Should 'god' be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

[Sage]

Originally posted by M5Power
God and the government are required by the government to be wholly seperate. Think about that for a sec.

It's been repeated so many times in this thread, and it's repeated here again. What else is there to say? There's simply no rational argument against this idea.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper


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

Excuse me? You must be mistaken Stealth, I was having a very nice conversation with neon_duke and you come chomping at the bit with your rakes and torches..... Youth_Cycler was displaying some humor in his post and I was interacting with humor right back. Perhaps you should take a little time in your air plane and relax just a bit. And please do not accuse me of insulting anyone here as we are just expression our views on certain topics in this thread.

Thank you.

 

[vat_man]

The concept is pretty simple - religion's a matter between an individual and his God. The Government is simply there to provide an orderly society and provide for the material and physical needs of its citizens.

The church has no business in the day to day administrative affairs of the country - Iraq is a good example of a country where the church is the government.

 

[Sage]

I thought you said you were rooting for Congress, vat? (Just curious...)

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Pako
Have you read the entire thread, or did you just jump right in for your own fancy?

Nope. I had the 5th post in this thread, and have been active throughout (perhaps you just jumped in?).

Perhaps you should take a little time in your air plane and relax just a bit.

That sounds wonderful.

Thank you.

Any time.

 

[Sage]

Pako- Response to post #142 please.

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by youth_cycler
Pako- Response to post #142 please.

That's exactly what I'm looking for! The logic was so twisted and flawed, I was shocked!

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper


Nope. I had the 5th post in this thread, and have been active throughout (perhaps you just jumped in?).

After reading what I wrote in regards to you just jumping in for your fancy, I realized it was uncalled for as you've shown your consistent input in this thread. Please forgive my insolence and arrogant assumption of your lack of thoughtfulness in this discussion.

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Pako


After reading what I wrote in regards to you just jumping in for your fancy, I realized it was uncalled for as you've shown your consistent input in this thread. Please forgive my insolence and arrogant assumption of your lack of thoughtfulness in this discussion.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but I, too, apologize for my rude outburst. I am just slightly upset by what seems to me to be a consistent lack of sense on the part of many in this thread.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by youth_cycler
I thought you said you were rooting for Congress, vat? (Just curious...)

Where'd I say that?

Okay, having gone through the posts - somehow you associated me with the currency issue, an argument which is a total furphy (I guess using a Dirt Devil means you support Satan ).

I made a comment about loving Congress' response - it may have been a bit subtle, but I was being sarcastic - which I hinted at with my 'number of non-Christian congress members' comment.

 

[Sage]

Oh, sorry for my lack of interpretation.

(Remember, my feeble mind no worketh well)

And I'll be going now folks. Talk to ya tomorrow.

 

[Pako]

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.

Let us go back to the hole. Is the hole in the block of wood "something"? Yes, and why? Because it has a identity, what is it? It's a hole, and how do you know it's a hole, because something was there, now nothings there anymore except a hole.

Now the Pledge had something there, i.e. "Under God", now it's not there anymore. As you can see, it's the action of removing the words from the pledge that change the entire meaning of the pledge as adding something to it, would change it's meaning.

Your apple analogy was very good but a bit out of context, but using the apple analogy as an example, lets say you were selling apples on the street. Your sign said: "Wormy Apples For Sale". Realizing that no one would buy your apples, you decide to take the word "Worm" from your sign, thus denying the existance of any worms in your apples.

Just because you're naming the "nothing" doesn't mean that it's a something. [/qutoe]This is humor, not to be confused as fact, but have you seen "The Never Ending Story"? Valcore kept on popping into my head while I was trying to type the "nothing" reply which made it rather difficult to concentrate...

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)

This is where I laughed to myself, and decided to express some humor in my "nothing" post or word game as Stealth would call it...

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?

No you are not denying God's existance in that sentence...

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


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.

That is correct, in your example it would be flawed logic...

I don't drink coffee... :smilewink

As stated before, then lets have a pop or some Ice cold Alaskan Amber...

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Pako


Let us go back to the hole. Is the hole in the block of wood "something"? Yes, and why? Because it has a identity, what is it? It's a hole, and how do you know it's a hole, because something was there, now nothings there anymore except a hole.

Now the Pledge had something there, i.e. "Under God", now it's not there anymore. As you can see, it's the action of removing the words from the pledge that change the entire meaning of the pledge as adding something to it, would change it's meaning.

Your apple analogy was very good but a bit out of context, but using the apple analogy as an example, lets say you were selling apples on the street. Your sign said: "Wormy Apples For Sale". Realizing that no one would buy your apples, you decide to take the word "Worm" from your sign, thus denying the existence of any worms in your apples.

Frankly, I think the argument that the lack of "God" in the Pledge is simply a cheap cop-out to get "under God" back in. You must remember that in 1954 "under God" was added by what was then the radical Christian right wing. Before it was added, it was not suspected that the lack of "God" in the Pledge was a denial of his existence!

The fact of the matter is that IT IS VERY CLEAR AND YOU, TOO, KNOW THAT THE "GOD" IN THE PLEDGE WAS INTENEDED BY 1954'S RADICAL RIGHT TO BE THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD. By leaving this in the Pledge, it sets a precedent that the promotion certain religious figures and symbols are acceptable in government activities, documents, and other business. This precedent is one that can have extreme consequences. You have to look at "under God" as a relic of the 1950's widespread conservative Christian power. A couple of other relics of this...still in effect in some places:

• Outrageous laws - such as the illegality of purchasing alcohol on Sundays, still used in many areas...
  
• When the Supreme Court said in the late 50's and early 60's that religion could not be preached/taught in schools, school boards would take kids for 1-2 hours every day to a neighborhood church for ONLY CHRISTIAN education. This was a COMMON practice, no matter how ludicrous it sounds today. My father, the only Jew in his class, remember sitting alone at his desk (basically in detention) not allowed to speak or move for 2 hours while his classmates went to Church DURING THE SCHOOL DAY.

Allowing God in the government is only giving the Radical Right to push the line and gives them more opportunities to institutionalize use government money to preach the Christian faith. It is unconstitutional, always will be, and has been ruled so.

 

[Pako]

I found this entertaining, thought I'd share....

Of God & Reality
by Steve Tierney

Late in the 23rd century, four scientists in a secluded laboratory in Houston, Texas, proved conclusively that reality did not exist. This was achieved mathematically using a convoluted series of equations, but realising that the real world, as they termed it somewhat hypocritically, would not accept a nine thousand digit series numerical formula as absolute proof of its non-existence, they set about proving their deductions in solid terms, using models that even those uninitiated in the mysteries of mathematics could understand.

The result, a memorable event which was spectacular entirely for the reason that it was not, in fact, spectacular, was that all reality faded away into nothing, which is not surprising since this was categorically what it had always been anyway.

Nothing existed as a concept for a very, very long time, or no time at all, depending on your understanding of the term nothing. After which everything reappeared again exactly as it was in an instantaneous flash of pretty coloured lights. There may even have been a pleasant tune.

The four scientists pushed their spectacles higher on their noses and sniffed, wondering why their experiment had not worked. The mathematics seemed infallible. At the conclusion of their physical demonstration they had expected something rather more substantial than a flash of coloured lights.

One of the scientists, so confident in his own authority and knowledge, concluded that the experiment absolutely had to work. He knew they had made no mistakes in their calculations. In a dramatic declaration, termed such because he made it with a raised voice and a hard slap of his hand upon one workbench, the scientist said, "we are not in error. Everything we have done is entirely correct and therefore I can only conclude that somebody, or something, is not playing by the rules."

God appeared before the collected scientists in a flash of holy light which several of the scientists, who were all fellows of a keen and observant mind, pointed out was remarkably similar to the coloured lights that had been the conclusion of their experiment. There may even have been a pleasant tune.

"You!" said one of the scientists, angrily. God nodded, perfectly prepared to accept that he was who he was, she was who she was, and it was who it was. Or not, as they preferred. The lead scientist stormed, "What is the point in making the rules of creation if you simply change them the minute we work them out? That's totally unfair! In fact, it's cheating." God smiled, politely, but declined to comment.

"Wait," said one of the group. "If God is here then perhaps He exists outside reality."
"That's philosophy," said the lead scientist, "not physics."
"In fact," another contributed, "its neither. It's nothing. Since we have shown nothing is all that exists."
"If that's nothing, and if we are nothing, and if even God here is nothing, then everything is nothing."
"Which by pure mathematics," said the lead scientist (who had been drawn into the debate against his better judgement simply because he didn't like to be left out), "means that nothing is also everything, both being equal to one another."
"What does that mean?" somebody asked.
"It means that if nothing exists, as we have shown, then everything must also exist, or else nothing can't exist at all."
"But it nothing can't exist at all, what is the alternative?"
"Everything. Or something else entirely."

The group was quiet for a while, each examining their own part in the grand formula. They looked at one another, each not willing to be the one to speak, but finally one of them did. "Something Else? What something else?" the lead scientist asked aloud.
"Some uncounted factor," said a colleague. "Something about which we have no knowledge."
The lead scientist examine his peers with a look of consternation. "Shoot," he said.

God disappeared, having enjoyed the whole thing immensely.
Nobody noticed.

 

[1X83Z]

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

 

[1X83Z]

I didn't even write that!

 

[Duke]

I'd never speak to you again if you had.

 

[1X83Z]

I think it does portray an...'interesting' viewpoint.

 

[Der Alta]

OK. To begin my input...I've read this thread from beginning to here, and it garners my vote for "best thread yet". Hands down. There has been no other thread sparking such fine debate, and excellent offense/defense opinions (while retaining constant civility) that I have seen. A round of commendation to all of you.

To give some background info...I was raised in a baptist christian household. I even taught Sunday school for many years. I was married in front of an ordained pastor (who married you Neon?). My mother is the president of a prominent chapter of the American Baptist women. My in-laws are DEVOUT independent baptist church go-ers. I regularly attend church, tithe and pray (however recently the beach has been beautiful, so I give my worship, while riding the waves). I have been baptised and I try very hard to follow the word of the bible.

It is my belief that if the ten commandments were taught in kindergarten, or pre-K, better yet, BY THE PARENTS AT AN EARLY AGE, the world would be a better place. The only trepidation that I have is with the first commandment. I have a very tough time saying that the full extent of religion should be taught/forced at such a young age.

From my own point of view, I had massive amounts of confusion through my young years about the world and it's creation.

One of the most confusing things I have had to deal with is Dinosaurs. The confusion, and thoughts that I have about them are far too deep to discuss here, so I will pass on to the argument currently at hand.

Should "Under God" be in the pledge of allegiance?
Should "in God we trust" be written on our money?"

NO.

This great country, that we live in, needs to have a very distinct separation of Church and State. Freedom to have ANY religion that I want, even to choose NOT to have one. By putting "In God we trust" on our money states that the US government supports the Christian beliefs. The Government should not dictate how I can choose to utilize my freedoms and rights.

Take a step back, and look at the ten commandments

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.

Thou shalt not murder.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

#1 states that the man in power is giving you clear direction that he is the ONLY man in power. This is one that I don't think should be on a school curriculum. For the same reason that Under god should not be in the pledge. It is not giving consideration to any other religion.

#2 underlying message is you shall not bring hate upon your god. This is applicable to everything you do. It is about unconditional love and respect.

#3 states that you shall not worship ANY idol.

At this point the following 7 commandments cease to mention God in any instance.

#4 states that one day a week you shall not work. This a day for reflection and worship. Reflect on your week of work, worship the worm that gives it's life so you may catch a whopper of small mouth bass. Give worship to the sun as you crack open a beer and lay back on your hammock. I have given my thoughts to god in many different places. Sitting atop the mountain where my wife and I got married, standing in the shower, driving home from work stuck in commuter traffic.

#5 states that your mother and father deserve respect, no matter what they may do. care for them when they are older and feeble minded (Youth Cycler, it's happening already)

#6-#8 DUH!

#9 is about respecting your neighbor. Be they 10 feet, 10 miles, or the other side of the world. We are all neighbors. This forum is a prime example. You are all my neighbors, due to us being gathered at the same place having teh same conversation.

#10 states that you should live your life the way you intend. Abolish this "keeping up with the Joneses" attitude. If you desire it, go get it. Don't get it because you want to one up your neighbor. GTS-R_MAN, you may want to heed this one. We like you because of who you are, not what you know.

Do I know what happens after I die? No. Do I believe I know what happens after I die? Yes. Do I want the Government to tell me what should happen after I die? No.

I still have a mental battle raging in my heart and my head. Do I pass on to a better place, and spend eternity in a beautiful land? I sure hope the have GT3 there, because eternity can be a long time. Or do I simply stop. Much like when you sleep so heavy that you don't remember falling asleep or being asleep. Except this time you don't wake up. It wouldn't be sleep forever, because you no longer exist. Therefore it is like closing a book, the end. Or do I simply come back as a butterfly, or a rock, a sheep? There are people that believe that everything has a spirit or essence of "being"

So after all the debatae rages down, I do believe in God, I do believe in life after death, but I don't believe our Government should tell us how to choose.

I still can't explain why my parrot says "I love you" when I'm having a bad day. I still don't know where dinosaurs fit in to the bible either.

It is my belief that god created apples, and made them red. Therefore the statement "Apples are red." (From my point of view) implies that yes there is a God.

Till later,
AO

 

[Duke]

Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. The perfect defense of the correct answer, from a person on the religious side of the issue. AO understands the point exactly. He knows that removing the God references from governmental affairs is actually defending his right of religious freedom. He's also intellectually questioning his own beliefs to keep his ethics honest and self-understood. Der Alta, my hat is off to you.

Can some of you others understand it more easily now, without the "God vs. Godless" baggage?

I'm glad to have been part of this interesting thread. In fact, I admit I'm eager to pursue some of the wider implications of the "supernatural power vs. objective rationality" question. Anybody have the strength to start Round Two?

 

[Pako]

, yes AO's post was very interesting and insightful, as were all of yours as well...

SO round two huh? You want to know which one is better? Or are you saying that one exist and one does not?

Perhaps if "Round Two" is of a different dicussion, a new thread might be in order....what do you think neon_duke?

 

[Duke]

Yes, that's what I was thinking. A separate thread on a related (specific or general) discussion.

Oh, and by the way, AO, I was baptized an Epicopalian but never attended a regular church service. No real mention of the question of God was made while I was growing up, though I was distinctly taught right from wrong by both word and example. In fact, all of my philosophical decisions have been self made; something for which I am eternally grateful to my parents.

In answer to your direct question, my wife and I (who was raised Catholic, but shares my views and has since adolescence) were married in an Episcopalian service in a beautiful country church.

In our minds, the covenant of marriage is entirely between the two of us. Whether it was a secular or a religious official presiding was not relevant. We did so because of the inherent beauty of the setting; that's all. I suppose it was unfair of us to "take advantage" of the Church like that. But since the minister happily referred to himself as "Whiskeypalian", I doubt he minded.

 

[Pako]

Here's an old thread that might suit the needs of round two:


http://forums.gtplanet.net/showthread.php?postid=82567#post82567

Or maybe a more specific thread for a specific topic....

 

[Sage]

I know that for the most part this thread is done with, but I would still like to defend my stance.

Originally posted by Pako
Let us go back to the hole. Is the hole in the block of wood "something"? Yes, and why? Because it has a identity, what is it? It's a hole, and how do you know it's a hole, because something was there, now nothings there anymore except a hole.

The only reason "it" has an identity is because we have named it... I mean, if you really want to reason that far, then theoretically "nothing" must have an identity, and thus would be a something, but of course that's not the case... we have merely given the concept of nothing a name, so that we aren't walking around like zombies trying to form a way of expressing "nothing". And BTW, the air would take the place of the wood.

Now the Pledge had something there, i.e. "Under God", now it's not there anymore. As you can see, it's the action of removing the words from the pledge that change the entire meaning of the pledge as adding something to it, would change it's meaning.

Look at this sentence:

Sentences have words and make up paragraphs.

Now look at this sentence:

Sentences have words.

Just because I have taken out the latter part of the sentence, I'm not denying that sentences make paragraphs. People may infer either way. Same goes for your gross wormy apples...


I love debating.

 

[1X83Z]

Round two?

http://forums.gtplanet.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10299

 

[Sage]

I doubt that'll raise quite as much debate though. (I'm not saying it's unimportant... I just simply think people aren't quite as interested in that)

Maybe when I grow up, I should set up an atheist school and then demand the government to pay for tuition for my students.

 

[Acid X]

I vote no. lol

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by gt2_gs
I vote no. lol

Why?

 

[Acid X]

I dont believe in him, and they shouldnt force people that dont believe in him to have to thank him for everything.

 

[duo17]

I think it should be taken out because if I said "One Nation Under Allah..." people would look at me all weird. Like others have already said, I don't think that the government accepts any religions other that Christian. I mean look at congress. Can you tell me how many of them aren't Christian? They almost all are. They didn't think of others when they passed certain laws and now look what happened.