Should 'god' be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Well, I see you fall back directly upon the same tired "history" that most religious people do. Please see my post above concerning the Massachussetts Bay Colony vs. Jamestown for my previous refutation of that.

That sounds like a stereotype... I read your post....

Also, you say that it was common that people of the day were Christians, and so you again note that the Founders must have meant for us to follow Christian principles. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Note how carefully the Constitution is written to avoid just that. The framers of the Constitution were men of larger vision.

Slow down there.... You can be "God fearing", without being Christian... Please enlighten me where I said, "that it was common that people of the day were Christians, and so you again note that the Founders must have meant for us to follow Christian principles." I apologize that my statements are so misleading...

I'm in a hurry, but:

1) I don't care what soldiers on a battlefield believe about God. I'd rather put my faith in my own, calm, rational thought process than anything that might cross my mind while I'm under extreme stress.

Interesting....

2) What do I have to "loose" by believing in a god without any rational evidence? I lose any possible faith I have in my own senses, mind, or physical abilities. I lose the comfort of knowing that the real world exists. I lose my foundation in the world. THAT's what I lose.

Sorry to hear that...

 

[vat_man]

Good to see this debate has foundered on a rock of religious debate, rather than the actual reasoning behind the decision of the high court, and whether the phrasing of the pledge is actually in contravention of the first amendment.

Stimulus - reaction. So predictable. Where's the analysis?

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Can you please explain to me, exactly, how this country was founded under the direction of God? Give examples from the Constitution that support your theory.

How about from the Declaration of Independence.....

The Declaration of Independence states in no uncertain terms that our rights come from God—that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In a sense, the basic framework of our country has grown out of this concept of God-centered rights. But take God out of the equation, as so many have tried to do, and we are left with a nation whose freedoms stem from nothing more than the whims of those in power—a concept the framers of our Constitution abhorred.

Taken from http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/124/44.0.html

 

[Duke]

Vat_man: I've already shown by analysis of the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, how including the words "under God" and "In God We Trust" is directly unconstitutional. The Pledge is adopted by law as the National Pledge. The currency is designed and approved by law. Therefore, both items are "laws" and are forbidden to mention God, who remains a religious figure, no matter how much religious people care to argue semantics about exactly whose god he may be.

Pako: I see you're going to continue ignoring the bulk of my previous words. You can paint American history as being driven by some Christian fight for religious freedom if you choose to highlight only certain events and documents. But that is rather like saying the Orioles did a really good job for getting 3 runs in last night's game, while ignoring the Yankee's winning performance with 7 runs. It may be the picture you want to see, but it's not the whole picture.

The fact remains that America was not founded upon the Declaration of Independence. It is founded upon the US Constitution, which was not composed during the heat of the American Revolution, but was the end product of careful, rational thinking and planning by some of the best minds who ever lived. I doubt it will have any effect on you, but I urge you to follow the link below and actually READ the Constitution with an open mind.

The text of the US Constitution.

As I said previously, it is an extremely carefully written document that offers no words of a spiritual or religious nature. It is founded upon Enlightenment principles of rationality, ethics, and liberty.

I challenge you again to show me where the Constitution - the basis of American government, and the single best document ever written - demonstrates "God-fearing", "Christian", or otherwise religious principles.

 

[Jordan]

"...Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever..."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jordan]

Hmmm, here's another interesting quote from Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, one of the 3 judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who voted against the removal...

...phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

 

[Talentless]

Let me try this again.

In principle, religion and government are suppose to be separate.

If one bases the removal of the words "under God" on how it affects their religion, i.o, how "sensitive it is, I think there is an element of hypocricy in doing that.

 

[Talentless]

If it were a direct abuse, no, but I do not know of the gov. being obligated in some national way of speaking of, or not, of some religion an some inclusive form in whatever.

 

[Pako]

Pako: I see you're going to continue ignoring the bulk of my previous words. You can paint American history as being driven by some Christian fight for religious freedom if you choose to highlight only certain events and documents. But that is rather like saying the Orioles did a really good job for getting 3 runs in last night's game, while ignoring the Yankee's winning performance with 7 runs. It may be the picture you want to see, but it's not the whole picture.

Your opinion of my ignorance is just that. That facts are facts. Yes, I totally agree with you that Constitution is a well thoughtout, methodically planned, and well written contract of this nation. I do not belittle that document in the slightest. I will not, however, ignore history that sculpted the landscape of this great nation. Only looking at "highlight"ed parts of history as you call is our history and that's that, they lived and they died and what we have is a recorded history through transcripts, stories and folk lore. This is a tough call that needs an equal balance, but historically speaking, it is what it is, and wheither or not you want to believe it or not, these great men, did in fact believe in God...but I suppose that these great men would be ingorant in your eyes as well. In any case, what done is done, and the decisions made by the supreme court are hard choices that I am in no capacity to make.

But as I see it, what the sick part of it is, is that this anti-god movement is a religeon in it's self. What's up with that, and sorry for the stray from the original topic, but it is addressing issues that you have brought up.

 

[Jordan]

Originally posted by Pako


But as I see it, what the sick part of it is, is that this anti-god movement is a religeon in it's self. What's up with that, and sorry for the stray from the original topic, but it is addressing issues that you have brought up.

I couldn't have said it better myself...

 

[1X83Z]

So what's the official GTP call?

I'm actually surprised to see so many members defending the court's decision - a poll on AOL showed 86% of respondents did not support that decision (me, included). It's the classic black and white issue, as vat_man said, all reaction, no analysis (except in this thread!). Either you see it one way, or you see it another, and, as George Bush believes, there's no gray area.

What I don't understand is how that everyone doesn't understand that the Pledge is not, under any circumstances forced in schools. You must stand, but you don't have to recite it - and that's the thing brought under fire.

If the atheists can't take being surrounded by religion, though (as is the case with the man who brought the suit, who's a doctor and a lawyer - as Don Imus said, 'he should sue himself for malpractice), then they need a reality check - it's everywhere. In God We Trust is the government's motto, it's Florida's state motto, it's in 'God Bless America' (not surprisingly) and in countless other venues and places at all times. If you can't deal with that, there's nothing you can deal with.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
Your opinion of my ignorance is just that. That facts are facts.
<snip>
I will not, however, ignore history that sculpted the landscape of this great nation.
<snip>
historically speaking, it is what it is, and wheither or not you want to believe it or not, these great men, did in fact believe in God...but I suppose that these great men would be ingorant in your eyes as well.
<snip>
But as I see it, what the sick part of it is, is that this anti-god movement is a religeon in it's self. What's up with that, and sorry for the stray from the original topic, but it is addressing issues that you have brought up.

I've never said you were ignorant. I merely pointed out that you were focusing on certain events that specifically backed your claim, while ignoring much larger points that did not back your claim.

I'm not ignoring the historical landscape at all, and it would be inexcusably arrogant of me to consider the framers of the Constitution as "ignorant". HOWEVER, I must insist that the writers of the Constitution, most notably Jefferson, were men of large enough vision and deep enough strength to lay their personal beliefs aside, in the understanding that others may not share them. Regardless of their own religious convictions, they understood that those convictions were NOT in fact universal, and that the Constitution and government of the United States must reflect that completely.

Consequently, the document was written as it was. It allows complete personal freedom of religion to each citizen. In order to do so, it expressly forbids any sort of government backing of religion.

And no matter how you try to sidestep the issue, and no matter what Judge Fernandez may think, including those words DOES inhibit my freedom of religion.

You and Jordan are right; that trying to remove all traces of religion can be viewed as a religion itself. YOU argue strongly and fight passionately for your views. Am I not allowed to, just because I don't feel divinely] inspired? Are my convictions not allowed to be as strong as yours, because I'm an atheist? That's kind of like Gil wondering how I could be happy, or Jordan wondering why I would be good, without the influence of a god. Why is it impossible for you to believe I could be?

M5Power says we atheists should "deal with it". That's flat out hypocrisy. How much tolerance has the Religious Right shown for people with differing morals? Very little. Ask any homosexual, even one in a committed, monogamous relationship. Ask any health teacher who wants to give his/her students all the information they can, to help them through the trying times of adolescence. Many religious people have not really shown much ability to "deal with it", have they? Yet we are required to, because we're only atheists.

As I've said numerous times throughout this thread: removing those words does not interfere with your personal freedom in any way whatsoever. I challenge you to demonstrate to me how it does. You're still welcome to believe in God, to trust in Him, and to consider your nation as subservient to His will.

Yet I am denied my Constitutional freedoms by those words being there.

 

[Pako]

It's very simple I guess...and well put neon_duke. Laws written by men can very simply be changed by men.

(By 1954, when the words "under God" were tacked onto it, the country was in turmoil. It was the Cold War era, and anti-Communist sentiment was at its height. Americans viewed the Soviet Union as a godless monster. In the heat of the politics of the day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, recognizing the nation's need for a Supreme Being to provide strength and comfort, remarked, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.")

SO you think we don't need God anymore? Your belief system won't allow the thought of God, your faith in the world and yourself has no room for God. Let me ask you something... Is teaching about Creation in public schools against the constitution? Is teaching about evolution, in the same right, unconstitutional? But like I said, what's done is done, but I wonder what's next. I would hate to live in a god-less world, people have tried that in the past, and it doesn't workout so well...

Another thought for you, prohibiting my right of expressing freedom of speach and the acknowlegement of God is in direct conflict of my freedom of religion. If.....if we made people say the pledge under gun point, forcing people to recite it, then yes...it would be unconstitutional, but this is not the case. With the latest ruling, I am being denied my rights without the option of choice. Before the ruling, there was atleast a choice that each american had.

A atheist is allowed their views in a science text book to express their "Theories" of evolution, yet the concept of creation is being denied, what kids are being taught is just one groups adopted opinions, views and theories..... This is not freedom, but a pre-doctored display of forced religon, the very thing the constitution was written to protect and stop from happening. So is it unconstitutional to have "God" in the pledge? No it is not, no one is requred to say it, and anyone can choose not to, because we live in a free society that has been outlined by our constitution.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
SO you think we don't need God anymore? Your belief system won't allow the thought of God, your faith in the world and yourself has no room for God. Let me ask you something... Is teaching about Creation in public schools against the constitution? Is teaching about evolution, in the same right, unconstitutional? But like I said, what's done is done, but I wonder what's next. I would hate to live in a god-less world, people have tried that in the past, and it doesn't workout so well...

Another thought for you, prohibiting my right of expressing freedom of speach and the acknowlegement of God is in direct conflict of my freedom of religion. If.....if we made people say the pledge under gun point, forcing people to recite it, then yes...it would be unconstitutional, but this is not the case. With the latest ruling, I am being denied my rights without the option of choice. Before the ruling, there was atleast a choice that each american had.

A atheist is allowed their views in a science text book to express their "Theories" of evolution, yet the concept of creation is being denied, what kids are being taught is just one groups adopted opinions, views and theories..... This is not freedom, but a pre-doctored display of forced religon, the very thing the constitution was written to protect and stop from happening. So is it unconstitutional to have "God" in the pledge? No it is not, no one is requred to say it, and anyone can choose not to, because we live in a free society that has been outlined by our constitution.

Who isn't REQUIRED to say the Pledge? When I was in school (albeit 25 years ago), the loudseaker came on, and the Principal - you remember, the scary guy responsible for discipline - said "All rise and recite the Pledge of Allegience." It wasn't an option, it wasn't a request, it was WHAT YOU WERE TOLD TO DO BY AN AUTHORITY FIGURE.

You may well hate to live in a godless world. In NO WAY am I asking you to. I'm not saying WE don't need god anymore. I'm saying I don't. You are welcome to fill your life with God. I am not inhibiting your free speech by removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. You are welcome to say that America is subservient to the Will of God until you pass out from lack of oxygen. There is nothing from preventing you from holding or expressing that opinion in public - so long as you are doing it as an individual citizen, or representing a private organization such as your church, club, or parochial school. The moment you do so within an official capacity as a member of this country's government, then you are violating the terms of the Constitution.

Personally, I would hate to live in a god-dominated world. THAT has been tried in the past, as well, more times and on a much greater scale than atheism - with correspondingly worse results. I'll mention a few: How about the Dark Ages? The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials of the Massachussetts Bay Colony? Three thousand continuous years of Middle East warfare? The Taliban? Would you care to cite some specific examples of societies that were destroyed specifically by their atheism - not by fascism, or corrupt and unsustainable economic policies - by their atheism?

Concerning Evolution versus Creation - I have no problem, provided that each is taught in the correct context. If you teach Creation in my Biology class, you bet I've got a problem with it. I wouldn't talk about chemistry during a history lecture. If you teach Creation as part of the Humanities curriculum, it's no problem whatsoever. It's part of the history of human culture, and is perfectly correct when taught in that setting.

I'll ask you this - if you are going to teach Christian Biblical Creationism as if it were fact, what are you going to say about other religious theories? You may scoff at evolution all you wish, but how are you going to defend your myth of creation against, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the story of Shiva the Creator and Destroyer, or any one of a hundred equally divine stories?

All you can say to that is: "But my creation is different. It's RIGHT! My God told me so."

Ultimately, that's what it boils down to. That's why religion has no place being taught as science, and why religion has no place in government, no matter how much you may think it should be, and no matter how small the part. I can't say it any more clearly:

[SIZE=LARGE]Keeping religion completely out of government DOES NOT interfere with your private right to worship your God in any way.

Allowing religion to play any role in government INEVITABLY restricts the rights of a portion of the citizens, by requiring them to accept the burden of a different god (or any god at all).[/SIZE]

Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Pako]

Who isn't REQUIRED to say the Pledge? A very close friend of mine was raised a Jahovah's Witness, and she never said the pledge period, as saying a pledge to the "Flag" was idolitory. She had a choice, and because of her beliefs, chose not to say the pledge all together. And yes, I remember the task master on the intercome, very scary....

The moment you do so within an official capacity as a member of this country's government, then you are violating the terms of the Constitution. The moment you delete God within an official capacity as a member of this country's government, then you are violating the terms of this Constitution by forcing view's and opinions. To suit the needs of all individuals, a "or" statement would need to be added. Something like, "One nation under God or by the work of men....." I see your point, but my reasoning must be too far out, and rediculous for you to see mine and that's o.k..

Would you care to cite some specific examples of societies that were destroyed specifically by their atheism - not by fascism, or corrupt and unsustainable economic policies - by their atheism? Yes, point taken. But you seem to have a very strong association between God and a legalistic religious sect. I assure you there is a great difference between the two. Fighting under the name of Allah or God or Christ or some other devine intellect does not mean that the deeds of men are being guided by God. Human decisions and errors are not inspired by God, but rather by the limitations of our race. I appologize in advance if these concepts are hard to grasp, because it takes a belief that God exist to even consider the possibility so this may be a mute point to try and get accross to you, which is ok.

Concerning Evolution versus Creation - I have no problem, provided that each is taught in the correct context. If you teach Creation in my Biology class, you bet I've got a problem with it. I wouldn't talk about chemistry during a history lecture. If you teach Creation as part of the Humanities curriculum, it's no problem whatsoever. It's part of the history of human culture, and is perfectly correct when taught in that setting. Let's talk for a minute about this... What started it all? Where was the beginning? Evolution theories suggest that there was a "Big Bang" which I know your familiar with. Other theories is that it was created by a force, a divine being greater than what we could even begin to comprehend. Am I saying to teach Creation as fact? No, that is a choice if given the chance, but why exclude it. If we were to exclude creation as a possibility, as it is view by some as no more than a theory based on a religious foundation, than the exclusion of the "Big Bang" theory should also be excluded for the same reasons, but yet it is taught. How about this theory, that through evolution, God created the universe. It's a theory and even a possibility, but that isn't in any public school books either. If we want our youth to have an open mind to be able to make conclusions on their own, then we have a obligation to provide all the resources that are available.

I'll ask you this - if you are going to teach Christian Biblical Creationism as if it were fact, what are you going to say about other religious theories? You may scoff at evolution all you wish, but how are you going to defend your myth of creation against, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the story of Shiva the Creator and Destroyer, or any one of a hundred equally divine stories? I remember being taught about Shiva in school, in mythology...

All you can say to that is: "But my creation is different. It's RIGHT! My God told me so." Umm....I beg to differ. I am not so divine myself as to say I have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe. It is possible that all the different cultures, worshiping their divine god, could infact be enlightened by the same divine force. There are, however, specific teachings that I adhear to and have choosen to adopt. The older I get, and the more I learn, the more I come to realize how little we know about anything. There is so much that is unknown to us as we are but a feable race of people spiraling through space among a multitude of unknowns.

Ultimately, that's what it boils down to. That's why religion has no place being taught as science, and why religion has no place in government, no matter how much you may think it should be, and no matter how small the part. I'm assuming that you see the start of the universe as a cosmic event of natural origon, but it's interesting that all science is, is trying to figure out how God did it, and observing how he makes things work. Quantum Physics is an area that science can't begin to explain. There is a force all around us and around each and every molecule, yet I have comfort in knowing Who is responsible for our existence, while all you have is theories. I don't think I can be anymore clear than that.

In keeping an open mind, all perspectives must be looked at and considered. There is no man written law that is full proof as we can see from all the ammendments to the constitution. Again, there will be differences of opinions here as we have a totally different belief system.

Keeping religion completely out of government DOES NOT interfere with your private right to worship your God in any way.

Allowing religion to play any role in government INEVITABLY restricts the rights of a portion of the citizens, by requiring them to accept the burden of a different god (or any god at all). Again, your views of God and religion are one in the same, but I'm here to tell you that a religious organization, although necessary in some respects, does not govern who God is nor does it alter the fact that there is a divine force at work that is much greater than any of us.

Why is that so difficult to understand? It is not a difficult concept to understand, as it is a concept that can be interpted at face value. But it is a shallow concept to adopt.

 

[Jordan]

I'm assuming that you see the start of the universe as a cosmic event of natural origon, but it's interesting that all science is, is trying to figure out how God did it, and observing how he makes things work. Quantum Physics is an area that science can't begin to explain. There is a force all around us and around each and every molecule, yet I have comfort in knowing Who is responsible for our existence, while all you have is theories. I don't think I can be anymore clear than that.

Nope, I don't think it can. Very good point, Pako. :thumbsup:

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
The moment you delete God within an official capacity as a member of this country's government, then you are violating the terms of this Constitution by forcing view's and opinions.

I'm trying hard to meet you in the middle, but this statement is still logically incorrect. The First Amendment specifically forbids God having an official capacity within the US government, as does Article VI (I believe). Not mentioning God leaves you free to personally acknowledge His sovreignty if you wish. Explicitly mentioning God directly prohibits me from believing otherwise. That's the fundamental difference between the two viewpoints. Mine allows you the freedom to believe as you choose. Yours does not allow me the same.

But you seem to have a very strong association between God and a legalistic religious sect. I assure you there is a great difference between the two.

But that's precisely what we're discussing - religion operating in an official capacity as part of the US government. I will defend to the death your right to worship individually as it pleases you. An individual's personal relationship with God is entirely outside of this argument, and indeed entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and therefore the government. That's a seperate topic, which I will be glad to discuss as well; but it is not relevant to my objection to God appearing on the currency and in the Pledge.

If we want our youth to have an open mind to be able to make conclusions on their own, then we have a obligation to provide all the resources that are available.

That is correct, and again I agree wholeheartedly. I have not rejected religion out of some superstitious fear. I have done so after studying history, philosophy, and the Bible itself, among other things.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that Creation should be taught alongside Evolution in a science classroom. It should be taught, but within the framework of the humanities, not the sciences.

I remember being taught about Shiva in school, in mythology...

Then why wouldn't Christian Creationism be logically placed there, as well?

There is a force all around us and around each and every molecule, yet I have comfort in knowing Who is responsible for our existence, while all you have is theories. I don't think I can be anymore clear than that.

But I am not questioning that you believe this, nor trying to prevent you from doing so. I fail to see what this means? I'm merely trying to prevent you (not specifically you, of course) from damaging my freedom to believe differently.

It is not a difficult concept to understand, as it is a concept that can be interpted at face value. But it is a shallow concept to adopt.

I realize you probably meant no harm, but I am deeply offended by this statement. It is a common perception that I have encountered from religious people throughout my life. You seem to think that I am shallow because I have no regard for God. To you, it appears that I can have no deeper perception or spirituality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that my perception of mankind's spirit does not require the intervention of the supernatural. Why cannot an atheist have deep ethical and philosophical thoughts? Who is spiritually stronger - a person who uses self discipline and rationality to determine their own ethical course, or one who relies upon an external code that is given to him?

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Pako

The moment you do so within an official capacity as a member of this country's government, then you are violating the terms of the Constitution. The moment you delete God within an official capacity as a member of this country's government, then you are violating the terms of this Constitution by forcing view's and opinions. To suit the needs of all individuals, a "or" statement would need to be added. Something like, "One nation under God or by the work of men....." I see your point, but my reasoning must be too far out, and rediculous for you to see mine and that's o.k..

I disagree. By removing "God" from the pledge, you are simply complying with the Constitution. No views or beliefs are being forced-- the LACK of "God" in such a document does not imply Atheism. Atheism would be implied if the Pledge read "and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under NO God...". THAT would be forcing an atheistic view. However, the simply nonexistance of God within the text is not a religious statement...no strings attatched. Neon-duke stated this, as well.

I'm assuming that you see the start of the universe as a cosmic event of natural origon, but it's interesting that all science is, is trying to figure out how God did it, and observing how he makes things work. Quantum Physics is an area that science can't begin to explain. There is a force all around us and around each and every molecule, yet I have comfort in knowing Who is responsible for our existence, while all you have is theories. I don't think I can be anymore clear than that.

To say that science is simply "trying to figure out how God did it, and observing how he makes things work" only works if there is an unchallenged consensus that God exists. I don't think your view is anything more than a theory, either. A theory is something that is unproven...and I have not seen any proof in God's existence...I only see speculation.

Allowing religion to play any role in government INEVITABLY restricts the rights of a portion of the citizens, by requiring them to accept the burden of a different god (or any god at all). Again, your views of God and religion are one in the same, but I'm here to tell you that a religious organization, although necessary in some respects, does not govern who God is nor does it alter the fact that there is a divine force at work that is much greater than any of us.

The beliefs of the given religion DEFINE God as the organization knows it. Therefore, that organization has little tolerance for beliefs that do not meet the standards for the given religion's concept of God.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Pako
The moment you delete God within an official capacity as a member of this country's government, then you are violating the terms of this Constitution by forcing view's and opinions.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the most illogical statements I've ever read. I'll elaborate in another post, as I am busy right now...

Let's talk for a minute about this... What started it all? Where was the beginning? Evolution theories suggest that there was a "Big Bang" which I know your familiar with. Other theories is that it was created by a force, a divine being greater than what we could even begin to comprehend. Am I saying to teach Creation as fact? No, that is a choice if given the chance, but why exclude it. If we were to exclude creation as a possibility, as it is view by some as no more than a theory based on a religious foundation, than the exclusion of the "Big Bang" theory should also be excluded for the same reasons, but yet it is taught. How about this theory, that through evolution, God created the universe. It's a theory and even a possibility, but that isn't in any public school books either. If we want our youth to have an open mind to be able to make conclusions on their own, then we have a obligation to provide all the resources that are available.

As an in-going AP Bio student, let me bring up an important point... there is a difference between the way you are using the word "theory", and how it is scientifically used. Let me quote:

Suppose no one has disproved a hypothesis after years of rigorous tests. Suppose scientists use it to explain more data or observations, which could involve more hypotheses. When a hypothesis meets these criteria, it may become accepted as a scientific theory.
You may hear someone apply the word "theory" as to a speculative idea, as in the expression "It's only a theory". However, a scientific theory differs from speculation for a simple reason: Many researchers have tested its predictive power many times, in many ways, and have yet to find evidence that disproves it. This is why Darwin's view of natural selection is a respected theory. We use it to successfully explain many diverse issues, such as the origin of life, the relationship between plant toxins and plant-eating animals, the sexual advantages of strongly colored or patterned wings or feathers, the reason that certain cancers run in families, or why antibiotics that doctors often prescribe may no longer be effective. By yielding reasoned evidence that life evolved in the past, the theory even influenced views of Earth history.

^--- That is not the context that you were using "theory" in.

There is a force all around us and around each and every molecule, yet I have comfort in knowing Who is responsible for our existence, while all you have is theories. I don't think I can be anymore clear than that.

*Ahem* What mighteth this do with my (or neon_duke's, or any atheists') religious freedom?

But it is a shallow concept to adopt.

You're accusing me of not giving this any thought?

From neon_duke:
It is a common perception that I have encountered from religious people throughout my life.

Same here. Why must you religious people think that we merely "follow the facts", "I can't comprehend God so he must not exist", etc.? That is ludicrous, quite simply. I have used up a lot of my time thinking (and to an extent, researching) these issues, and thus here I am today, a morally and ethically sound person, not a shallow idiot as you (or others) might think atheists are.

 

[Pako]

Ok, I try to make a very simple example to illustrate.

Can we all agree that nothing is something? A hole in a block of wood is a good example, or better yet, a black hole being a complete void of matter, yet it is something.

The removal of God in the pledge is denying that God exists, through the absence of it, which endorces one belief, but denies another. On the other hand, with stated "Under God" also endorces a belief onto others that might dissagree. It's a double edge sword, with the easy solution to just abolish it's existance. I know that you cannot deny the fact that the absence of God in the plege as well as the absence of God on our countries currencies, would be in support of your atheistic views and opinions, this you cannot deny as it is your belief that no God exist. You have that right, as a citizen of the United States to have that opinion, but again...if the existance of God should not be recognized by our government, then why would the belief that a lack of God also be endoursed? What makes a organization religious? The basis that a mass of people believe in God? I think not, atheism is a belief that is endorced by organizations which can be interprited as a religon or better yet a belief system. I'm sure you can see the delima as I can see yours....

I can see that we are forever to dissagree on this but feel fortunate to hear your thoughts on this subject as other peoples ideals and belief systems interest me, and I thank you for keeping this conversation civil and mature.

Perhaps we could get a cup of coffee sometime and do some serious racin', I'm sure we have similar views in that area...

BTW - I might add that with other forms of currency, the "In God We Trust" is not stamped on bank accounts, debit cards, or credit cards. Promisary notes are also lacking the "In God We Trust" statement. So it looks like you also have an alternative in regards to this topic as well....

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Pako
The removal of God in the pledge is denying that God exists, through the absence of it, which endorces one belief, but denies another. On the other hand, with stated "Under God" also endorces a belief onto others that might dissagree. It's a double edge sword, with the easy solution to just abolish it's existance. I know that you cannot deny the fact that the absence of God in the plege as well as the absence of God on our countries currencies, would be in support of your atheistic views and opinions, this you cannot deny as it is your belief that no God exist.

That's simply an incorrect, bogus point of view.

Example:

I would say that any book which thanks, glorifies, or praises Jesus is promoting or advocating a Christian message. Likewise, I would say any books that glorify or praise the beliefs that God does not exist are promoting or advocating an atheist point of view. I'm sure we can agree on those two points.
HOWEVER, is it reasonable to say that a book that simply DOES NOT MENTION GOD is promoting an atheist message? "See Spot Run" NOWHERE mentions God...but SURELY you cannot try and convince me that "See Spot Run" is promoting atheist perspectives! The same applies to the Pledge of Allegiance!!! WITH the God phrase, it is promoting the glory of God, a religious entity. Without, it, it's just the Pledge of Allegiance...it has the same religious significance as "See Spot Run" -- NONE WHATSOEVER.

Since the constitution states that the government cannot promote or identify with any religious beliefs, the absence of "God" in the Pledge is the only constitutional solution, as it carries ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS MESSAGE WHATSOEVER.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Pako
Can we all agree that nothing is something?

That is entirely false. Nothing is not something... nothing is nothing. Technically, zero does not represent nothing. Nothing is the absense of something. You're defying the metaphysics rule of Identity, as I quote:

An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

A hole in a block of wood is a good example,

Just because you're naming the "nothing" doesn't mean that it's a something.

or better yet, a black hole being a complete void of matter, yet it is something.

A black hole cannot be described as "nothing" (at least I haven't heard of it used in such a context). Yes, it is void of matter, but it still has whatever gravity force or what not, which is a something, not a nothing, (since it's identifiable) so of course a black hole is a something, not a nothing that is a something, which is impossible to begin with. (Ow, my head)

The removal of God in the pledge is denying that God exists,

No it's not. If I were to write a paragraph without the word "God" in it, I'm not denying his existance. For example, can you honestly say that I'm denying the existance of "God" in the following sentence?:

Apples are red.

Well, can you?

I know that you cannot deny the fact that the absence of God in the plege as well as the absence of God on our countries currencies, would be in support of your atheistic views and opinions, this you cannot deny as it is your belief that no God exist.

Wrong again. Supporting atheist beliefs would be putting "Under no God whatsoever" in the Pledge.

You have that right, as a citizen of the United States to have that opinion, but again...if the existance of God should not be recognized by our government, then why would the belief that a lack of God also be endoursed?

Removing "Under God" from the Pledge does not endorse atheism... going by that logic, I could say that since the Pledge doesn't say "Apples are food", the government must be endorsing the idea that we can't eat apples, which of course is absolutely flawed logic.

Perhaps we could get a cup of coffee sometime and do some serious racin', I'm sure we have similar views in that area...

I don't drink coffee... :smilewink

 

[Sage]

I see Stealth has beaten me to the flawed logic part.

BTW, here's some more info on nothing:

Nothing, or non-existence, is that which doesn't exist. It is not a metaphysical entity. It doesn't exist. It has no identity. It is not an object.

Non-existence is a concept that is meaningless by itself. It isn't something. It is a relational concept, gaining meaning only in comparison to another concept. Non-existence gains meaning only in comparison to existence. It is the denial of existence. The concept "nothing" is a denial of the existence of a particular entity. Both "non-existence" and "nothing" are denials of concepts, which must be accepted and understood in order to give meaning to "non-existence" or "nothing".

The important point is that "nothing" is just that: nothing. It doesn't exist. It has no identity. It's not a vacuum. It's not dark. It's not cold. It has no characteristics. As a tool of cognition, it can be useful, but doesn't exist.

 

[Gran Turismo7058]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper


It doesn't matter that you're Christian. It wouldn't matter if 100% of the whole damn country was Christian!!! The fact is that God and the government are required by law to be distinct and wholly separate, therefore the NATIONAL PLEDGE cannot involve God.

What the Hell are you talking about!

 

[1X83Z]

Nice avatar, neon_duke.

 

[Pako]

Alright, Stealth and Youth.... you guys are kidding right? I wonna here the disproving of nothing vs. nothing as nothing is nothing, so this is about nothing, which in turn does not exist, as even as I type this sentence about nothing, it's still about nothing, which I dare say is about something, which is simply nothing. I know you think that what I said is what I meant, but what I meant isn't exactly what you heard.

Let's get some soda pop then, or a nice glass of Alaskan Amber...

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Pako
Alright, Stealth and Youth.... you guys are kidding right? I wonna here the disproving of nothing vs. nothing as nothing is nothing, so this is about nothing, which in turn does not exist, as even as I type this sentence about nothing, it's still about nothing, which I dare say is about something, which is simply nothing. I know you think that what I said is what I meant, but what I meant isn't exactly what you heard.

Let's get some soda pop then, or a nice glass of Alaskan Amber...

So because you can't disprove or return our points of views, you are going to resort to petty insults and word games?

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by Powerman

Originally posted by Stealth Viper


It doesn't matter that you're Christian. It wouldn't matter if 100% of the whole damn country was Christian!!! The fact is that God and the government are required by law to be distinct and wholly separate, therefore the NATIONAL PLEDGE cannot involve God.


What the Hell are you talking about!

I can't see how Stealth Viper could have made that clearer - you're not familiar with the separation of church and state?

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Powerman
What the Hell are you talking about!

My goodness, how can you not know? He's talking about the main argument. Jeezez...

By M5
Nice avatar, neon_duke.

Yesh, very nice.

By Pako
Alright, Stealth and Youth.... you guys are kidding right?

No.

 

[1X83Z]

God and the government are required by the government to be wholly seperate. Think about that for a sec.