Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christians: Can you understand why Atheists.

BblackkBbirdd
Posts: 919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 2:41:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't believe in Socialism, I am not for it and it goes against my core values. So if I was asked to pledge for Socialism, although it doesn't go against any sort of law, I would not want to. My identity is formed partly from my values and who I am is in tandem with Capitalism. Swearing to Socialism doesn't go against any deity, but it infringes upon me, my values and my beliefs. It damages my identity and I would rather it didn't.

Atheists so not believe in Christianity. Usually because its ideas go against their values/beliefs/paradigms. If they were asked to pledge for God, although it doesn't go against any law, they would prefer not to. Their identity is also formed from their values, and is in tandem with their beliefs. It doesn't cause them any retribution, but what it does do is infringes their values, beliefs and identity.

I am a Christian, and the above passage is not my belief but I can easily see why an atheist would not want to pledge. Even as a Christian, I would not pledge myself to Brahman because it is in our religion idolatry and against God. The same applies to atheism. Atheism does not mean a lack of morals and beliefs. It is simply the lack of a deity, but nothing stops an atheist from having a deep sense of faith in certain values, and all this does in damage it. That's what I would say.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 10:47:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?
It's a dicey situation. I think atheist activist groups could learn from racial/ethnic groups. That being said, I think activist groups of any nature are to some degree necessary. Generally (there may be exceptions), a racial/ethnic activist groups seeks fairness for their particular group. They attempt to seek equality as opposed to superiority. They're generally not out to dispose of European (the majority) culture and influence on America.

Atheist organizations tend to take things further than merely seeking fairness and equality. It might be one thing, as the above poster suggested, to remove "God" from the pledge of allegiance because they would actually be dishonest because they don't believe we are under any God because God to them does not exist. But when they are seeking to have things like Christian icons removed from public, it's quite obvious that they have every intention of removing religion/Christianity from America. That sentiment is going to vary of course, but that being so, there are inevitably those who do have that militaristic mindset.

Imagine if non European ethnic groups demanded that the Statue Of Liberty was removed because it's more a symbol for European immigration. Generally speaking, non-European American immigrants view the SOL as a valid part of American history. The SOL is not an icon that is a threat to their own freedoms. Many atheists however, will view a statue of Jesus on a ski resort as a threat to their freedom, even though America was never a theocracy, and supported freedom of belief which is why atheist organizations (and deist organizations) can exist today.
klkl47
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 9:53:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

I think it's a nit picky thing. I honestly believe God is a the spirt of goodness at its higher level of understanding. We use all sorts of personification to understand what we can't but ultimately I have no problem saying 'One Nation, Under Goodness"
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:48:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Quite simple.

The United States is not is not "one nation under god", but rather a secular nation, wherein secular activities are promoted and practiced. The separation of church from state is the focal point, or foundation if you will.
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 2:28:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Exactly which God, I wonder, there are an awful lot of them out there!

Of course any reference to God should be removed, and should never have been there in the first place. A clear violation of the principle of separation of Church and State, and of people's religious freedom

It makes the country involved (America?) look backward, discriminatory, and just plain silly in the eyes of the rest of the world
Mysterious_Stranger
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 3:31:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The said pledge violates the whole idea of the separation of church and state as well as imposing one religion on the masses, why not "In Zeus we trust" Because the wastes of air running forcing their poison down people's throats only want people to accept a Christian God, because clearly the God they chose to believe in exists more than Zeus does.
Turn around, go back.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 3:43:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

I am often curious about this aspect of atheism, and, to be blunt, I disagree. Why?

The protected right is Freedom of Expression. Its not Freedom from expression that is protected. Ergo, we come to the basic right at hand: A person is religious, and elected to say, as his belief implies, that we are protected by God in the pledge. You disagree, and do not want to say it. Why not ... just not say it?

Again, which religion is favored by this? Catholicism? The Westboro Baptist Church? Islam? Hinduism? Paganism? Judaism? You cannot actually pinpoint the religion that is unconstitutionally favored by this and thus insight damage. So there is no Constitutional violation here.

The entire case appears frivolous, as if two words that have been stated openly for centuries are suddenly going to cause ... what exactly? Armed rebellion? Gridlock in Congress? California to shore itself off and sink into the Pacific?

Why indeed can you not just not say two words while allowing others to say them? Why not foster a spirit of Freedom of Conscience, and if someone asks you why you don't say the words you could tell that that you are atheist or agnostic, and your conscience compels you to follow your beliefs, just as it does them to say the words. You would, in essence be saying I disagree with your position, but respect it, and ask that you respect my conscience and convictions as well - just as the other religions do in this case.

However, when you cross that line and attempt to remove those words, it is an assault on the free religious expression of others. You are attempting to block, quite literally, the generic expression of a multi-religious statement in order to ensure that atheistic views hold sway.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com...

SCOTUS is pretty clearly stating to move on.

When we couple this with even 'soft' atheists openly talking about their desire to eliminate religion:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Perhaps you can appreciate the religious insistence at being able to express our religion? There appears to be a very real effort by atheists to attack religion and block its expression. That is not right.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 3:51:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

The same reason why you would want 'Under No god' removed from the pledge if it was there.

Cooersion is rather serious, and is why you have banned it in your schools, where you could potentially give the same excuse.

Alternatively you wouldn't want to say:
'Under Buddha' or other similar ones either, and would want it removed.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 4:11:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 3:51:56 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

The same reason why you would want 'Under No god' removed from the pledge if it was there.

Cooersion is rather serious, and is why you have banned it in your schools, where you could potentially give the same excuse.

Alternatively you wouldn't want to say:
'Under Buddha' or other similar ones either, and would want it removed.

Under Buddha favor ONE religion, Buddhism. Nor is it even an accurate statement of the Buddhist faith. But no, if someone offered a Buddhist prayer, which happens ALL THE TIME, (especially having been to Buddhist countries and regularly hiking up the moutons on weekends and having spend quite a bit of time with the monks up there) and I have never once seen ANYONE file a lawsuit about it. Anywhere.

Simple question, skipped once again, WHICH religion is favored by a generic statement of God?

Unless you can demonstrate that effect, your case has ZERO legal standing. That would be how the Establishment Clause is written - all protected, none favored. Favor is induced to atheism when we block all others. SCOTUS got that much right.

Coersion would be attempting to block someone else's expression. If allowing someone else to express themselves feels like torture to you, you may want to seriously examine what it means to live in a multi-ethnic/cultural society.

SCOTUS rejects your point of view. Precisely because it is so hyperbolic and detached from any demonstration of actual harm.

Perhaps you atheists could bring in a HUMANIST and offer a brief statement about the interconnectedness of humanity, our basic ethical behavior and mutual respect, and focus a council on its need to stay focuses on the SERVICE of fellow humanity?

Or, I suppose you could file another frivolous and expensive law suit and continue to ask religious people to ignore the constant public dialogue of atheists seeking our elimination?

Shockingly, I mean it certainly defies logic, when you attempt to take away other people's religion ... they don't just roll over.

Perhaps you should, while examining civic duty and why free speech is protected, also examine what happened when Britain attempted to remove Catholicism from Ireland? Such things never go well.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 4:20:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 4:11:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 3:51:56 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

The same reason why you would want 'Under No god' removed from the pledge if it was there.

Cooersion is rather serious, and is why you have banned it in your schools, where you could potentially give the same excuse.

Alternatively you wouldn't want to say:
'Under Buddha' or other similar ones either, and would want it removed.

Under Buddha favor ONE religion, Buddhism.

And God favors only a subsection of religion, and excluded atheists, Buddhists, scientologists, etc. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Nor is it even an accurate statement of the Buddhist faith. But no, if someone offered a Buddhist prayer, which happens ALL THE TIME, (especially having been to Buddhist countries and regularly hiking up the moutons on weekends and having spend quite a bit of time with the monks up there) and I have never once seen ANYONE file a lawsuit about it. Anywhere.

What's your point? This is the national pledge of all whence which is recited in schools, at sports games, etc. And people are expected to say if if they want to represent their country.

Simple question, skipped once again, WHICH religion is favored by a generic statement of God?

Quite a few, just like many are favored by the generic statement of no god. And this is entirely besides the point, having a majority, or lots of people that like it, gives the argument not an ounce of credibility.

Unless you can demonstrate that effect, your case has ZERO legal standing. That would be how the Establishment Clause is written - all protected, none favored. Favor is induced to atheism when we block all others. SCOTUS got that much right.

Sounds like drivel and no substance.

Coersion would be attempting to block someone else's expression. If allowing someone else to express themselves feels like torture to you, you may want to seriously examine what it means to live in a multi-ethnic/cultural society.

Use a dictionary please.

SCOTUS rejects your point of view. Precisely because it is so hyperbolic and detached from any demonstration of actual harm.

Perhaps you atheists could bring in a HUMANIST and offer a brief statement about the interconnectedness of humanity, our basic ethical behavior and mutual respect, and focus a council on its need to stay focuses on the SERVICE of fellow humanity?

We are talking about the pledge of allegence, stay on topic.

Or, I suppose you could file another frivolous and expensive law suit and continue to ask religious people to ignore the constant public dialogue of atheists seeking our elimination?

Shockingly, I mean it certainly defies logic, when you attempt to take away other people's religion ... they don't just roll over.

Perhaps you should, while examining civic duty and why free speech is protected, also examine what happened when Britain attempted to remove Catholicism from Ireland? Such things never go well.

Err, alternate talking about the pledge of allegence, the fact that you are exploding into unrelated business is a big red flag to the fact that you have no case.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 4:33:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 4:20:04 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 4:11:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 3:51:56 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

The same reason why you would want 'Under No god' removed from the pledge if it was there.

Cooersion is rather serious, and is why you have banned it in your schools, where you could potentially give the same excuse.

Alternatively you wouldn't want to say:
'Under Buddha' or other similar ones either, and would want it removed.

Under Buddha favor ONE religion, Buddhism.

And God favors only a subsection of religion, and excluded atheists, Buddhists, scientologists, etc. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Nor is it even an accurate statement of the Buddhist faith. But no, if someone offered a Buddhist prayer, which happens ALL THE TIME, (especially having been to Buddhist countries and regularly hiking up the moutons on weekends and having spend quite a bit of time with the monks up there) and I have never once seen ANYONE file a lawsuit about it. Anywhere.

What's your point? This is the national pledge of all whence which is recited in schools, at sports games, etc. And people are expected to say if if they want to represent their country.

Simple question, skipped once again, WHICH religion is favored by a generic statement of God?

Quite a few, just like many are favored by the generic statement of no god. And this is entirely besides the point, having a majority, or lots of people that like it, gives the argument not an ounce of credibility.

Unless you can demonstrate that effect, your case has ZERO legal standing. That would be how the Establishment Clause is written - all protected, none favored. Favor is induced to atheism when we block all others. SCOTUS got that much right.

Sounds like drivel and no substance.

Coersion would be attempting to block someone else's expression. If allowing someone else to express themselves feels like torture to you, you may want to seriously examine what it means to live in a multi-ethnic/cultural society.

Use a dictionary please.

SCOTUS rejects your point of view. Precisely because it is so hyperbolic and detached from any demonstration of actual harm.

Perhaps you atheists could bring in a HUMANIST and offer a brief statement about the interconnectedness of humanity, our basic ethical behavior and mutual respect, and focus a council on its need to stay focuses on the SERVICE of fellow humanity?

We are talking about the pledge of allegence, stay on topic.

Or, I suppose you could file another frivolous and expensive law suit and continue to ask religious people to ignore the constant public dialogue of atheists seeking our elimination?

Shockingly, I mean it certainly defies logic, when you attempt to take away other people's religion ... they don't just roll over.

Perhaps you should, while examining civic duty and why free speech is protected, also examine what happened when Britain attempted to remove Catholicism from Ireland? Such things never go well.

Err, alternate talking about the pledge of allegence, the fact that you are exploding into unrelated business is a big red flag to the fact that you have no case.

Hmmm ... it includes almost all religions, and no Buddhists and Scientologists are not offended and not suing, and it favors no particular religion.

The ONLY 'religion' here in contestation is atheism, which views the entire situation emotionally and with vitriol that defies objectivity. It is an atheist attempt to block legitimate, bland, and completely harmless expression of religion that FAVORS NO PARTICULAR RELIGION.

The defiance of simple logic required to take a bland expression and turn two harmless words into a dire threat to a Republic?

Maybe we should bring back the draft, then our children would understand what a real threat to the Republic looks like and wouldn't be either so hyperbolic and emotional about harmless things and ... actually expect people to accept hyperbole as a valid argument - even after they sue and lose.

Really, they are right. Two words are spoken for millennia, centuries in this country, are NOW going to destroy us.

As we can see, reason was not part of this atheistic process ... ever. I mean we are already talking about other people exploding as we transfer our emotionalism onto them.

Its a simple enough question, which religion is favored? Well its doesn't include ... Which one is favored? Right, none. And the list of excluded people only has one that sees a dire and entirely hyperbolic threat to the Republic, which is of course in no way attached to its immutable hatred of religion that it is publicly stating it wants removed.

Somehow that is not relevant? Its emotional to point out what atheists are publishing?

Its NOT emotional to be taking two words that are bland, harmless, and have been spoken for centuries without causing anything bad to happen ... and turn them into something worse than Al Qaeda? Help, Help you are being coerced?

Interesting hyperbole you atheists have, why do you expect anyone to buy it save atheists?
BblackkBbirdd
Posts: 919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:42:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 3:43:52 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

I am often curious about this aspect of atheism, and, to be blunt, I disagree. Why?

The protected right is Freedom of Expression. Its not Freedom from expression that is protected. Ergo, we come to the basic right at hand: A person is religious, and elected to say, as his belief implies, that we are protected by God in the pledge. You disagree, and do not want to say it. Why not ... just not say it?

Again, which religion is favored by this? Catholicism? The Westboro Baptist Church? Islam? Hinduism? Paganism? Judaism? You cannot actually pinpoint the religion that is unconstitutionally favored by this and thus insight damage. So there is no Constitutional violation here.

The entire case appears frivolous, as if two words that have been stated openly for centuries are suddenly going to cause ... what exactly? Armed rebellion? Gridlock in Congress? California to shore itself off and sink into the Pacific?

Why indeed can you not just not say two words while allowing others to say them? Why not foster a spirit of Freedom of Conscience, and if someone asks you why you don't say the words you could tell that that you are atheist or agnostic, and your conscience compels you to follow your beliefs, just as it does them to say the words. You would, in essence be saying I disagree with your position, but respect it, and ask that you respect my conscience and convictions as well - just as the other religions do in this case.

However, when you cross that line and attempt to remove those words, it is an assault on the free religious expression of others. You are attempting to block, quite literally, the generic expression of a multi-religious statement in order to ensure that atheistic views hold sway.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com...

SCOTUS is pretty clearly stating to move on.

When we couple this with even 'soft' atheists openly talking about their desire to eliminate religion:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Perhaps you can appreciate the religious insistence at being able to express our religion? There appears to be a very real effort by atheists to attack religion and block its expression. That is not right.

Why I have nothing against people being able to express their religion, imposing monotheism on the population isn't religious expression. Also, you seem to be forgetting that atheists aren't the only people who are being imposed on. Where is the religious freedom for the polytheists and the deists? Furthermore 'Under God' WAS added to favour Christianity if you read into the context of its addition, it was to respond to the 'Godless Communists' of the Soviet Union.

The addition of 'Under God' in 1954 breached 'Separation of Church and State' and thus is non-constitutional since it promotes that monotheism as correct. Just not saying 'Under God' isn't the solution, and not saying it doesn't make the pledge constitutional. Atheist students can feel pressure to say 'Under God' because of peer pressure or fear of discrimination if their peers discover they're atheists.
If you believe in God, that's fine. But it doesn't mean you have to put a statement about the existence of God into the pledge of allegiance. This is not a requirement of your religion, so why do you have to say it or keep it in an officially recognised document? The words 'Under God' should be removed to represent the freedom of the people of America to hold diverse religious views without these views being marginalised by a line which never in the original pledge, goes against separation of church and state and was campaigned to be added a Catholic organisation therefore refers to the god of Christianity, not anyone else"s gods.
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:42:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 3:43:52 AM, neutral wrote:

I am often curious about this aspect of atheism, and, to be blunt, I disagree. Why?

The entire case appears frivolous, as if two words that have been stated openly for centuries are suddenly going to cause ... what exactly? Armed rebellion? Gridlock in Congress? California to shore itself off and sink into the Pacific?

These two paragraphs of yours appear contradictory. You "bluntly disagree" that a reference to God should be removed from the Allegiance, yet in another paragraph you go to great lengths to tell us how "frivolous" the case is. No big deal, but right from the start this gives the impression of a less-than-balanced analysis. Lets move on.

What is the purpose of a Pledge of Allegiance? To what is the allegiance being pledged? Clearly, it is a pledge of allegiance to the country, not to God. The whole idea, really, is that Americans from all cultures, with a mix of many religions, agnosticism and atheism, can pull together as one in having a common allegiance to the country. Yes? Bringing God into it is irrelevant, inappropriate, and counterproductive to the purpose of the pledge.

The protected right is Freedom of Expression.

No. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with a Pledge of Allegiance. Religious belief is a personal choice, and freedom of expression has to do with ensuring that all citizens are free to speak about their own particular religious beliefs in public, attend or not attend a church, and so on. American people (rightly) have this freedom of expression, but it has nothing to do with a Pledge of Allegiance to their country.

A person is religious, and elected to say, as his belief implies, that we are protected by God in the pledge.

A religious person is most definitely not elected to spout his personal religious belief as if it represented the views of all citizens, any more than an atheist is elected to spout his atheistic views. Yes? And if you believe that anyone is "protected by God" then you are sadly deluded. Look at the death rates for atheists and theists, both in peacetime and serving in the military, and I"m fairly sure you will find they are the same.

You disagree, and do not want to say it. Why not ... just not say it?

The issue here is that by including the words "under God", there is an implicit assumption that the entire nation believes in God, which is simply untrue. If you think this is a very frivolous and minor point, then presumably you would not object to the wording "under atheism" instead. Would you object to that? I would.

Again, which religion is favored by this? Catholicism? The Westboro Baptist Church? Islam? Hinduism? Paganism? Judaism? You cannot actually pinpoint the religion that is unconstitutionally favored by this and thus insight damage.

I would suggest the term "under God" (rather than "under Allah" for example) implies the Christian God, and it is no coincidence that those that initiated the inclusion in 1954 were Christians. However, the real point here is that by including the words "under God", there is an implicit assumption that the entire nation believes in God, which is untrue. So contrary to your claim that there is not favoritism, we can specifically pinpoint those that believe in a God as being constitutionally favoured. The original pre-1954 wording making no mention of a God was religion-neutral, as it should be.

Why indeed can you not just not say two words while allowing others to say them?

Why not indeed. Why not change the wording to "under atheism", and those that believe in their God can either leave their words out or insert the name of their own God?? Why not foster a spirit of Freedom of Conscience, and if someone asks you why you don't say the words you could tell that that you believe in a God, and your conscience compels you to follow your beliefs, just as it does them to say the words.

But you would not be so keen on that, now would you, because then it would not represent the religious beliefs of everyone, not to mention terribly-special you. Just so. I could not have put it better. Also, this pledge is often spoken by groups of people in schools and so on, and what a joke it would be to hear everyone inserting a different description of their own particular religious belief. You gotta be jokin, man.

For all the reasons given, a Pledge of Alliance should have nothing to say about religious belief, period. It simply is not relevant. And as soon as you include a specific reference to any religious belief (God or atheism), you will inevitably be discriminating against part of the population.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:40:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 2:28:28 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Exactly which God, I wonder, there are an awful lot of them out there!

Of course any reference to God should be removed, and should never have been there in the first place. A clear violation of the principle of separation of Church and State, and of people's religious freedom

It makes the country involved (America?) look backward, discriminatory, and just plain silly in the eyes of the rest of the world
Where do you get that idea? Just about every secular country (like Japan) has a cultural/traditional religious background. And they don't protest about it nearly as much as American atheists do. They may be laughing at our internal-disputes over it, but not likely that they would laugh at a statement like "One Nation Under God".
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:03:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:40:57 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 2:28:28 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Exactly which God, I wonder, there are an awful lot of them out there!

Of course any reference to God should be removed, and should never have been there in the first place. A clear violation of the principle of separation of Church and State, and of people's religious freedom

It makes the country involved (America?) look backward, discriminatory, and just plain silly in the eyes of the rest of the world
Where do you get that idea? Just about every secular country (like Japan) has a cultural/traditional religious background. And they don't protest about it nearly as much as American atheists do. They may be laughing at our internal-disputes over it, but not likely that they would laugh at a statement like "One Nation Under God".

You may be right. In my eyes it makes America look backward, discriminatory, and silly, and the reasons are given in posting #14.

Not that Australia (where I live) is much better. I'm not sure if we still have mention of a God somewhere in our constitution, but I think we used to.

We presently have a conservative government that is attempting to work around the principle of separation of Church and State by infiltrating our public schools with 'Christian Chaplains'. Our Prime Minister is a climate change denier with not a shred of scientific knowledge, that is on the record as saying that 'climate change is crap', and is doing all in his power to reduce national parks and mine more coal. We live in sad times in this country.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:32:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Any and all references to any god should be removed from our pledge of allegiance and from our currency. This is not a "christian" nation, and both are a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Both references to god, the pledge and our currency, were introduced by a predominantly christian congress, violating their oath(s) of service. America has never been a christian nation, but a nation that has become infected by christianity. If this infection is not cured, soon, it will destroy our way of life.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Hostile
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:41:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Because America was "*founded" under God..

*pervaded
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:43:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 8:32:12 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Any and all references to any god should be removed from our pledge of allegiance and from our currency. This is not a "christian" nation, and both are a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Both references to god, the pledge and our currency, were introduced by a predominantly christian congress, violating their oath(s) of service. America has never been a christian nation, but a nation that has become infected by christianity. If this infection is not cured, soon, it will destroy our way of life.
America was never a Christian State. The vast majority of European immigrants who became Americans were Christians. American wasn't infected by Christianity as the majority were already Christians. The reason why you can voice your opinion is because the early Christians had a concept of freedom that carried over into today.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:50:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:42:54 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:
At 6/14/2014 3:43:52 AM, neutral wrote:

I am often curious about this aspect of atheism, and, to be blunt, I disagree. Why?

The entire case appears frivolous, as if two words that have been stated openly for centuries are suddenly going to cause ... what exactly? Armed rebellion? Gridlock in Congress? California to shore itself off and sink into the Pacific?

These two paragraphs of yours appear contradictory. You "bluntly disagree" that a reference to God should be removed from the Allegiance, yet in another paragraph you go to great lengths to tell us how "frivolous" the case is. No big deal, but right from the start this gives the impression of a less-than-balanced analysis. Lets move on.

Well, do you expect people to disagree with you? And remember, we are talking about ... two words, and yet, you are immediately emotionalizing the situation - as I state openly - that you need to in order to give this quibble even the pretext of importance.

Lets move on.


What is the purpose of a Pledge of Allegiance? To what is the allegiance being pledged? Clearly, it is a pledge of allegiance to the country, not to God. The whole idea, really, is that Americans from all cultures, with a mix of many religions, agnosticism and atheism, can pull together as one in having a common allegiance to the country. Yes? Bringing God into it is irrelevant, inappropriate, and counterproductive to the purpose of the pledge.

And again, is someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to say those words? The question, unanswered as usual, is why you cannot elect to simply not say them, and allow those WHO DO BELIEVE that we are under God's protection to say as much?

Free expression vs. blocked expression.

Your entire message is that YOUR expression of faith offends me. So what? Expression is protected, and we day we step foot in censorship of religion ... we cross a Rubicon. What you advocate is coercion. Its the literal making of a mountain out of a mole hill.

There are bigger fish to fry with regard to religious privilege, and ... shockingly, religious people agree with you guys on these - like the tacking of creationism as Science. Large swaths of the religious community agree with you.

You are alone with the under God thing.


The protected right is Freedom of Expression.

No. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with a Pledge of Allegiance. Religious belief is a personal choice, and freedom of expression has to do with ensuring that all citizens are free to speak about their own particular religious beliefs in public, attend or not attend a church, and so on. American people (rightly) have this freedom of expression, but it has nothing to do with a Pledge of Allegiance to their country.

Right, so is atheism. You are attempting to make MY CHOICE to express MY RELIGION offensive. Your choice should not affect MY RIGHT to say the words under God.

It far easier, in a multi-cultural society to ALLOW expression, far healthier, than it is to block it.

Again, what atheist was ever ACTUALLY harmed by someone saying, "under God." Not a single damned one.

Who is harmed when you suddenly cannot say God in public? As part of the pledge of allegiance as our beliefs dictate? EVERYONE who believes so.

This is naked attempt to by atheists to foist your views, using hyperbole rather than actual harm to block protected RELIGIOUS speech.


A person is religious, and elected to say, as his belief implies, that we are protected by God in the pledge.

A religious person is most definitely not elected to spout his personal religious belief as if it represented the views of all citizens, any more than an atheist is elected to spout his atheistic views. Yes? And if you believe that anyone is "protected by God" then you are sadly deluded. Look at the death rates for atheists and theists, both in peacetime and serving in the military, and I"m fairly sure you will find they are the same.

A person who is elected can express hi personal views about religion all he wants. Case in point, Harry Reid. He's a devout Mormon. That means, the whole homosexual thing is wrong according to his religious doctrine. Yet there he is acknowledging the will of his constituents and helping to establish legal protection of homosexuals.

That people cannot separate personal opinion from policy would be the issue, and this entire 'case' smacks of it. "I need you to stop saying what you believe in order to ... what?" Are you incapable of having a full life as an atheist if we continue say under God? Will the expression of a different opinion drive you mad? Bonkers? Make you violent?

In terms of policy, what we must be on guard for is statements that indicate a person's personal religious views would corrupt the political process in a dangerous way. Atheism in any of itself professes no such danger. Anti-theism? Which is wide spread in atheism these days done.

I am curious why you skipped even soft atheism demand and desire that we eliminate religion? It is through the lens of constant public announcements of such an intent that your case must be viewed ... and yet you choose to ignore it. We do not. And cannot.

It your policy goal that is the threat here.


The issue here is that by including the words "under God", there is an implicit assumption that the entire nation believes in God, which is simply untrue.

It is an implicit statement that many of the people are religious and believe it to be true. You believe it is not. Your belief does not trump ours and SHOULD NOT be allowed to block ours. Same in reverse.


Again, which religion is favored by this? Catholicism? The Westboro Baptist Church? Islam? Hinduism? Paganism? Judaism? You cannot actually pinpoint the religion that is unconstitutionally favored by this and thus insight damage.

I would suggest the term "under God" (rather than "under Allah" for example).

Allah means God. We typically don't bring Arabic into American pledges ... which would present a unique aspect to the issue. If the entire thing were said in Arabic? Then there would be no issue save the question why it was being uttered in Arabic.

Many religious communities offer exchanges of clergy who routinely offers prayers with different words for God. Yahweh, Allah ... its the same thing. God in and of itself is a VERY inclusive term one that is generic for ANY God. Now, if we start saying Elohim ... you might be onto something.

You are attempting to force a generic into a narrowly specific. The case that ANY of these expression actually harm? Not there.

Incidentally, the ONLY position on this spectrum that rejects ALL of them and to bock ALL of them is the atheist position.


Why not indeed. Why not change the wording to "under atheism", and those that believe in their God can either leave their words out or insert the name of their own God?

Obviously, in violation of the Constitution, that would favor atheism.


But you would not be so keen on that, now would you, because then it would not represent the religious beliefs of everyone, not to mention terribly-special you.

So, a Muslim can, and often does, whisper Allah, Hundu, Ram, etc. etc. None of these groups are suing anyone because we are .. multicultural. If a Hindu stands up in class and shares his culture and religion, and a bunch of Christians shut him down - we would be violating his rights - showing favoritism. Do you see what you are doing?


For all the reasons given, a Pledge of Alliance should have nothing to say about religious belief, period.

In short, my views should block yours. I am offended by you.

SCOTUS disagrees.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:53:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 8:41:13 AM, Hostile wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Because America was "*founded" under God..

*pervaded

No, it wasn't. The vast majority of our critical founding fathers also despised christianity. Most notably, Thomas Paine wrote of christianity as an infection, and rightly so. How can you not see that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. How offended would all of christianity be and how incensed would they become if the word "under" was replaced with the word without? This would imply that the nation was atheist or, at least agnostic. The fact of the matter is that it is not representative of the nation, as a whole, and does not belong in our pledge or on our currency. While some idiots might call this "frivolous," they fail to consider that it's only "frivolous" when it's their position that is not being discarded. Would it still be seen as "frivolous" if we changed it? If it was officially removed, you would see a much louder outcry, I'm sure. Fox news would have a spectacular series of "christianity" under attack on a whole new level of narrow-minded vitriol against anyone that dared to oppose the spread of their beloved christianity.

No, we were not founded "under god." We were founded "against tyranny." There has never been anything more tyrannical than monotheistic religion. Ever.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:57:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 8:53:24 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:41:13 AM, Hostile wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Because America was "*founded" under God..

*pervaded

No, it wasn't. The vast majority of our critical founding fathers also despised christianity. Most notably, Thomas Paine wrote of christianity as an infection, and rightly so. How can you not see that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. How offended would all of christianity be and how incensed would they become if the word "under" was replaced with the word without? This would imply that the nation was atheist or, at least agnostic. The fact of the matter is that it is not representative of the nation, as a whole, and does not belong in our pledge or on our currency. While some idiots might call this "frivolous," they fail to consider that it's only "frivolous" when it's their position that is not being discarded. Would it still be seen as "frivolous" if we changed it? If it was officially removed, you would see a much louder outcry, I'm sure. Fox news would have a spectacular series of "christianity" under attack on a whole new level of narrow-minded vitriol against anyone that dared to oppose the spread of their beloved christianity.

No, we were not founded "under god." We were founded "against tyranny." There has never been anything more tyrannical than monotheistic religion. Ever.
Thomas Paine was a deist. And you only mentioned one individual in the primordial soup of the vast majority of founding fathers.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:01:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 8:43:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:32:12 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Any and all references to any god should be removed from our pledge of allegiance and from our currency. This is not a "christian" nation, and both are a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Both references to god, the pledge and our currency, were introduced by a predominantly christian congress, violating their oath(s) of service. America has never been a christian nation, but a nation that has become infected by christianity. If this infection is not cured, soon, it will destroy our way of life.
America was never a Christian State. The vast majority of European immigrants who became Americans were Christians. American wasn't infected by Christianity as the majority were already Christians. The reason why you can voice your opinion is because the early Christians had a concept of freedom that carried over into today.

American government and law was infected by christianity. It was originally written to be completely devoid of any religious influence. The introduction of any religious sentiment is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. While it may not favor "any one" religion, it implies a religion, where NONE should be. I'm perfectly aware of why I have a voice, in this country, thank you. I served my country specifically to protect those freedoms. At any function where the pledge is spoke, I omit the "under gawd" part, and replace it with a loud "indivisible," followed by a pause.

You should see the looks I get, from the christians around me. The introduction of these words into our pledge was an abomination to all that our forefathers sought to establsih. That immigrants moving here were christian was their right. Introducing their venom into our government was not.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:12:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:01:51 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:43:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:32:12 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Any and all references to any god should be removed from our pledge of allegiance and from our currency. This is not a "christian" nation, and both are a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Both references to god, the pledge and our currency, were introduced by a predominantly christian congress, violating their oath(s) of service. America has never been a christian nation, but a nation that has become infected by christianity. If this infection is not cured, soon, it will destroy our way of life.
America was never a Christian State. The vast majority of European immigrants who became Americans were Christians. American wasn't infected by Christianity as the majority were already Christians. The reason why you can voice your opinion is because the early Christians had a concept of freedom that carried over into today.

American government and law was infected by christianity. It was originally written to be completely devoid of any religious influence. The introduction of any religious sentiment is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. While it may not favor "any one" religion, it implies a religion, where NONE should be. I'm perfectly aware of why I have a voice, in this country, thank you. I served my country specifically to protect those freedoms. At any function where the pledge is spoke, I omit the "under gawd" part, and replace it with a loud "indivisible," followed by a pause.

You should see the looks I get, from the christians around me. The introduction of these words into our pledge was an abomination to all that our forefathers sought to establsih. That immigrants moving here were christian was their right. Introducing their venom into our government was not.
The intention of the founding fathers was not to exclude Christianity from governmental functions. The founding fathers prayed, read the Bible, and held church services on Sunday mornings in the Capitol. What they opposed was denominational imperialism. The empowerment of one denomination ruling the entire country, infringing on their individual rights to worship God according to their specific denominational traditions. If they despised Christianity, do really think the founding fathers would pray in the Capitol, read scripture in the Capitol, attend church services in the Capitol?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:21:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:42:12 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
At 6/14/2014 3:43:52 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

I am often curious about this aspect of atheism, and, to be blunt, I disagree. Why?

The protected right is Freedom of Expression. Its not Freedom from expression that is protected. Ergo, we come to the basic right at hand: A person is religious, and elected to say, as his belief implies, that we are protected by God in the pledge. You disagree, and do not want to say it. Why not ... just not say it?

Again, which religion is favored by this? Catholicism? The Westboro Baptist Church? Islam? Hinduism? Paganism? Judaism? You cannot actually pinpoint the religion that is unconstitutionally favored by this and thus insight damage. So there is no Constitutional violation here.

The entire case appears frivolous, as if two words that have been stated openly for centuries are suddenly going to cause ... what exactly? Armed rebellion? Gridlock in Congress? California to shore itself off and sink into the Pacific?

Why indeed can you not just not say two words while allowing others to say them? Why not foster a spirit of Freedom of Conscience, and if someone asks you why you don't say the words you could tell that that you are atheist or agnostic, and your conscience compels you to follow your beliefs, just as it does them to say the words. You would, in essence be saying I disagree with your position, but respect it, and ask that you respect my conscience and convictions as well - just as the other religions do in this case.

However, when you cross that line and attempt to remove those words, it is an assault on the free religious expression of others. You are attempting to block, quite literally, the generic expression of a multi-religious statement in order to ensure that atheistic views hold sway.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com...

SCOTUS is pretty clearly stating to move on.

When we couple this with even 'soft' atheists openly talking about their desire to eliminate religion:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Perhaps you can appreciate the religious insistence at being able to express our religion? There appears to be a very real effort by atheists to attack religion and block its expression. That is not right.


Why I have nothing against people being able to express their religion, imposing monotheism on the population isn't religious expression.

Right, me saying Under God in the pledge, or wanting my kids to say it ... means I have dragged you into a church at gun point, and forced you to be monotheistic.

Its also curious to see what atheists leave out of court cases.

"Decided " the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism""a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In short, at the time, the federal government WAS engaged in an exclusionary process by openly attacking the atheistic aspects of communism. No such attendant policy exists today, and any claim that the individual school districts inclusion of the verbiage is designed to exclude or demonize atheists in this day and age is ludicrous.

The Cold War is over. Atheists are HARDLY victims of grotesque prejudice and are just as likely, if not more so as demonstrated by this thread, likely to be the perpetrators of prejudice rather its victim.

And before we get the sob stories, please remember Madellne Murray O'Hare.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:57:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 8:57:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:53:24 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:41:13 AM, Hostile wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Because America was "*founded" under God..

*pervaded

No, it wasn't. The vast majority of our critical founding fathers also despised christianity. Most notably, Thomas Paine wrote of christianity as an infection, and rightly so. How can you not see that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. How offended would all of christianity be and how incensed would they become if the word "under" was replaced with the word without? This would imply that the nation was atheist or, at least agnostic. The fact of the matter is that it is not representative of the nation, as a whole, and does not belong in our pledge or on our currency. While some idiots might call this "frivolous," they fail to consider that it's only "frivolous" when it's their position that is not being discarded. Would it still be seen as "frivolous" if we changed it? If it was officially removed, you would see a much louder outcry, I'm sure. Fox news would have a spectacular series of "christianity" under attack on a whole new level of narrow-minded vitriol against anyone that dared to oppose the spread of their beloved christianity.

No, we were not founded "under god." We were founded "against tyranny." There has never been anything more tyrannical than monotheistic religion. Ever.
Thomas Paine was a deist. And you only mentioned one individual in the primordial soup of the vast majority of founding fathers.

A deist, yes, but nondescript. Given the nature of who lobbied for its introduction (christians), and the implication that so many people try to make that America is a "christian nation," this is simply disgusting, to me. I despise religion, as did many of the founding fathers. God is a prerequisite to what is recognized as "religion." The introduction of the words "under god" serve to reinforce christian influence in our legislation.

During the administration of John Adams, the Treaty of Tripoli stated, in no uncertain terms, that the US of A was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." While most of the founding fathers were, indeed, deists (believed the universe had a creator), NONE of the most influential had an ounce of belief in christianity:

Thomas Paine
"We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power."

John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

George Washington
"If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."

Thomas Jefferson
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

James Madison
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." (Written in objection to setting apart government land for church use, as was prevalent in Europe.)

Benjamin Franklin
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father, but a truly notable American) - "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."

Further, it was the terror of christian persecution that brought Europeans here, by the boatload, during this country's early history. Irrespective of how "non-denominational" the words "under gawd" may seem, that any gawd is ever superimposed upon an entire nation is the underhanded manipulation of religion at its very core. It must, and ever should be, eliminated as a perception of the identity of the USA that we are still a superstitious nation, accepting fairy tales and myths as our "protection" from others.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:05:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:12:02 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:01:51 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:43:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:32:12 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Any and all references to any god should be removed from our pledge of allegiance and from our currency. This is not a "christian" nation, and both are a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Both references to god, the pledge and our currency, were introduced by a predominantly christian congress, violating their oath(s) of service. America has never been a christian nation, but a nation that has become infected by christianity. If this infection is not cured, soon, it will destroy our way of life.
America was never a Christian State. The vast majority of European immigrants who became Americans were Christians. American wasn't infected by Christianity as the majority were already Christians. The reason why you can voice your opinion is because the early Christians had a concept of freedom that carried over into today.

American government and law was infected by christianity. It was originally written to be completely devoid of any religious influence. The introduction of any religious sentiment is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. While it may not favor "any one" religion, it implies a religion, where NONE should be. I'm perfectly aware of why I have a voice, in this country, thank you. I served my country specifically to protect those freedoms. At any function where the pledge is spoke, I omit the "under gawd" part, and replace it with a loud "indivisible," followed by a pause.

You should see the looks I get, from the christians around me. The introduction of these words into our pledge was an abomination to all that our forefathers sought to establsih. That immigrants moving here were christian was their right. Introducing their venom into our government was not.
The intention of the founding fathers was not to exclude Christianity from governmental functions. The founding fathers prayed, read the Bible, and held church services on Sunday mornings in the Capitol. What they opposed was denominational imperialism. The empowerment of one denomination ruling the entire country, infringing on their individual rights to worship God according to their specific denominational traditions. If they despised Christianity, do really think the founding fathers would pray in the Capitol, read scripture in the Capitol, attend church services in the Capitol?

This is patently false and misrepresented. Those of greatest contribution to the shaping of our nation's founding documents despised christianity. My post with the contributing quotes (completely verifiable) should disclose to you just how indescribably dishonest your post was. The nation's founding fathers (I will say this one more time) DESPISED christianity, and most especially the clergy thereof. It had nothing to do with denomination. It had to do with the perversion of "morality," as practiced by every brand of clergy that has ever been the misfortune of the people to acquire any political sway. The clergy was viewed with contempt (as it should be) by the majority of the most intelligent architects of this nation and, if for no other reason than respect, should be continued. Religion has no place in government. None. Period.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:38:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:57:45 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:57:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:53:24 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:41:13 AM, Hostile wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Because America was "*founded" under God..

*pervaded

No, it wasn't. The vast majority of our critical founding fathers also despised christianity. Most notably, Thomas Paine wrote of christianity as an infection, and rightly so. How can you not see that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. How offended would all of christianity be and how incensed would they become if the word "under" was replaced with the word without? This would imply that the nation was atheist or, at least agnostic. The fact of the matter is that it is not representative of the nation, as a whole, and does not belong in our pledge or on our currency. While some idiots might call this "frivolous," they fail to consider that it's only "frivolous" when it's their position that is not being discarded. Would it still be seen as "frivolous" if we changed it? If it was officially removed, you would see a much louder outcry, I'm sure. Fox news would have a spectacular series of "christianity" under attack on a whole new level of narrow-minded vitriol against anyone that dared to oppose the spread of their beloved christianity.

No, we were not founded "under god." We were founded "against tyranny." There has never been anything more tyrannical than monotheistic religion. Ever.
Thomas Paine was a deist. And you only mentioned one individual in the primordial soup of the vast majority of founding fathers.

A deist, yes, but nondescript. Given the nature of who lobbied for its introduction (christians), and the implication that so many people try to make that America is a "christian nation," this is simply disgusting, to me. I despise religion, as did many of the founding fathers. God is a prerequisite to what is recognized as "religion." The introduction of the words "under god" serve to reinforce christian influence in our legislation.

It might be disgusting to you, but your disgust doesn't change history. You also have to understand, there is a negative connotation to religion even among Christians (which obviously the Christian founding fathers understood). Jesus addressed the negative aspect of religion when He rebuked the pharisees. Today, many confuse adherence to God with pharisaic religion. The idea behind the founding fathers was to separate from religion (in the pharisaic context), and seek God the creator. Today, this has been twisted to suggest including God with pharisaic religion, separating from Both as if they were the same.

During the administration of John Adams, the Treaty of Tripoli stated, in no uncertain terms, that the US of A was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." While most of the founding fathers were, indeed, deists (believed the universe had a creator), NONE of the most influential had an ounce of belief in christianity:

Thomas Paine
"We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power."

John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

George Washington
"If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."

Thomas Jefferson
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

James Madison
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." (Written in objection to setting apart government land for church use, as was prevalent in Europe.)

Benjamin Franklin
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father, but a truly notable American) - "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."

Further, it was the terror of christian persecution that brought Europeans here, by the boatload, during this country's early history. Irrespective of how "non-denominational" the words "under gawd" may seem, that any gawd is ever superimposed upon an entire nation is the underhanded manipulation of religion at its very core. It must, and ever should be, eliminated as a perception of the identity of the USA that we are still a superstitious nation, accepting fairy tales and myths as our "protection" from others.
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. - John Adams

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. - George Washington

I am a real Christian " that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. - Thomas Jefferson

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. - James Madison

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see. - Benjamin Franklin

Of course again, Thomas Paine was a deist. We know that in that he claimed to be so. The others like George Washington were not deists. They've been made honorary deists against their will.

The Treaty Of Tripoli was addressed to African Muslims. It was a diplomatic assurance that we were not a religious State typical of the European theocracies. It was not an anti-Christian proclamation.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:45:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:05:35 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:12:02 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:01:51 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:43:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2014 8:32:12 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:06:46 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..don't want 'Under God' to be in the pledge of Allegiance?

I've heard people often say "you're atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you care if his name's in the pledge of allegiance" Do you share a view similar to this?

Any and all references to any god should be removed from our pledge of allegiance and from our currency. This is not a "christian" nation, and both are a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Both references to god, the pledge and our currency, were introduced by a predominantly christian congress, violating their oath(s) of service. America has never been a christian nation, but a nation that has become infected by christianity. If this infection is not cured, soon, it will destroy our way of life.
America was never a Christian State. The vast majority of European immigrants who became Americans were Christians. American wasn't infected by Christianity as the majority were already Christians. The reason why you can voice your opinion is because the early Christians had a concept of freedom that carried over into today.

American government and law was infected by christianity. It was originally written to be completely devoid of any religious influence. The introduction of any religious sentiment is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. While it may not favor "any one" religion, it implies a religion, where NONE should be. I'm perfectly aware of why I have a voice, in this country, thank you. I served my country specifically to protect those freedoms. At any function where the pledge is spoke, I omit the "under gawd" part, and replace it with a loud "indivisible," followed by a pause.

You should see the looks I get, from the christians around me. The introduction of these words into our pledge was an abomination to all that our forefathers sought to establsih. That immigrants moving here were christian was their right. Introducing their venom into our government was not.
The intention of the founding fathers was not to exclude Christianity from governmental functions. The founding fathers prayed, read the Bible, and held church services on Sunday mornings in the Capitol. What they opposed was denominational imperialism. The empowerment of one denomination ruling the entire country, infringing on their individual rights to worship God according to their specific denominational traditions. If they despised Christianity, do really think the founding fathers would pray in the Capitol, read scripture in the Capitol, attend church services in the Capitol?

This is patently false and misrepresented. Those of greatest contribution to the shaping of our nation's founding documents despised christianity. My post with the contributing quotes (completely verifiable) should disclose to you just how indescribably dishonest your post was. The nation's founding fathers (I will say this one more time) DESPISED christianity, and most especially the clergy thereof. It had nothing to do with denomination. It had to do with the perversion of "morality," as practiced by every brand of clergy that has ever been the misfortune of the people to acquire any political sway. The clergy was viewed with contempt (as it should be) by the majority of the most intelligent architects of this nation and, if for no other reason than respect, should be continued. Religion has no place in government. None. Period.
And you have yet to address my question I asked you earlier. Why would despisers of Christianity pray, read from the Bible, and hold church services (which inevitably will include the presence of clergy) right on Capitol grounds?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 12:09:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:38:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
<snipped for character constraint>
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. - John Adams

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com...
I have to laugh when christian revisionists make these attempts at painting our founding fathers as 'christians,' in order to substantiate their claim that we are a 'christian nation.'

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. - George Washington

The letter was in the handwriting of an aide, and some biographers, including Chernow, Henriques and Freeman, say that the aide wrote it, not Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am a real Christian " that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. - Thomas Jefferson

A snippet, used conveniently...

http://www.let.rug.nl...

What he REALLY meant by that out-of-context misquotation was:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. - James Madison

Early Madison, yes. Later, Madison recanted many of his stances:
http://atheism.about.com...
I emphatically draw your attention to #7, from the above...

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see. - Benjamin Franklin

http://www.constitution.org...
Read, especially, his PS.

Of course again, Thomas Paine was a deist. We know that in that he claimed to be so. The others like George Washington were not deists. They've been made honorary deists against their will.

This is patently false, with respect to Washington He attended church, to suit his wife. I refer you to read the sections on communion and alleged baptism. Washington stopped attending church, altogether, on communion Sundays... Washington's faith is actually still shrouded in mystery.

The Treaty Of Tripoli was addressed to African Muslims. It was a diplomatic assurance that we were not a religious State typical of the European theocracies. It was not an anti-Christian proclamation.

Neither was it false. It stated, however, that we were not founded on christian principles. You can rationalize "why" all you wish. This country has never been, is not now, and will never be "christian." The predominant religion may be christianity (sadly) for years to come, but the foundation of the country was, indeed, secular.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.