News Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?

[LogicalAtheist]

We're all just witnessing the sickness of current society.

Atheism is NOT a minority in any sense.

When one asks a poll "are you an atheist" the result is low.

But when one asks "are you religious" or "do you believe in a god" you get extremely high results.

Those people who say no to are you religious are indeed atheists.

An a-theist is a NOT THEIST.

The numbvers are very high, and much higher in european countries.

Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

Don't worry atheists, the resolution of an event is always the truth. And thus the world slowly becomes realistic, and thus atheist.

Everyday the atheist population grows. Breed atheists breed!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist


Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Cut the personal comments, chum...

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

I'm not making personal attacks. If one feels emotionally hurt by truth, I would only say learn to feel emotional about the truth, and you'll never feel hurt.

I didn't say anything about what the country was founded on. I said who it was founded by.

Originally posted by enigma
They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.



The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

Really? Which ones?

I'd be very interrested to read those testimonies...

 

[Zero]

It doesn't matter who had what religion. The only thing that matters is that officially, this country is neutral towards religion.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Individuals have rights, the government doesn't. You have the right to your own private expressions of faith. The government has no right to express religious views, even one as simple as saying a higher power exists.

This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

It's like when a station says "the views expressed here are not necessarily the views of the station".

Any person can express their views (meaning under the law). But the organization cannot endorse a particular view over another, again this is under the law.

Bush is a methodist (damn him to hell). But the government isn't thus methodist because he is.

Did you guys know that, those "pamphlets" that were dropped to the people in Iraq we're actually bible quotes and such, written by the leader of the methodist church in USA.

And that bush worked with this leader to specifically design them.

People often don't realize how the present is like the past. Just as other dictators forced systems onto people, bush and this methodist leader attempted to force the methodist church onto the Iraqi people.

Also, the leader of the church took a great deal of his followers over to Iraq once the war was over and all was cleared, to try to conver them. And bush gave millions to build methodist churchs there.

Sick is it not?

Those who think we have a president and not a dictator, learn the past, and make the decisions that were then made to late, NOW, and not when it is again too late!

Either both bush and saddam or presidents, or they are both dictators.

They both were voted on, and more people %-wise wanted saddam than wanted bush.

It's Dictator Bush to you.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

Here's where it gets tricky. Bush is allowed to go to church whenever he likes, believe whatever he wants. However, in his official function as President, he does NOT have to right to claim that his personal views on religion represent the government, or this country.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

separation of religion and government is a fundamental principle of democracy, and for good reason. Organized religion can be very damaging to government, just ask Machivelli.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
separation of religion and government is a fundamental principle of democracy, and for good reason. Organized religion can be very damaging to government, just ask Machivelli.

On the other hand, I believe there are certain people who would use the good intentions of people like Nicool, in order to try to undermine democracy.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I didn't mention anything of religion. I don't believe "under God" is even religious. When someone exclames "OH MY GOD" are they really making a reference to their God, calling out to them? Same concept. Don't mistake me, I realize "under God" was intended to be a religious reference before, but I don't believe that holds true anymore.

I'm glad that you realize that it was added in in a religioius manner. I think (but I'm not sure) that it was Eisenhower who said something like "Now, every child will [something something] the Almighty."

But I find your saying that it is not religious a horrible argument. "Oh, my god" is an exclamation that just comes out. "under god" is not an exclamation. It has premeditation and meaning. If it is not religious, then please tell me what else it could possibly mean, and please convince me that most people take it that way.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I'm glad that you realize that it was added in in a religioius manner. I think (but I'm not sure) that it was Eisenhower who said something like "Now, every child will [something something] the Almighty."

But I find your saying that it is not religious a horrible argument. "Oh, my god" is an exclamation that just comes out. "under god" is not an exclamation. It has premeditation and meaning. If it is not religious, then please tell me what else it could possibly mean, and please convince me that most people take it that way.

If it doesn't mean anything religious, then why is there so much fervor to keep it around? No one has ever included 'by heck' in a patriotic pledge before, to my knowledge!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Good point.

 

[Zero]

So, either it is government-sponsored religious endorsement, which is illegal...or it is the semantic equivalent of 'darn tootin'!', in which case no one should care if it is removed!

 

[kat]

So...how do those who support removing "God" from the pledge of allegiance..in schools, in particular, as well as other places..how do you propose enforcing this? After having said "under God" for centuries..I don't find myself saying it otherwise because someone else dictates I should do so.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
So...how do those who support removing "God" from the pledge of allegiance..in schools, in particular, as well as other places..how do you propose enforcing this? After having said "under God" for centuries..I don't find myself saying it otherwise because someone else dictates I should do so.

Kat, if you have been saying the Pledgfe with 'under God' in it for centuries(since it has only existed in that form for 50 years, and you don't look a single day over 150), you've got bigger problems, don't you?

And how does your personal inconvenience affect what the law says?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, if you have been saying the Pledgfe with 'under God' in it for centuries(since it has only existed in that form for 50 years, and you don't look a single day over 150), you've got bigger problems, don't you?

And how does your personal inconvenience affect what the law says?

Lol, sorry...now that I've had a cup o' coffee...make that decades! =)


My personal invonvenience is an aside, I doubt that MY anything has a great impact on national policy. However, how a law is implemented has a great impact, and I'm curious how you (and others) see this law enforced? Or is this just a feel good movement?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Lol, sorry...now that I've had a cup o' coffee...make that decades! =)


My personal invonvenience is an aside, I doubt that MY anything has a great impact on national policy. However, how a law is implemented has a great impact, and I'm curious how you (and others) see this law enforced? Or is this just a feel good movement?

I say you implement it the way that you would anything else like this. You put out press releases, you hire a PR team, and then...you start throwing teachers out on their butts when they break the law.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, I wouldn't say to throw them out on their butts, unless they're belligerent repeat offenders. Otherwise, make the corrective measures something involving a fine and/or probation or suspension.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, I wouldn't say to throw them out on their butts, unless they're belligerent repeat offenders. Otherwise, make the corrective measures something involving a fine and/or probation or suspension.

Well, ok..some leniency at first...like a 6 month probabtion or something.

 

[FZ+]

Er... I don't think you need to punish. Simply change it from all texts. If someone add the words "under God" when they say it themselves, then big deal. Just have whoever leads it or something miss it out. If they don't they are not saying it officially. The whole pledge is mostly symbolic anyways. I don't think they had much trouble when they added it in the first place, so I dare say there won't be too many rebel pledgers hiding out...

 

[Dissident Dan]

With all the stink that people are making about the Newdow thing, many people will probably feel outraged if "under god" is taken out and resort illegalities.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
With all the stink that people are making about the Newdow thing, many people will probably feel outraged if "under god" is taken out and resort illegalities.

Oh yeah...isn't it wonderful when 'patriots' act like slime for the sake of 'morals'?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

The supreme court ruled that it needed to be removed.

What is the current status of this, anyone know?

 

[kat]

What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by kat
What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

Excuse me?
Let me explain something.
America is founded on documents which define this countries parameters.

When a statement (law, consititution) is broken, it defies the rules of our country.

When a person breaks these rules, there are punishments.

Having the phrase "under god" in our governments statement breaks rules set aside earlier.

Earlier rules preside over newer ones.

It needs to be fixed, otherwise our government is breaking the paramaters of our country.

It's not a should or shouldn't or right or wrong.

Surely I wish I could set the government on fire for what they do. Sure I know that it'd serve humanity better if they died.

But it's illogical to fight the under god debate because of what you say should happen, or what you say is right or wrong. That's BS and has no place in reality.

The proper argument is that it breaks the law.

If the government changes the law saw it doesn't break the law so be it. Then it's fine by me on those standards.

Right or wrong is for pansies. Those in power will defy those not in power, it's the nature of power.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Excuse me?
Let me explain something.
America is founded on documents which define this countries parameters.

When a statement (law, consititution) is broken, it defies the rules of our country.

When a person breaks these rules, there are punishments.

Having the phrase "under god" in our governments statement breaks rules set aside earlier.

Earlier rules preside over newer ones.

It needs to be fixed, otherwise our government is breaking the paramaters of our country.

It's not a should or shouldn't or right or wrong.

Surely I wish I could set the government on fire for what they do. Sure I know that it'd serve humanity better if they died.

But it's illogical to fight the under god debate because of what you say should happen, or what you say is right or wrong. That's BS and has no place in reality.

The proper argument is that it breaks the law.

If the government changes the law saw it doesn't break the law so be it. Then it's fine by me on those standards.

Right or wrong is for pansies. Those in power will defy those not in power, it's the nature of power.

lol, excuse me?
Irrelevent of what this country may be "found on" it is most certainly dependant upon case law. It's always good to do your due diligence and look at ramifications, irrelevant of good-bad, right-wrong. Also, legality is usually based upon good-bad, right-wrong, negative-positive, beneficial or detrimental to society bleah bleah etc.
so, save me the speach already and answer my question:

5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

You warranted the speech because of your attitude and lack of well speaking.

Furthermore, if you read your question, it makes no sense in the english language. Restate it so it's a REAL question.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

Then you tell those 5 year olds to shut up...you wouldn't allow them to use racial slurs, would you?