|
Post by voltage on Mar 23, 2007 21:34:48 GMT -5
So you believe that I meant when we landed here? foun·da·tion /faʊnˈdeɪʃən/ Pronunciation[foun-dey-shuhn] –noun 1. the basis or groundwork of anything: the moral foundation of both society and religion. Doesnt say it ends at a particular time.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 23, 2007 23:02:16 GMT -5
No, I mean when the Declaration of Independence was signed and you bloody well know that. My point is just as valid.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 24, 2007 7:04:54 GMT -5
Congress approved of it in 1954, (nope it wasnt Reagan) And it appears that America didn't hate it when it came into practice (if its really hated). I look at who wrote up the pledge and find that it was a socialist, which only tells me that when it was inacted even a socialist couldnt keep respect for God out of anything official in the country. Perhaps this is not really the debate, but merely a meeting point. Do you wish that we become tolerant and politically correct? I assure you that will only please the Atheists, who happen to be the very people against all this in the first place! And so it comes, that Atheists want to deny God and anybody else wants to recognize him.There is still a third class which supports whatever they feel like. but the Atheists can't win because they hold only one group out of three, so they come up with a brilliant idea. Religious tolerance. Now we have stores say happy holidays, instead of a long tradition. Christians now take it up with them, and what do you know? The atheists get what they want. Now its Godless, and the christians look like they are out to get America. But am I trying to bring America into my private world? No. I expect everyone to have there own opinions and make their own decisions, as is normal. But if theres one thing through all of this that is apparent, its the fact that all this erupts over anti-christian group, and you start hearing and seeing the negatively portrayed image.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 24, 2007 10:58:35 GMT -5
Atheist is not "anti-christian". And I want those words removed because I do not trust in God, thank you very much, and that choice is protected by the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 24, 2007 11:39:05 GMT -5
So it is, but on the same foot, who are you to decide wo does or does not? Either way, its a stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 24, 2007 16:16:12 GMT -5
Thus the only way to solve the problem is to be completely neutral, and replace it with something that has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Once again, I really like E Pluribus Unum personally, and it is not related to religion at all.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2007 16:31:12 GMT -5
Nonetheless, I am strongly opposed to any kind of religion in gov't. One relgion taking hold in the government can lead down a bad road. One thing that both creationists and athiests can agree with is that people aren't purfect. A state religion could lead to peoples religious rights being violated.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Mar 24, 2007 16:33:15 GMT -5
can't offend anyone if you don't say anything that could be offensive. Hold the phone. Both acts of commission and acts of omission can be, have been, and are sometimes construed as "offensive." In a recent example of acts of omission considered "offensive" from one perspective, some of my fellow students were mortally offended by the University's administration ignoring their calls for the University to publicly declare the war is bad blahblahblah. On the flip side, some students (myself included) were offended that a few thousand hippies would be so vain as to believe they speak for every one of the 45,000+ students here in condemning the war. So both opinions, actions, lack of opinions, and inaction can all be offensive to someone, somewhere, on almost any issue. As one of my friends, a double minority himself and a liberal to boot, says: "if everybody catered to everyone else's liking, we'd all be dead by now."
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Mar 24, 2007 16:39:03 GMT -5
Nonetheless, I am strongly opposed to any kind of religion in gov't. One relgion taking hold in the government can lead down a bad road. One thing that both creationists and athiests can agree with is that people aren't purfect. A state religion could lead to peoples religious rights being violated. I agree that a theocracy is the very last thing I want to see in America. However, you haven't explained yet the relationship between having vaguely religious symbols used in conjunction with everyday life constitutes a theocracy -- or even a significant threat to the rights of non-Christians. The act of speaking the completely non-denominational noun "God" may be offensive to an atheist, but it sure isn't harmful, and not being allowed to say it would be a violation of the First Amendment, even if we're talking about people who like the Pledge as it currently is, with "under God" included. The words "In God We Trust" printed on money may be offensive to an atheist, but the very mention by a person that they don't believe in God is offensive to me -- should such persons be prevented from talking about religion, because their speech is offensive?
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 24, 2007 16:47:15 GMT -5
Yes, there is offense by omission, but that requires the act of comission first. I doubt nearly as many Christians would be offended if the phrase was not on the coins, and an attempt to include it was shot down.
Being offended by an individual is quite different from being offended by the government. One has no business being decided by the government.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2007 16:53:39 GMT -5
Nonetheless, I am strongly opposed to any kind of religion in gov't. One relgion taking hold in the government can lead down a bad road. One thing that both creationists and athiests can agree with is that people aren't purfect. A state religion could lead to peoples religious rights being violated. I agree that a theocracy is the very last thing I want to see in America. However, you haven't explained yet the relationship between having vaguely religious symbols used in conjunction with everyday life constitutes a theocracy -- or even a significant threat to the rights of non-Christians. It goes back to the fact that it is referencing God. Who elses god could it be? The Buddhists god? The Confucians god? The Atheists god? It's reflecting a bias in America toward Christianity. All I'm saying is that the pledge and money should be neutral. No reference to any god at all. The act of speaking the completely non-denominational noun "God" may be offensive to an atheist, but it sure isn't harmful, and not being allowed to say it would be a violation of the First Amendment, even if we're talking about people who like the Pledge as it currently is, with "under God" included. That's true. But religion shouldn't be in government or politics at all. Christians can say God bless you, yatta yatta yatta, whatever, as long as they are not trying to influence religion or politics. And just as a side note, "under god" was added to the pledge under Reagan. It was not put in by our founding fathers. The words "In God We Trust" printed on money may be offensive to an atheist, but the very mention by a person that they don't believe in God is offensive to me -- should such persons be prevented from talking about religion, because their speech is offensive? They can talk about it all they want. But no religion should influence government or politics like I said above.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 24, 2007 19:12:52 GMT -5
I agree that a theocracy is the very last thing I want to see in America. However, you haven't explained yet the relationship between having vaguely religious symbols used in conjunction with everyday life constitutes a theocracy -- or even a significant threat to the rights of non-Christians. It goes back to the fact that it is referencing God. Who elses god could it be? The Buddhists god? The Confucians god? The Atheists god? It's reflecting a bias in America toward Christianity. All I'm saying is that the pledge and money should be neutral. No reference to any god at all. That's true. But religion shouldn't be in government or politics at all. Christians can say God bless you, yatta yatta yatta, whatever, as long as they are not trying to influence religion or politics. And just as a side note, "under god" was added to the pledge under Reagan. It was not put in by our founding fathers. The words "In God We Trust" printed on money may be offensive to an atheist, but the very mention by a person that they don't believe in God is offensive to me -- should such persons be prevented from talking about religion, because their speech is offensive? They can talk about it all they want. But no religion should influence government or politics like I said above. Alien, Ronald Reagan's term was from 1981-1989. The words 'Under God' were added to the pledge in 1954 by congress. The president during that time period was Eisenhower. The problem with neutrality, is simply that it doesnt please anyone except whoever suggests it. It sounds like a wonderful idea of acception and you believe what you want, but if anyone looks at this countries pennies Heaven forbid they think its anything more than a Godless, Neutral, Country.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2007 20:20:10 GMT -5
Alien, Ronald Reagan's term was from 1981-1989. The words 'Under God' were added to the pledge in 1954 by congress. The president during that time period was Eisenhower. Irregardless, "under god" was not put into the pledge by America's founding fathers. The problem with neutrality, is simply that it doesnt please anyone except whoever suggests it. It sounds like a wonderful idea of acception and you believe what you want What are you trying to say here? but if anyone looks at this countries pennies Heaven forbid they think its anything more than a Godless, Neutral, Country. What's so bad about that? Why should we care what other countries think of us? America is America, not the world. About neutrality. George Washington actually recomended that America stay out of other countries affairs (unless the conflict would directly affect us) and lond term alliances with other nations.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 24, 2007 22:02:13 GMT -5
Neutrality may not satisfy you right now, but you'll get over it more easily than other people will get over having someone else's God in their face all the time.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Mar 25, 2007 17:08:38 GMT -5
I'm a little confused, are you guys upset about the Pledge of Allegiance because it's offensive to certain groups of people, or upset because it is a threat to the principle of separation of church and state?
Because if it's the former reason, I refer back to the simple truth that there is no "Right not to be Offended," and no matter what you do, or what you don't do, someone will always be offended.
If it's the latter reason, then once again I ask you to please spell out for me the process by which the federal government is nefariously conspiring to establish a State Religion by allowing schoolkids to mention "God" when they recite the pledge.
On a related note, I know a very intelligent very politically conscious dude who is violently offended by mere mention of the word "government." He thinks that having a Pledge of Allegience at all is a violation of his natural human rights, and that the sheer existence of a State, whether religious or secular, is the height of injustice. Yes, he can and does back up those opinions and feelings with logical arguments and philosophical explanations.
How do you avoid offending people like that?
|
|