Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 566
  1. #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Let me put it this way (again) how would you feel if you school made you kid pledge to the following :
    'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the city for which it stands, one town under satan, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'?
    The difference is there is little support for the belief that satan was a guiding source for our laws, values and constitution (small c) as a society. You are not pledging allegiance to god, but to the republic, which is one nation (distinct from one government, the government is a set of seperate sovereign states which have chosen to come together, while the nation is the society of people (customs, laws, traditions, etc.) which have given authority to their state governments to become one) established under god. Our founders were Christian, but the use of the term god was often used in animist terms.

    The pledge of allegiance is exactly that. A pledge to support the nation of people (ideals, values, laws, customs) for which our flag represents.

    I would rather scrap the entire pledge than to erase an important and central part of our nation's foundation, development and identity.
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    The difference is there is little support for the belief that satan was a guiding source for our laws, values and constitution (small c) as a society.
    And there is for god? there is very little of any evidence any god was involved with that at all.
    The fact that many people think that doesnt make it true, in the past many people thought smoking was good for you too..

    The point is by adding the 'under god' section you are assuming there is a god and let children repeat your assumption even though they (and their parents) may not agree with this.
    In doing so you are forcing religious imagerary on young children. While not nearly as bad as some of the islamtic schools in the middle east where they practically brainwash kids by repeating the koran over and over again, in basics you are doing the same thing.. just in a lots milder form..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    And there is for god? there is very little of any evidence any god was involved with that at all.
    The fact that many people think that doesnt make it true, in the past many people thought smoking was good for you too..
    There is just as much evidence that this is actually a Republic and that this is actually a nation, but it is the belief of our society that it is. We carry on as a society with many beliefs, customs, traditions, etc. Many are empirically unprovable and, quite unscientifically, unfalsifiable. Does that mean we should excise them from society as well? The pledge is to the flag, which represents a republican form of government established by sovereign individuals who have rights granted to them by virtue of their qualities as human beings. What makes that important? Scientifically speaking, absolutely nothing. That we are creatures of god (in animist terms if you wish), is the foundation of our respect for each other as members of a society. WIthout that, there is no reason to give credence or respect to anything you say or do. Without it, this nation could quite justifiably kill anyone who dared question the authority of god simply on the basis that more of us disagree with the few of you.

    The point is by adding the 'under god' section you are assuming there is a god and let children repeat your assumption even though they (and their parents) may not agree with this.
    This country was established under many assumptions that we all live with today. That you disagree with some or one of those assumptions is your right, but just remember that it is those assumptions that allow you the right to your beliefs.

    In doing so you are forcing religious imagerary on young children. While not nearly as bad as some of the islamtic schools in the middle east where they practically brainwash kids by repeating the koran over and over again, in basics you are doing the same thing.. just in a lots milder form..
    The question we face as a society is not whether or not we should assume anything, or that we should not be hypocritical, or unscientific about anything. But it is which assumptions, hypocricies and unscientific beliefs benefit our society, and which ones do not. Life cannot escape any of these ironies of life. The choice is which ones make us a better society. Society clearly believes, and rightfully so in my opinion, that the belief in god makes a positive contribution to the survival of our society. It is our way of life as a society, and it deserves respect. If it means little Joey's dad has to explain to him that he needs to be quiet during the pledge because mommy and daddy don't believe in god, then so be it. And if they don't see the irony that their right to not pledge allegiance to this country is derived from the very belief that they find no "proof" for then that is their problem.
  4. #264  
    maybe its the pint of John Smith extra smooth I just had but I cant seem to get trough that last post at al..
    Can somebody translate that into some more basic english for this mindless (dutch) liberal?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  5. #265  
    I put my comments in bold
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Tangent Alert

    This is what is meant by slippery slope:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    (CHECK)

    "wall of separation between church and state"

    (ok, Check)

    government can't endorse religion

    (um, ok, check)

    get rid of the ten commandments I am pretty sure that the courts will allow them if you have other non-religious presentations there...so long as the ten commandments arent there by themselves. I also think the courts looked at costs of removing them...if its really expensive, they might let them stay.

    (huh?)

    no nativity scenes on public Again, if you have a Santa Clause and other non religious symbols, then it has been allowed.

    (you've got to be kidding)

    take that slogan off the money I think the court is put in a tough position of balancing our personal 1st amendment rights and the governments limitation of endorsing one religion over another. Where should that line be drawn? I don't know.
    (give me a break)

    get rid of "under god" in the POA

    (why?)

    government can't endorse belief that god exists

    (WHAT?)

    no financing to effective "faith-based" programs, pelple might be come Buh-LEEvers
    churches can't use schools for meetings
    schools can't use churches for ceremonies
    religion is the enemy of science Is a court saying this? Im assuming that is your opinion.
    - - -- - - - - - -
    houses of worship can't be exist within 100 feet of any school or government building I haven't heard this one yet...what if there is no other space available? I can see the argument that if the local government did not allow them to build a church, it could be violating the establishment clause.
    .........
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #266  
    My comments are in bold.
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    You keep saying what if the school MADE someone say this, as if you contiue to say it is mandatory it will become the truth.

    #1 It is not mandatory
    #2 The constitution does not say seperation of chuch and state Cardio, you keep saying this as if the fact that it doesnt specifically say it then it doesnt exist? However, the Constitution is not interpreted on its literal meaning (although some justices would prefer it). If it did, we wouldn't have a right to privacy (Im assuming you like that right )
    #3 The 1st Amendment provides freedom OF religion on a personal level. Remember the Bill of Rights apply to the citizens, not to the government. The government does not have a right to freedom of religion.
    #4 The statement under god does not establish a religion Agreed. But I didnt see where someone was saying that....I think the argument that adding that to the pledge is the government endorsing particular religions over others that believe in God (i.e. Christians). If you believe the way the courts have intepreted the establishment clause, then why put the clause in there...why not just avoid the problem all together?

    And my belief system is strong enough that I would not convert because of that statement. As far as the original topic, its not about an adult's belief system strength but that of a child in school.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    That we are creatures of god (in animist terms if you wish), is the foundation of our respect for each other as members of a society. WIthout that, there is no reason to give credence or respect to anything you say or do. Without it, this nation could quite justifiably kill anyone who dared question the authority of god simply on the basis that more of us disagree with the few of you.
    Have you ever heard (or alternatively considered) natural law? Natural law is the counter argument that even without God and religion, we can have law that is based on natural rights that don't need a creator. If you follow natural law ideals, then you don't need God to have respect for each other as members of a society.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    This country was established under many assumptions that we all live with today. That you disagree with some or one of those assumptions is your right, but just remember that it is those assumptions that allow you the right to your beliefs.
    I don't know if I would call them assumptions. If you believe that we live under the umbrella of the Constitution as the basis of our rights, then whats the basis of the strength of the Constitution? For Christians, its God. For anyone else, it may be natural law.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Society clearly believes, and rightfully so in my opinion, that the belief in god makes a positive contribution to the survival of our society. It is our way of life as a society, and it deserves respect.
    It seems that we are still confusing the issue in some respects. No one here appears to be advocating disrespecting society's way of life. But society's way of life is not 'the government'. Its only the government who cannot endorse one religion over another...you and I as a society can endorse it on a personal level.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    If it means little Joey's dad has to explain to him that he needs to be quiet during the pledge because mommy and daddy don't believe in god, then so be it.
    Obviously a lot of courts do not share your 'opinion'.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    And if they don't see the irony that their right to not pledge allegiance to this country is derived from the very belief that they find no "proof" for then that is their problem.
    How is it a problem if they believe in the same constitution as you or I but not the same basis of its strength? You aren't advocating a position that if someone claims that the constitution doesnt get its strength from God that it shouldn't protect them are you?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Have you ever heard (or alternatively considered) natural law? Natural law is the counter argument that even without God and religion, we can have law that is based on natural rights that don't need a creator. If you follow natural law ideals, then you don't need God to have respect for each other as members of a society....
    For the record, the founders went with "inalienable rights" endowed by the Creator. But, for the sake of discussion, and assuming we share a common definition of "rights"
    Main Entry: 2right
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
    1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
    2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
    3 : something that one may properly claim as due
    Source
    What are those "natural rights"?
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #269  
    Originally Posted by cardio
    You keep saying what if the school MADE someone say this, as if you contiue to say it is mandatory it will become the truth.

    #1 It is not mandatory
    #2 The constitution does not say seperation of chuch and state Cardio, you keep saying this as if the fact that it doesnt specifically say it then it doesnt exist? However, the Constitution is not interpreted on its literal meaning (although some justices would prefer it). If it did, we wouldn't have a right to privacy (Im assuming you like that right )
    #3 The 1st Amendment provides freedom OF religion on a personal level. Remember the Bill of Rights apply to the citizens, not to the government. The government does not have a right to freedom of religion.
    #4 The statement under god does not establish a religion Agreed. But I didnt see where someone was saying that....I think the argument that adding that to the pledge is the government endorsing particular religions over others that believe in God (i.e. Christians). If you believe the way the courts have intepreted the establishment clause, then why put the clause in there...why not just avoid the problem all together?

    And my belief system is strong enough that I would not convert because of that statement. As far as the original topic, its not about an adult's belief

    T2 response to your replies

    #2 the so called seperation of church and state is what started this. It has been said and or indicated by a number of posters. Using your same argument of it not being there does not mean it is not afforded to us can be used both ways. The constitution does not say we can or can not mention the name of God in school, just because it does not say we can not does that mean we can. This argument just goes in circles. The right to privacy has been covered by numerous laws and acts, such as the right to privacy act. All I am saying is that the individuals who use the seperation of church and state to say the the statement "under God" is unconstitutional are misquoting the constitution.

    # 3. You are absolutely correct, individuals have freedom of religion. Some interpret it as freedom FROM religion and use that argument everytime they hear or see a refrenece to God.

    #4. DaT and others (not sure who now) have psoted that because the statement under God was there it implied that the gov't believes there is a God and it goes directly against their belief that there is no God. Since the gov't believes there is a God they are endorsing a diest religion thereby they have established a religion for the nation to follow and violated the constitution.

    And as far as the original topic, individuals have argued the "I or my" position in reference to their beliefs so I used the same argument in response.
  10. #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Oh dear. Those poor persecuted christians. When will that pesky Constitution leave them alone??!!?
    That Constitution is all that stands between them and the coercive power of the state. You can be certain that if it were not there, they would be the first to complain. If the Constitution did not protect us from having the state coerce some to pray, then the state might really be able to forbid us all to pray.

    Freedom is what the Christians want for themselves but wish to deny to all others. "By their fruits you shall know them."
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    That Constitution is all that stands between them and the coercive power of the state. You can be certain that if it were not there, they would be the first to complain. If the Constitution did not protect us from having the state coerce some to pray, then the state might really be able to forbid us all to pray.

    Freedom is what the Christians want for themselves but wish to deny to all others. "By their fruits you shall know them."
    Uh oh. The POA argument has now been stretched past it's limits.

    "under God" is now the state coercing you to pray.

    It is Monday. whmurray is convinced Christians are out to get him. It is Monday.
    I'm back!
  12. #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Uh oh. The POA argument has now been stretched past it's limits.

    "under God" is now the state coercing you to pray.

    It is Monday. whmurray is convinced Christians are out to get him. It is Monday.
    That's not what he wrote, nor what he meant to say. Read people's posts before you make fun of them...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    ...Freedom is what the Christians want for themselves but wish to deny to all others. "By their fruits you shall know them."
    Actually, freedom is what christians have found for themselves, and desparately desire for all others.
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    That Constitution is all that stands between them and the coercive power of the state. You can be certain that if it were not there, they would be the first to complain. If the Constitution did not protect us from having the state coerce some to pray, then the state might really be able to forbid us all to pray.

    Freedom is what the Christians want for themselves but wish to deny to all others. "By their fruits you shall know them."
    WH, do you honestly believe that the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is a prayer? I have no issue with removal of religious books (Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc) from schools, telling the school employees they can not lead students in prayer or requirng students to learn the tenants of muslimism.

    Have you noticed how many laws are enacted to protect certain groups rights, yet it seems the only group that is exempt from hate crimes against them is the christian. There are laws, rules and standards when it comes to derogatory names against racism (****, wap, etc) nationalities (kraut, jap, etc), and most religions (raghead, jew, etc) but I still hear the term holy roller, Jesus freak, Bible thumper etc. It seems that certain groups would like to see christianity banned yet the same individuals preach tolerance. We can not have it both ways, either all have the freedom or none.
  15. #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Originally Posted by cardio
    You keep saying what if the school MADE someone say this, as if you contiue to say it is mandatory it will become the truth.

    #1 It is not mandatory
    Pretend if you will. Deep down inside you know that this is not about the right to pray but about the use of the state to indoctrinate. You believe with the Thomists: "Give me the child until he is seven,......"
  16. #276  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's not what he wrote, nor what he meant to say. Read people's posts before you make fun of them...
    Excuse me, this is exactly what he said:

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Freedom is what the Christians want for themselves but wish to deny to all others.
    There's nothing ambiguous there. I don't need you to translate for me.
    I'm back!
  17. #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's not what he wrote, nor what he meant to say. Read people's posts before you make fun of them...
    It appears jmill72x gave the benefit of the doubt that somehow the post was being offered in the context of the discussion as opposed to being a gratuitous slam.
  18. #278  
    The discussion about POA with "under god" or not is really weird - the whole thing is really quite clear, isn't it?

    Your POA is about being one nation, indivisible, right? IF you decide to say you are one nation UNDER GOD, you state that god is a key factor for that nation. Let's not play naive about which god is meant in that case: the Christian god. Not Shiva, not Buddha, not Allah of the Koran, nor the god Jews address when they await the coming of the Messiah. Even if you claim just "some general sort of god" is meant, you rule out everybody who does not believe in a personal god.

    By insisting on "under God", you make clear that (the Christian) god is a key ingredient of your nation. Christians find that cool of course. The others who have other gods or no god feel excluded, for them it is an element that sets them apart from those "under god".

    So you have to decide: national unity regardless of religion, or a nation with a certain god/religion as a defining element.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Excuse me, this is exactly what he said:

    There's nothing ambiguous there. I don't need you to translate for me.
    So what you are trying to say is
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Freedom is what the Christians want for themselves but wish to deny to all others.
    means
    "under God" is now the state coercing you to pray
    Not at all, but never mind.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The discussion about POA with "under god" or not is really weird - the whole thing is really quite clear, isn't it?

    Your POA is about being one nation, indivisible, right? IF you decide to say you are one nation UNDER GOD, you state that god is a key factor for that nation. Let's not play naive about which god is meant in that case: the Christian god. Not Shiva, not Buddha, not Allah of the Koran, nor the god Jews address when they await the coming of the Messiah.
    Interesting paradox you introduce, because a concentrated effort is made to suggest that this nation is NOT founded on christian principles. Yet, in this context, you offer that it would be "naive" to believe otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Even if you claim just "some general sort of god" is meant, you rule out everybody who does not believe in a personal god.
    No one is "ruled out." All are welcome. However, the nation clearly is founded on the understanding (assumption) that there is a Creator who has endowed men with inalienable rights. You don't have to "believe" that to be a citizen. However, your lack of acceptance of that assumption is not in and of itself a just cause to do away with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    By insisting on "under God", you make clear that (the Christian) god is a key ingredient of your nation. Christians find that cool of course. The others who have other gods or no god feel excluded, for them it is an element that sets them apart from those "under god".

    So you have to decide: national unity regardless of religion, or a nation with a certain god/religion as a defining element.
    Amazingly, the founders did not find that such a choice had to be made. Rather they were able to incorporate both.

Posting Permissions