|
Post by Admin on Oct 19, 2006 20:57:29 GMT -5
What do you think about having the line "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence? Separation of Church and State violation?
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Oct 19, 2006 22:34:08 GMT -5
I think the references to God on our nation's currency ("Int God We Trust") and in the Pledge of Allegience are great, for several reasons. The primary reason, for me, is that it affords me a security blanket from government intrusion into my life. The otherwise secular and Atheistic face (no offense) of the federal government can seem imposing at times, particularly in recent cases where children were prohibited from praying or having Bibles in schools. It's nice to have that to look back at --- see, the government can only go so far; even the money acknowledges my right to believe in God.
And a less important but still noteworthy reason that I think it's awesome to have this built into our Pledge and currency is simply that it ticks off liberals to no end.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 20, 2006 18:11:27 GMT -5
And a less important but still noteworthy reason that I think it's awesome to have this built into our Pledge and currency is simply that it ticks off liberals to no end. I like that part ;D You did bring up a good point about the line in the Pledge, and the words on the money (which I forgot to mention) acknowleging your right to believe in God, but to me it seems like Favoratism. America is and pretty much has always been a multicultural society. Therefore there has always been a difference of religions. I think the fact that the line is "One Nation Under God" and the words "In God We Trust" show more respect to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. The Constitution states that everyone has the right to worship whatever god(s) they want. However, someone from say, East Asia, may not believe in God, or in any gods at all. If there is going to be a reference to separation of church and state on the money and in the pledge, it should at least be a line that encompasses all religions.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Oct 21, 2006 11:37:11 GMT -5
I guess that brings it into the realm of 'freedom of religion' versus 'freedom from religion.' The pilgrims came here not to escape the opression of belief in God, but rather to freely practice their own brand of belief in God.
Also, there's a problem with having one all-encompassing statement: if you say one nation under God, you are alienating atheists, some deists, the hindu, all pagans, ancestor-worshippers, taoists, and a variety of animists, just to name a few. basically, anyone who follows a polytheistic religion could claim to be upset by this.
Well, my opinion is that the Constitution does not include the right of freedom from being upset. The Constitution does not say that everyone must respect an individual person's beliefs --- it merely allows people to freely pursue, on their own behalf, whatever religious beliefs they choose. The Constitution does not, however, require that the federal government acknowledge these religious beliefs --- in fact, some interpretations of the Establishment Clause would suggest that such and acknowledgment would be unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not grant anyone the right to be taken seriously. If I went out and created a religion centered around the worship of finger-nail clippings and foot fungus, how would that be incorporated into the new policy of not having anything written on coins that could upset me? 'one nation under toenail"?
Anywho, here's my suggestion for a new statement for money, in the event that policy requiring a new one should ever be written into the Constitution:
In: God(s); ThereisnogodbutAllah (andMuhammedishisProphet); the Great Spirit; Mother Nature; Zeus/Jupiter and the Olympians; Otis and Thor; Shiva; the Buddha; Quetzcoatl; satan; the Noninterfering Creator; Father Sky; the Great Tortoise; the Ancestors; or None of the Above, We Trust
...or the shortened version: In God(s) We May/May Not Trust.
Not too catchy, is it?
|
|
|
Post by thefirstenemy on Oct 31, 2006 23:45:29 GMT -5
I'm an atheist, and personally it doesn't offend me, but on the other level, separation of church and state, it does offend me. I think kids should be allowed to pray in school if they want, as long as they don't force it upon other kids. Having bibles is fine, as long as they don't try to push their beliefs on me.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for members of the government to have a close relationship with God, as long as they realize that they shouldn't have that belief effect the laws of this country. They may not like it, but that's their problem, they need to accept it, just as others are acceptable of their own religion.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Nov 13, 2006 9:21:34 GMT -5
This country was founded by christian men, who believed in God. WHy take that out? its our heritage. Today someone would say your crazy if you want to take some element out of a 50 year old wine. Theyd say "thats a part that makes it what it is." This anti-god that seems to have sprung up is just another evidence of the athiestic/pagan tendency of the coutnry. The people are turning from God.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Nov 13, 2006 11:52:55 GMT -5
Voltage, were you unaware of the fact that George Washington made a pact with Satan, and Samuel Adams was the third cousin, twice removed, of Stalin's great-great-great-grandfather by marriage?
To top it off, Thomas Jefferson's private thoughts have given rise to the possibility that he may have been ---gasp--- a deist rather than a devout Christian.
Ben Franklin was actually the original founder of Scientology (which a certain SciFi author later re-founded after discovering Franklin's theological journals detailing the exploits of Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy in the course of exploding the human race with hydrogen bombs inside volcanos 75 million years ago).
Most damning of all to the argument that the United States is a nation founded on Christianity is the simple fact that both James Madison and Patrick Henry were closeted Wiccans.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Nov 13, 2006 11:55:09 GMT -5
|)/-\^^/\/ ing is not an obscene or profane word...
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Nov 14, 2006 12:44:12 GMT -5
Moses was a murdered, Lot got drunk and his daughter had sex with him, King david had ana ffair with a woman and sent her husband to war, asked the generals to push him forward and step back killing him indirectly. Paul killed christians and held the coats of people so they could stone a man. We arent perfect, but theres no doubt that the original direction of the country contained christian attibutes. minus a few things, (slavery)
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Nov 14, 2006 13:20:05 GMT -5
Voltage, where's your sense of humor?
Moses committed what I call rash justice.
Lot wasn't my favorite person anyway (nor was he very smart; look at how he treated the advice of his wise uncle Abraham).
King David is perhaps the second most complex hero ever (after Samson), having a strong sense of personal justice (as evinced by his refusal to kill the sleeping king Saul, who was hounding David and was trying to kill him as if David were a traitor), yet he later fell into the cracks of greatness exactly as did his predecessor Saul. Perhaps pride, as much as lust, was his downfall? I can't remember. The point is, he suffered for his crime. What happened to his first child by Bathsheba? That's a pretty harsh load to bear, even for a cold-blooded conspiracy to steal a man's wife by having him murdered on the battle field. Further punishment came in the form of Absalom...tore David's kingdom and family apart.
Paul was a member of a Jewish sect that particularly hated Christians, but if you remember, he "saw the light" (origin of the phrase) and through this divine intervention, became one of the most devout followers of Jesus ever, persisting even in the face of incredible persecution --- how many times was he stoned nearly to death? The man suffered and was imprisoned and dragged to the brink of death many times. I think this was both a twisted payback for Paul's past crimes and a shining testament of his faith.
The point is, America is turning from God. It's sad, bad the trend is clear. However, the fact that we are a nation founded by Christians is unaffected by that trend. Our heritage is (in my opinion) more important that cultural dynamism, which is what certain groups of people are attempting to replace religion, or any system of belief, with in our society.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Nov 15, 2006 11:09:40 GMT -5
My only point was that stating a persons crimes for their religious orinetation is a little silly since cultural trends change constantly, hence why they had slaves.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 21, 2007 8:47:34 GMT -5
Going back to the first post, I hate it. I hate it because it provides the Christians "room for debate". It gives them the false sense that the United States was originally intended to be a primarily Christian nation, when it was not.
What do I want in the place of that sort of thing? Nothing. You can't offend anyone if you don't say anything that could be offensive. There was another good line in the pledge that could be used on our currency if absolutely necessary, and that was "One nation, indivisible". Yes, I cut out the bullshit part. I think it sounds so much more profound though, don't you? Thats a statement worthy of putting in our faces every day, that we are one nation, and that we should stand together.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 23, 2007 14:00:17 GMT -5
So who put in god we trust on the money? Athiests and other cultures? Nope. Somebody got here first, and believe it or not they left their mark in the pledge and on our money. You can hate it all you want, but the fact is this: America started that way.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 23, 2007 19:13:34 GMT -5
False False False!
America's founding fathers cautioned against a state religion. The knew that this could eventually infringe on the rights of others to believe in whatever religion they wanted, or not believe at all. And "one nation under god" was not put in the pledge by them. It was added by Reagan (I think it was Reagan), because he wanted to say to the world, "see, we're religious, unlike those godless communists".
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 23, 2007 20:15:22 GMT -5
According to Wikipedia, "In God We Trust" was only added to coins in 1864. It was made the "national motto" in 1956, replacing E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one), which I much prefer.
So, do you know your history? When was America founded? Would the addition of the phrase have taken place early enough to be considered one of our founding principles?
|
|