a religion is a supernatural being, and I showed that it is not necessarily the case.

Can you tell me "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"

---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/23/2004 4:51:41 PM | Message Detail
First off, Atheism is a major religion due to its general nature
A singular belief being held by many does not make it a religion.

If many people believe in ghosts, does that make Phantomoism a world religion? Since a lot of people believe UFOs have landed, does that make them members of their own religion? Of course not.
Buddhism holds NO supernatural being, and yet it is called a religion
Something doesn't need to believe that there is a divine being in order to be a religion. Buddhism has a view of the universe as well as a view of nirvana, as well as how to obtain it. Hence, it is a religion. Atheism is a singular belief, and as I've illustrated, a singular belief does not constitute a religion.

Second, That's true, but you do have a set of morals, do you not?
Irrelevant. If I believe that Elvis is God and I also believe that there is life on Mars, my own morality does not make whatever other belief I may hold a religion. You could say that the atheist's morality, whatever it may be, is a religion, but you cannot say that atheism is a religion because the bearer holds some form of morality.

That is what the founding fathers meant.
And the founding fathers also meant for those who don't hold whatever beliefs you may to have the same legal rights as you do.

You stated before that a major componet of a religion is a supernatural being, and I showed that it is not necessarily the case
He mentioned that God can oftentimes be the backbone of a world religion. He never said that God is required for it to be a religion.
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: PenToTheSecondPower  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:05:02 PM | Message Detail
quit attempting to invalidate atheism, it's fruitless on your part anyway, because the constitution, once again, is secular. if you're so insecure about the points I've already made that you won't refute them, and instead feel the need to attack something else, then try your hand at invalidating secularism.

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:11:26 PM | Message Detail
Right now I think herocatholic isn't trying to invalidate atheism so much as claim that it's a religion.
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: UltraMega Weapon  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:15:04 PM | Message Detail
I don't know if anybody said anything to the effect of this yet but, "God" is abstract. It can mean whatever the hell you want it to, including nothing. The pledge does not say "One nation under Jesus," does it??
So why don't you quit your biching?!
---
Mahalo.

From: MegaloSaro  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:17:15 PM | Message Detail
Dictionary.com says:

a-without

theism-Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Hail Manveru Encaitar, member of the Fellowship of the GamefaqsMember of Team Delta FPS Mode

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:34:06 PM | Message Detail
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:58:33 PM | Message Detail
Before making my next argument, I have a message to Pen:

quit attempting to invalidate atheism, it's fruitless on your part anyway, because the constitution, once again, is secular. if you're so insecure about the points I've already made that you won't refute them, and instead feel the need to attack something else, then try your hand at invalidating secularism.

Calm down. It takes people time to make an argument so don't rush anyone to refute. Except there is one fallicy to your paragraph, if you noticed, I refuted your arguments. I used to be like you, where if a person didn't respond within 12 hours, I thought I won the debate, but low and behold, they responded. It's important that I think of my refutes than just type them blindly and for all of you to make fun of me (although I'm sure that's what you guys want). Btw, the constitution isn't 100% secular, get over it.

A singular belief being held by many does not make it a religion.

Alright, you win this debate, because I just figured out the fallicy in my argument. You could easily say that "Thiesm" isn't a religion itself and therefore, would make me lose the debate. Good show old chap. I'm wondering, are you a pure athiest or do you have a religion?

but you cannot say that atheism is a religion because the bearer holds some form of morality

You win again. In the beginning, I'm trying to prove everyone is religious to an extent and then I tried to branch off from there...so I guess I shouldn't have.

Something doesn't need to believe that there is a divine being in order to be a religion.

Stated that above in my other post.

Right now I think herocatholic isn't trying to invalidate atheism so much as claim that it's a religion.
Thank you!
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.

From: Sinister EX  | Posted: 6/23/2004 5:59:41 PM | Message Detail
I wouldn't say it. How difficult.
---
Signature coming soon!

From: Fallen Tabris  | Posted: 6/23/2004 6:27:01 PM | Message Detail
Alright, you win this debate, because I just figured out the fallicy in my argument.
I have to hand it to you, you're a much, much better man than most. It really takes balls to say you were wrong. Kudos to you.
---
Machine Supremacy: The best video game-based rock band you've never heard of.
www.machinaesupremacy.com

From: FredP  | Posted: 6/24/2004 10:57:13 PM | Message Detail
First off, Atheism is a major religion due to its general nature: i.e. there are many forms of atheism. Buddhism holds NO supernatural being, and yet it is called a religion, so that invalidates your point on that.

No, really it doesn’t. Every definition I can find for “religion” deals with either something supernatural or a belief system. Really, the belief system is key. And anyone worth their salt knows atheists don’t believe in anything. I’m sorry, but atheism is not a religion, no matter how many times the fundies jump up and down with pointed fingers.

Second, That's true, but you do have a set of morals, do you not?

No we do not. Some of follow a set of ethics, but none of this has been dictated to us by Jesus or anything. Humans are ethical beings, not moralistic ones.

From: herocatholic  | Posted: 6/25/2004 5:37:39 AM | Message Detail
Out of curiosity, did you not read my previous posts on how I lost the debate? How I accepted defeat?
---
The sentence below this sentence is false.
The sentence above this sentence is true.
Jump to Page:  |  |  | 4