Pledge of Allegiance

[Jeb]

uhh, it's kinda off-topic as u might say, but i really dont care about the pledge (except that someone just needs somethin better to do) because God dOES exist...read Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica." he gives shitloads of deductive arguments why there has to be a god

In a nutshell,
Many thousands of years ago people looked out and saw things they couldn't explain, like why it got dark sometimes, why a bear ate their wife, and what the that strange rash is. Not just looking at christian/jewish origins but all around the world there were different creation stories, greek, viking, indian, and hindu. Over time tribes got conquered, or adapted there beliefs into fewer and fewer religions and stories of creation.  Jumping forward a thousand years or so people begin to depend on a "god" that loves them because it created them, this God would be the reason for a good harvest, or fortune. Things people saw that were bad, like volcanos, earthquakes equated to god being angry with them. People began to give sacrifices to their gods, a goat, chicken, and in some cases their children. Another thousand years or so pass societies have their cornerstones built on religion and the belief that all can be saved if we believe.

So why would someone choose to believe in a god that has been developed into a superpower like it is now? I don't claim to know the answer over god, no one does. There will always be unanswered questions about what created us and why, but i choose to not believe in a god that has been built up over thousands of years.

[Mr. Lothario]

     I've read some of Aquinas' proofs. They were uncompelling to me. They were internally consistent, but they were only valid if you take his postulates as true. His postulates included things like (paraphrasing violently here, since it's been years since I read these) "If no Earthly explanation can be found, X must be the work of God," and "there are things on Earth which cannot be explained." Yeah, they're excellent deductive proofs, but his first principles are, to me, rather weak.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

The United States of America has more then one religon. There are legal citizens that are jews there are legal citizens that are atheists there are legal citizens that are hindu or budist or native american and so forth.

Then we come to seperation of Religon and State. Now I would argue with Bucc that no the context of the situation does not matter when we errected this law. Many gun owners dont care that the right to bear arms was only to defend us from the British so nobody really cares anymore wheres the law from. And to force kids to either recite a pledge which honors a god they are not in support of or be humiliated should be and hopefully will be illegal. No school should have to say In God we Trust, no school should have to have the 10 commandments posted We are harboring a religon and that is ILLEGAL

[jn.loudnotes]

Hey. . .it'd be nice if someone responded to my post    Basically, I tried to describe the feelings of powerlessness and dread I get every time I hear a group all saying the same thing.  It's scary.  So for someone who doesn't believe in what is being said, or in an integral part of what is being said, I can see how they would be upset.

Oh and MOD, Sie sind ja ein arschloch.  Dummarsch    

There are so many things wrong with this statement:

One, he grew up in high school saying it. Why did he protest now!

1.  Do you still feel exactly the same way about everything as you did in high school?
2.  Did you have the time or financial resources to press a major lawsuit in high school?
3.  The pledge is rarely said in high school; he most likely was compelled to recite in elementary school.
4.  Where's two?

[cookie]

1.  Do you still feel exactly the same way about everything as you did in high school?
2.  Did you have the time or financial resources to press a major lawsuit in high school?
3.  The pledge is rarely said in high school; he most likely was compelled to recite in elementary school.
4.  Where's two?

1)Well, the complaints are about having to say the pledge in elementary/high school, so i don't see why anything after that would be relevant.  Who cares if say, a 30 year old lawyer or whatever has a problem with the pledge.. he's not the one who has to say it right?
2) your parents can.. that's usually how it works. Parents cause a fuss, taken up in court, starts big movement, and wham- you have messes like this
3) whats the point here?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

To touch on what Jeb was writing about, my feeling is that all faith is a product of ignorance.  If you don't have knowledge about something you are ignorant about it.  Since you don't know you choose to believe something, aka have faith.  In animistic religion they have very little scientific knowledge so they have much expanded faith.  They think there is a diety that makes it rain and so on.

Christians don't KNOW there is a god, they simply have faith.

MOD, the pledge having under god has nothing to do with the founding of this country.  That part was added in the 50s.  I don't see why removing it and reverting the pledge back to its original form is such a big deal, whereas I can see how keeping it is a big deal.

Also, you say that the country was founded UNDER Christianity.  Well, many of the founding fathers weren't Christian at all.

[Jeb]

I don't think that America today would be as bad as england was during the anglican church. Just last night there was a local controversy regarding religious government. In the state legislature, a leader of a islamic group gave the opening prayer. This outraged a few republicans who stood up and walked out of the house disgusted.

Its sad to think that 60% of the population believes in angels, so why would i want god being stated on my money, or forced in public schools. I have no problem with anyone who is religious, however i'd hope people would examine their faith rather than go along with the ideals inherited by their parents.

[jn.preciousroy]

1) Loth is exactly right: Thomas Aquinas wrote the best logical arguments for the existence of god.  They are (almost) flawless, in fact.  However, with any philosophical argument you must consider what has been assumed, and what has been assumed is a little too much to swallow.  Moral of the story, you can be a brilliant philosopher and still be (potentially wrong).

2) The "under God" part was added in the 1950's, one of the darkest periods of American history.  Enough said.

Jeez,
I don't get why anyone even gives a damn about somthing as trivial as this, when there are actually real problems in the country that people should care about that go virtually unmentioned.

3) Abe,  there are problems of humanity and problems of principle.  This is one of the latter, and true, it is less important that the "real" problems you speak of.  But it's hard to fix the real problems when there are still problems of principle.  Anyway, why can't we try to fix both at the same time?  Multitasking is a beautiful thing.

4) It's a lot easier to remove the "under God" from the pledge than it is to remove references to God from currency or other material goods (sayings on federal buildings, etc.)  Why?  Because it doesn't cost any money to take two words out of the pledge.  It costs a hell of a lot to change the dollar bill design, or to recarve the stone on a building.  Plus it's a lot better to remove it from the pledge.  Currency and inanimate objects are passive references to God whereas the pledge is an active reference, and therfore far more offensive and insidious.

5) As for the Constitution argument--both sides should drop it.  We ignore the Constitution all of the time.  It's a guideline, sure, but we've muddied the lines so much, especially with the bill of rights, that it's just rhetoric nowadays, not law.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Just a heads up for anyone who cares, this weeks Newsweek (got it today) has a cover story about "Bush & God: Why his 'God Talk' Worries Friends & Foes"

And a correction, in my listing of states that the decision about the pledge, I listed Hawai'i but it isn't in the 9th District rather, Montana is the 9th state.

[kami]

Yeah Bondo, had a good article about Bush and his newfound faith. It has a thorough explanation as to why he disgusts me. Quote from the article about why many muslims get enraged by Bush: 'Few doubt that Mr. Bush is sincere in his faith. The problem is with the president's evident conviction that he's doing God's will.'
And as I've said before, I think Bush has a hell of a lot more christian references in his speeches than former presidents and the article confirms this as well.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Theres a national movement playing off of Bushs christian faiths. People are sending a half cup of rice to the white house with a passage from the bible in i dunno what part that says "Feed your enemy" so we are sending to him. We know it just goes off to a whare house with all the other antrax questionable things lol.

[Universal Translator]

THEIR A NATIONAL MOV3MENT PLAYNG OF OF BUSHS CHRISTIAN FATEHS!1111! OMG LOL PAOPLE R SANDNG A HALF CUP OF RIEC 2 TEH WHIET HOUS3 WIT A PASAEG FROM TEH BIBLA IN I DUNO WUT PART TAHT SAYS FED UR EN3MY SO WE R SANDNG 2 HIM!!!1 OMG LOL W3 KNOW IT JUST GO3S OF 2 A R HOUSE WIT AL TEH OTHER ANTRAX QUASTIONABLE THNGS LOL!!!1!!1! LOL


Hmmm.....it still doesnt make sense. Go figure.

[Casper]

I havent read any thing about this yet but i feel since we have a choice to say it who cares. But the Teachers always get mad at me when i stand there with my hat on and say nothing.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Universal I find it funny that you were going for some laughs and....dont have them. Smart of you to sign off before you typed it because otherwise whoever you are would look utterly stupid. At any rate during a part of Bushs press confrence last night he said that Hussien helped train and fund "al-Quieda like groups" and my response is, SO DID WE. We funded Al-Quieda to fight the russians and we funded Iraq to fight Iran and we funded Castro in Cuba and funded the shah in Iran before we disposed him I mean come on Bush hit the history books will ya?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Most of what Bush said in his speech was speculative...the type of "weaksauce" that should have Bucc yelling "bullshit".  He also answered every question nearly the same way and didn't actually touch on what was being asked.

[kami]

Zait, I think he hit the more religious history books such as the Bible every night.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

One thing I find a bit humorous in debates either about religion or about a moral issue in which religion has a stance.  Many christians use scripture to show why their faith or moral belief is correct.  They don't seem to understand that scripture can not be used as a defense of scripture.  This ties in to people assuming the bible is a historical book and that it is a valid source of historical information.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Well, you can't say that the Bible is not a historical source, either. It's a view of historical events in the same way that any myths or oral traditions are. The events in the bible almost certainly happened in one form or another, but over a couple thousand years of being related orally, the accounts were transformed dramatically. That changed form was what was codified in the books of the Bible.

[-SW- Baz]

ahk,
after reading this whole thread of posts, i've come to 2 assumptions

1) Jeb and Bondo are waaay to Subjectivist and assume too much.
2) Alot of college students these days think they're smart, but are not.

i won't correct any wrong statements made above, as i just posted that one on God out of curiosity...it seems there are more dumb head ppl than i thought around here...

also, i know jeb never read the truths i said before he posted, and bondo is just plain dumb " christians don't KNOW there is a god, they just have faith" wtf kinda bullshit is that. i could go on for tons of reasons why ur wrong saying that, but i prefer to argue in tonge rather than typing, as i'll never know you, or care about u in real life =)

it's all good anyways, im cool with u guys, just disapprove of some of your thought processes

now go ahead and quote me all u want...i won't be comming back for encore (if ur still reading this

[jn.loudnotes]

Baz. . .I don't get it.  Was there a point to that post?  Maybe you're never going to see this, or you just like to have the last word, but what kind of bizarre word was that?

I'll paraphrase instead of quoting:

"You know, you're all wrong.  And, you're not as smart as you think you are.  (Because you're wrong.  I'm right, of course.  This goes without saying, and so I'm not going to say why.  So, to summarize, I'm right and you're wrong, and there will be no further discussion."


So, I guess there's not much I can say to that.  Congratulations.