- #106
Zero
Logically, I can see your point. In the real world, however, a compromise will have to be reached. It will be a good few years before the situtaion normalizes itself.
Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?
- News
- Thread starter Nicool003
- Start date
The Pledge of Allegiance has been a controversial topic for many years, with some people arguing that it should be changed while others are passionate about keeping it as it is. Some believe that changing it would be disrespectful to the country and those who have fought for it. Others argue that the pledge is outdated and unnecessary, and that its inclusion of "under God" is offensive to those who do not believe in a Christian God. The pledge was originally created in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist, and the words "under God" were added in 1954. Many argue that the pledge is taught to children at a young age, before they can truly understand its meaning, and that it promotes a sense of blind
- #107
LogicalAtheist
Not that I have a problem with breaking the law, I do it all the time. But little laws...
Also, I don't take the stance of removing under god cuzz it's 'wrong", just cuzz it's illegal.
So if our country changed the law so it was legal, then I have no factual basis, none really good anyways, that it "should" be removed.
ALso, I assert the claim (which is actually a premise for a much greater claim) that religion is anti-humanitarian, and thus spreading it is anti-humanitarian, thus making the spreader anti-humanitarian.
But I recognize the power of, power. And I understand that I'm not going to use emotions to fight claims.
I FEEL it's wrong, and hate people who do it, but I choose not to use those because they're not objective.
I asked earlier, does anyone know the supreme court status on this? they ruled to remove under god after the case, but then I heard some BS about all senators saying it was insane etc...
I say as an atheist "god bless supreme court judges"!
they rock our world!
Also, I don't take the stance of removing under god cuzz it's 'wrong", just cuzz it's illegal.
So if our country changed the law so it was legal, then I have no factual basis, none really good anyways, that it "should" be removed.
ALso, I assert the claim (which is actually a premise for a much greater claim) that religion is anti-humanitarian, and thus spreading it is anti-humanitarian, thus making the spreader anti-humanitarian.
But I recognize the power of, power. And I understand that I'm not going to use emotions to fight claims.
I FEEL it's wrong, and hate people who do it, but I choose not to use those because they're not objective.
I asked earlier, does anyone know the supreme court status on this? they ruled to remove under god after the case, but then I heard some BS about all senators saying it was insane etc...
I say as an atheist "god bless supreme court judges"!
they rock our world!
- #108
damgo
Like, maybe, when it really, yknow, matters?
- #109
damgo
The Supreme Court has not yet heard the case.
The 9th Circuit threw out the words; the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant cert -- to hear the case. They should do that within the next couple weeks.
The 9th Circuit threw out the words; the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant cert -- to hear the case. They should do that within the next couple weeks.
- #110
LogicalAtheist
Let us hope for humanity, being an influencial country, that they are thrown out.
Damgo - when does "it" matter?
While a teacher molesting a child disrupts a few lives, the imposition of religion onto an entire nations generation damages humanity (so says I) in an unfixable manner!
Damgo - when does "it" matter?
While a teacher molesting a child disrupts a few lives, the imposition of religion onto an entire nations generation damages humanity (so says I) in an unfixable manner!
- #111
Mattius_
- 8
- 0
i don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, nor do i care to scroll through each and every post to see, but the 'under god' part was added during the cold war because communists by creed do not believe in a higher being... and if I am correct, that is the reason why its being banned in the first place... so we can now conclude that communists are taking over the united states...
- #112
BoulderHead
Those "Godless Communists"
I think many people were actually only fighting Atheism all those years...
I think many people were actually only fighting Atheism all those years...
- #113
Zero
That's a novel interpretation, if nothing else.
- #114
Zero
This could be a good separate thread: Is the general hatred of communism based mainly on a hatred of atheism?
- #115
Mattius_
- 8
- 0
sarcasm zero
- #116
Zero
Originally posted by Mattius_
sarcasm zero
Well, it isn't like I can hear your tone of voice, now can I? Plus, I've read stranger posts than that my two years here.
- #117
LogicalAtheist
Since you use "general" I'll comment.
I would say today the general hatred of communism in America is because of one thing; conditioning.
I would bet that in a random poll representing american citizens of the newer generations, age 30 and below, you'd find that barely any could define communism.
Thus since they wouldn't know what it was, if you asked them if it was "bad" they'd probably say yes, and you could conclude it's because conditioning.
In fact I would further bet if you polled people on "what was the religions of communist leaders" or "what was the religion of ___" filled in with the name of a communist leader, nearly none would guess correctly.
- #118
Zero
Sure..and it would be cool to discuss this in a separate thread.
- #119
LogicalAtheist
Well it's what the thread is about. I merely looked at what's been said since I posted. I don't read the whole thing over agian, just the new stuff.
So move it! Or start a new one and pop a link here for us to follow.
So move it! Or start a new one and pop a link here for us to follow.
- #120
Zero
Getting back on topic...
- #121
LogicalAtheist
Yes back on topic. My response (again) to the original post.
Of course "under god" should be removed, it's illegal!
Of course "under god" should be removed, it's illegal!
- #122
schwarzchildradius
No, it shouldn't! It's traditional! Just so long as kids get to substitute the name of their particular trendy god into it during the pledge, there's nothing wrong with it. Hey those commies are scary.
- #123
LogicalAtheist
SO let's see here.
1. It's against the law for government do endorse religion.
2. "under god" endorses religion
3. You believe that the government should be allowed to break the law?
It's tradition? No it's not, it's barely been there but a couple of decades, and was properly absent MUCH LONGER.
Just so long as kids get to substitute? You missed the point here. It's illegal. SO should the government also be allowed to randomly decimate people, so long as the person gets to choose their particular trendy way to be murdered?
- #124
BoulderHead
Mention was made in this thread about the consequences of removing those words from the pledge and how it might be, how should I say it, traumatic? But has anyone discussed what 'society' went through in the first place when those words were originally inserted into the pledge, or considered that indeed life settled back to normal afterwards? I think calmer heads would prevail, fanatics would be dealt with, and eventually people would settle down.
Now, what about this God business when swearing in a secular court of law?
Now, what about this God business when swearing in a secular court of law?
- #125
Mattius_
- 8
- 0
Well athiest, I am sorry to burst your bubble but this is a realistic society and humans will always crush the other human minority whether it is against the rules or not... i do recall you posting in another post that you break laws regularly(nothing big)... so you are stabbing at our government from every possible direction(in this case with "law") and yet you yourself break the law on a regular basis? it seems to me you are more intent on bringing our current government down than sticking with your ideals...
let not yourself be washed away into blind disagreement... and I am not sitting on my throne condemning you either because i have caught myself frequently doing the same thing... just trying to teach objectivism here, i think we could all use a lesson.
let not yourself be washed away into blind disagreement... and I am not sitting on my throne condemning you either because i have caught myself frequently doing the same thing... just trying to teach objectivism here, i think we could all use a lesson.
- #126
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
So we should embrace this? Ok!
All americans, down your weapons now! The chinese are the majority, and instead of waiting for them to crush you, let's just surrender to their will. All heil Hu Jintao! All heil Hu Jintao!
Disagree? Your feeble laws will not stop us from crushing you! Mwhahahaha!
Where? I think you will find the law breaking is all within a very directed and self-contain plan.
Oh, so the government is always right is it now? Mind if I just point out that this stabbing now is in terms of removing a senseless law, as presumeable the law breaking.
I dunno, but sometimes that could be the same thing, perhaps? And did we say bring down the government? No, we say update it.
Yours or ours?
- #127
LogicalAtheist
I agree with FZ. Mattius's post is filled with problems. I think FZ got them all.
SO, yeesh, all I have to say is that Mattius you aren't the majority. Secondly, remember the population of atheism is rapidly climbing.
But more importantly, the population of non-religion people is huge. It's over 33% now.
I'm just going to pretend he never posted it, and not point out all the serious issues with his psyche. Good day!
SO, yeesh, all I have to say is that Mattius you aren't the majority. Secondly, remember the population of atheism is rapidly climbing.
But more importantly, the population of non-religion people is huge. It's over 33% now.
I'm just going to pretend he never posted it, and not point out all the serious issues with his psyche. Good day!
- #128
Zero
Where did you get that 33% from? Is that America, or worldwide?
- #129
LogicalAtheist
Just the United States citizens.
- #130
kat
- 42
- 0
What's your source for the % you quote? If there's a link, would you mind sharing?
- #131
LogicalAtheist
Let me see what I can find...
- #132
damgo
see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm for some info
- #133
LogicalAtheist
1. I can provide sites with much more scientific results. And specific results of the younger generations also, which gives insight into upcoming change.
However, this statement makes me happy enough not to ***** too much:
"14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together."
Sounds good to me. Doubled since 1990, and that's from 2001. Let's hope this time it doubles inhalf the time.
"The only way to have heaven on Earth is for Earth to be atheist."
--L.A.
However, this statement makes me happy enough not to ***** too much:
"14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together."
Sounds good to me. Doubled since 1990, and that's from 2001. Let's hope this time it doubles inhalf the time.
"The only way to have heaven on Earth is for Earth to be atheist."
--L.A.
- #134
kat
- 42
- 0
Damgo-Thanks for the link, I love that site..I'm always finding the info I'm looking for there. It also linked to the ARIS study that I had accessed in a lengthy discussion in the religious forum at the old PF site.
LA- Just for the record (and I'm sure you realize this) Non-religious is not the same as not following an organized religion. I know many religious people who are very vocal about not following an organized religion..that doesn't make them any less...erm fanatical.
At any rate, I don't see a 33% non-religious reference on either Damgo's link or the ARIS study, it seems really high to me. I'll leave it at that since this subject is waaaay off topic and if I continue, zero will be threatening to spank me. ;)
LA- Just for the record (and I'm sure you realize this) Non-religious is not the same as not following an organized religion. I know many religious people who are very vocal about not following an organized religion..that doesn't make them any less...erm fanatical.
At any rate, I don't see a 33% non-religious reference on either Damgo's link or the ARIS study, it seems really high to me. I'll leave it at that since this subject is waaaay off topic and if I continue, zero will be threatening to spank me. ;)
- #135
schwarzchildradius
you think he's joking? China just launched the sino version of GPS, man, that's the system we use to guide our JDAMS and Hellfire etc.
- #136
Dissident Dan
- 238
- 2
There was a 33% from that Religious Tolerance website, but it wasn't for atheists:
Anyway, "under god" has no place in the pledge (not that I like the idea of pledging in the first place...let alone at the age of 5), regardless of the religious demographics of the nation.
Anyway, "under god" has no place in the pledge (not that I like the idea of pledging in the first place...let alone at the age of 5), regardless of the religious demographics of the nation.
- #137
Nicool003
I would object to it but it seems in the few days I was gone from PF quite a bit happened. Anyways according to LA people Dont have rights and entitlements so I guess I don't have the right to object huh?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #138
Zero
Exactly. I don't care if there has never been an atheist within a thousand miles of your particular school. Looking at demographics on this is like keeping a racist school mascot on the grounds that no one of that ethnicity goes to school there, and if they did they could just avert their eyes.
- #139
schwarzchildradius
religion is way to personal to legislate. Obviously it was just a propaganda device against the communists, but has viceral meaning for fundamentalists today. Removing it with the judicial system would tick a lot of people off, and probably create a few Republicans. Hey, this is a democracy, why can't we vote for this?
- #140
Zero
So, now we are going to vote to take away my religious freedom...sweet!