for live chatting check out

ICQ chat room : atheism

no-god.com forum :: atheism :: Under God
Who's Online | Stats | Memberlist | Top Posters | Search | Lost Password

Please help to keep this board alive with a small donation (at the bottom of the forum) as it is NOW no longer free!



Welcome, Register :: Log In Welcome to our newest member, enunmolni1981.
Users active in this forum:
Users active in this thread:

people online in the last 30 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 62 at 09:05:49 Sun May 18 2008)

Pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ]

richardland
14:41:14 Thu
Sep 19 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Under God

Just wondering if anyone actually disagrees with the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It's of course insane and hypocritical to take it out, but what does everyone else think?

-*note : please read my writings about the subject on my website before responding with redundancy.



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
mr4x42u
16:40:54 Thu
Sep 19 2002

Offline
286 posts
bishop


Mood Now: Hardcore_Headbanging
Post Mood: Assimilated

Reply
Re: Under God

I do disagree with the phrase.I think its a hint of christianity,and that childern pick this up,and then think its ok.Sure to teach them of fact and fiction is one thing.To teach them of a god that no one can prove is another.Sure they have that right to choose religion,but who's to say that a god would exsist in the religion they choose?I am all for the pledge.But don't belive the under god should be part of it.I belive it does have influance on children and I do belive it sways towards the christian religion,why,because its by far the most popular in america per quota.The government and school systems have no right to to say america is under god.I don't live under a god.I live under the right to choose.I do not teach my child religion,when asked I tell her god depends on what you want to belive.I tell her I do not belive in god because I don't think its real.I don't think the bible is real.I also tell her just because I don't belive does not mean she can't belive.When she get older thats up to her and when she gets older she can make up her own mind.I do not influance her towards a religion or a non religion.



---
MADE IN AMERICA
TESTED IN JAPAN
LETS GO NUKE AFGHANISTAN
 
 
Mike420
20:36:39 Thu
Sep 19 2002

Offline
402 posts
Black Pope [mod]


Reply
Re: Under God

Insane and hypocritical? Whatever krack your smokin, you need to give me some....

I find it rather fucked up that our, and I stress the word our, national pledge promotes theism like that....its an insult to many lesser known religions, and protomes the ignorance that your religion is so fond of....But the xians (you) seem to have no problem with it simply because it promotes your shithole of a religion...its bias toward other religions, and I'm sure it has helped brainwashed many a school children over the years...

As for your website, please post a link that will take my directly to writings....if you expect me to read them, don't make me put any effort into looking for them....

  
Keinichn
22:29:35 Thu
Sep 19 2002

Offline
207 posts
bishop


Reply
Re: Under God

I hate it in there. It's a disrespect to my beliefs.



---
He's YOUR god, They're YOUR rules, YOU burn in Hell!
 
 
Human_Atrocity
02:09:28 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
193 posts
inquisitor

Mood Now: Pessimistic
Post Mood: Pessimistic

Reply
Re: Under God

...how the fudge is it insane and hypocritical? It was hypocritical to put it in there in the first place. This land was founded in the name of religeous freedom, not int he name of monotheism or the Christian God. I believe I posted my thoughts on this in one of the other threads... I shall provide an excerpt:

...In the 1950's I believe... when the USSR made Atheism the official religion (contradiction!). The US just HAD to seperate itself from those dirty atheistic Communists. And how did they fight back? By adding "Under God" to the pledge! This latest surge of Christian excrement is just the result of us being attacked by Muslim extremists...
http://azure.bbboy.net/nogodforum-viewthread?forum=12&thread=1


  
richardland
16:42:19 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

What you ALL are forgeting is that "God = The Christian God" is in your own head. If you want to take it that way, then thats cool - good for you. -But it is foolish to say that the word God automatically refers to that of the Christians.

No ones rights are being persecuited by the phrase. It is nuts to say that something applying to millions should be removed because of your personal beliefs.

  
richardland
16:48:43 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

here is an except from some of the writings on my website I asked you all to read :

----------------
there is no way that a nation can have religious freedom and still be "under [one] God."
----------------

Mistake : Whatever you think the definition of "freedom" is - you have misused it. For there to be a lack of freedom, someone's rights have to be restricted. -The phrase "Under God" doesn't restrict anyone's rights at all whatsoever in any way.

----------
"the very fact that it places a deity in control of the nation rather than the people defeats the purpose of the founding of the nation. "
----------

Grossly Incorrect : If I were you, I would track down your history teacher and smack them in the face, as you have been very misinformed. Your statement actually says the exact opposite of the ideas and intentions of the founding fathers. The idea is that to give man certain rights that are inalienable is to save man from other men. The founding fathers put God "in control of the nation" as a very conscious effort to discredit the power of an evil man one day coming into power and screwing stuff up. Without this rule as a foundation for your government, whatever the current ruler says is right and legal - is indeed right and legal ! The reason the constitution says "we hold these truths to be self evident" is because if such rights have been inherently bestowed on man, then a government can never take them away. -I suggest you change this statement from your website as soon as you can.



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
richardland
17:00:48 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

RICHARDS MISTAKE :

I thought I indeed HAD given you all a direct link. -That was a pretty dumb goof on my part and I apologize.


-Ignore the except above (unless you already read it!) and just read the whole thing here :

http://www.richardland.com/thoughts/rebuttals/pledge.htm

-Sorry for the/my confusion. -Please make your further responses privy to the writings on that page. -thanks

  
Mike420
17:01:27 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
402 posts
Black Pope [mod]


Reply
Re: Under God

"God" is talking about one (1) god, which is theism, and whats the primary theist religion in the U.S.?...thats right....xianity...the statement that the nation is under (1) god reeks of xianity....

But just in case I'm mislead about that too, I have another point...The fact that it says "God" is an insult to athiest who has no god at all, and to pagans who (correct me if I'm wrong) have more than one god....The fact that it talks about (1) god is an insult to lesser known religions...but you xians don't seem to care when it comes to offending someone, your religion is 100% correct, right? what do you have to worry about?....

I'll let n0g0d reply to your other quotes, because this is too much typing for just one post....

  
Keinichn
20:07:34 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
207 posts
bishop


Reply
Re: Under God

Yes us Pagans have more than one God. And Richard, I could soooooooo tell you everything I have found out about the xian religion but I don't want to prove you wrong right now. You must be exposed to our blashphemy first.



---
He's YOUR god, They're YOUR rules, YOU burn in Hell!
 
 
richardland
20:14:43 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

1.) If you really want to get into the monotheism thing - "One nation under God" grammatically just refers to a higher power and is NOT number specific. (See various original Hindu, Greek and probably other writings that refer to the acts or works by "God" referring to several or all of them. -Also note the example "God is made in the minds of man" the number of "men" in "man" is not specific, nor solitary).

But back to the point you were attempting : No, I'm afraid just because Christianity is the number one monotheistic religion, that by no means forces any kind of reference. -The connection is still in your head.

2.) To actually think that saying "God" is an insult to atheists or pagan religions is completely ridiculous. By such a philosophy, anyone saying anything contrary to someone else's beliefs is "offensive" and must be "banned". -The idea is simply un-American. If American law changed and shifted to accommodate those who were "offended" by things they found "insulting" (i.e. A pedophile says that disallowing sex with children is insulting to his lifestyle and the law is changed to fit his liking) the country would have seen it's end through anarchy long ago. -Your notion is simply unacceptable for the proper workings of a society, and hypocritical if applied only to religion.

The sad fact you have to face are that your personal beliefs in a higher power are polar to that of your nations past, present and desired future and to try to make a society bend to your whim of preference is selfish and un-American.
-But I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, and thank you for giving me a piece of your mind.



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
Human_Atrocity
20:24:56 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
193 posts
inquisitor

Mood Now: Pessimistic
Post Mood: Pessimistic

Reply
Re: Under God

You said: The founding fathers put God "in control of the nation"

WRONG. "Under God" was added in 1954. The founding fathers (who were deist) founded this country to escape British persecution. They did it in the name of the people so that they would have freedom from a central power (the monarchy of England).

And the 'God' in 'Under God' DOES reffer to the Christian God. No other religion refers to their God as simply 'God'. I forget the name of the christian deity, and I don't feel like going back to your website to find out, but I have NEVER in my life heard a christian call their God by his actual name. They always just call him God. The pledge doesnt say 'under A GOD' it says 'GOD', so don't give us that crap about how it doesn't link America to specifically christianity.

I've said 'God' so many times the word has lost any meaning...

  
Mike420
20:40:28 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
402 posts
Black Pope [mod]


Reply
Re: Under God

Quote: richardland at 20:14:43 Fri Sep 20 2002



2.) To actually think that saying "God" is an insult to atheists or pagan religions is completely ridiculous. By such a philosophy, anyone saying anything contrary to someone else's beliefs is "offensive" and must be "banned". -The idea is simply un-American. If American law changed and shifted to accommodate those who were "offended" by things they found "insulting" (i.e. A pedophile says that disallowing sex with children is insulting to his lifestyle and the law is changed to fit his liking) the country would have seen it's end through anarchy long ago. -Your notion is simply unacceptable for the proper workings of a society, and hypocritical if applied only to religion.



Uhh....were not just talking about any subject here....this is the pledge for our country, not the xians country, our country...I don't follow a religion, so why the fuck should I have to pledge to a god?...Un-american? un-american is showing religious bias by placing ads for religion on our national pledge....religious freedom, bah....

I whould understand if we were talking about something else, but my national pledge is just as much mine as it is yours....*chough* ass hole....

  
richardland
20:44:20 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

I never connected "Under God" to "the founding fathers putting God in control of the nation". I am aware of the addition in 1954 and aware of the colonists flee from persecution. The line in the pledge only reconfirms what has already been woven into the grain that makes America, and no persecution, religious or otherwise, has gone on in our country for quite some time.

This however doesn't change the fact that the settles did indeed give their society certain laws and freedoms that were "God given". It is the very idea of their rules. -If man is in complete control - you're just asking for another England. If God laws down some foundational laws - there's only so far you can go.

You should also consult your local Mormon or Jew and to confirm that they do indeed refer to the diety as just "God".
-Seriously...the Christian thing is all on you. But that argument is a misdirection from the subject. -Even if if the line read "One nation under Yahweh" - no ones rights are being betrayed. As long as the next line doesn't read "And everyone believes in, follows and worships Yahweh" - there's no persecution going on anywhere.

I can empathize and understand your wanting to cut religion out of our government because you aren't "part of that club" so to speak, but you've got to understand that as long as you're free - there's no injustice. It's not an "insult" to be welcomed into a country that stands for contrary beliefs but treats you as an equal nonetheless.



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
richardland
20:48:57 Fri
Sep 20 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

I apologize - I didn't know you lived in a place that requires you to say the pledge of allegiance under any kind of penalty. -I must ask though, how do they catch you? Do you just not stand? Or are there police looking for lips that aren't moving?

I have to agree though that this stipulation isn't very american. You should try to change it somehow if it has caused you that much grief - but certainly trying to persecute others and remove the phrase is no solution. -Just change the law...wherever you live...



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
Keinichn
00:16:02 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
207 posts
bishop


Reply
Re: Under God

You need to get your ass back to elementry school english class. It says GOD. God being singular because of the lack of the "s" at the end. Therefore it cannot relate to my religion in ANY way. It also can't relate to Atheism in any possible way. As for those Greek writings, they were talking about ONE God not ALL the Gods. Trust me, I know a whoel fucking lot more about Paganism than you do.



---
He's YOUR god, They're YOUR rules, YOU burn in Hell!
 
 
n0g0d
00:28:24 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
110 posts
Lucifer [admin]

Mood Now: Annoyed
Post Mood: Devious

Reply
Re: Under God

Quote: richardland at 20:44:20 Fri Sep 20 2002



You should also consult your local Mormon or Jew and to confirm that they do indeed refer to the diety as just "God".
-Seriously...the Christian thing is all on you. But that argument is a misdirection from the subject. -Even if if the line read "One nation under Yahweh" - no ones rights are being betrayed. As long as the next line doesn't read "And everyone believes in, follows and worships Yahweh" - there's no persecution going on anywhere.

I can empathize and understand your wanting to cut religion out of our government because you aren't "part of that club" so to speak, but you've got to understand that as long as you're free - there's no injustice. It's not an "insult" to be welcomed into a country that stands for contrary beliefs but treats you as an equal nonetheless.


the law being broken isn't about injustice and pissing off atheists or non-christians. the law states that there can be no establishment of a state religion. by stating that god is in control of the nation and that we are a nation devoted to god, as the pledge implies, then a state religion is created (even though it is vague, it is still religion, because it places national faith in a supernatural deity).

you best remove your head from your ass richard and learn the law. sure everyone is entitled to beleive that the nation is under their god's control, but the government can't state that the nation is under any god. and the fact that it doesn't state that a god is in crontrol of us doesnt' mean that people can't beleive and infact it is the only non-blasphemous statment, because if one were to declare this nation for god, you show great disrespect by assuming the intentions and opinions of god... a big no-no for mortals.

also, i don't see the resembalece to god's laws in our own laws. how many cattle have you sacrifieced this year? do you cease all work on sunday by order of the federal government? since when have i ever broken any laws for having sex with my girlfriend without being married? i could go on and on with the various immoral laws that promote selfish corporate greed and hell capitalism is pretty damned ungodly, i thought god was a socialist. it's obvious this is not god's country, hell if it's any deity's country i'd guess we are satan's children.

  
richardland
02:05:06 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

Quote:

It says GOD. God being singular because of the lack of the "s" at the end. Therefore it cannot relate to my religion in ANY way. It also can't relate to Atheism in any possible way. As for those Greek writings, they were talking about ONE God not ALL the Gods. Trust me, I know a whoel fucking lot more about Paganism than you do.
Quote:



You obviously didn't read the example of "Man" standing for both a single man and many millions of men. -The English language isn't alone in this practice of words numerical meaning having to be illustrated in the context of which it is used. -Without ANY context at all, the interpretation is up to you now isn't it?

(but i do apologize for my mistake with the quote display...)

-You obviously do NOT "know a whoel fucking lot more" about this than I, as if you did, you would be able to quote off the top of your head several uses of the word "God" that refers to many "Gods".



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
richardland
02:12:05 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

Wonderful use of SPIN, but it's ineffective in the world of logic. I find your half truths rather shameful in my opinion - Unless of course they are just the result of ignorance, in which case I apologize and will attempt to educate you without making you feel too sheepish for your one sided prater.

--------------

FIRST : You attempt to use the law. -Well, you've conveniently left out the Free Exercise clause that goes along with the Establishment of religion mandate. Free Exercise means that no one may be persecuted for practicing their religious beliefs - i.e. stating that their nation lives Under God. By removing the phrase - you are taking away the rights of millions!

-Yes, they can still believe what they want without the phrase there, but I then have to ask what do you think MAKES a nation?? -The ROCKS don't make the decisions in this great land sir, the people do -and not just the people, but the majority of the people. Now, if the people make up a nation, and the overwhelming majority believes in a GOD - how?...in any way at all...are we NOT a "nation under God"? -I mean, why would you want to lie!?? God is recognized on our currency, presidential oath, senate hearings, and in numerous federal and state documents that are a part of our national heritage. Add that to the fact that Americans by far still believe in God and it is utterly impossible, unless through some obscure illogical fashion, to deny that we are in fact a nation UNDER-GOD. -Stating such a fact legally is NOT an establishment of any religion and causes no persecution whatsoever - making it perfectly legal, viable and even necessary.

See, we have a majority rules and minority rights policy here in America, and it is carried out in this case by the majority having the right to HAVE their nation "under God" but allowing the minority to remain free and believe what they wish to.

--------------

SECOND : Your next paragraph says "because if one were to declare this nation for god, you show great disrespect by assuming the intentions and opinions of god" which says that no one should interpret the teachings of a deity because you're not omnipotent yourself - which in turn says that religion can not be practiced because no one can ever hope to do it correctly! -and yet you think that it's I who has my head in my own rectum? -Not likely. Although that is grammatically what you said : if you wish to restate to convey a different meaning, I am open to it.

--------------

Third : You don't see the resemblance to God's laws in your own laws?? -For this to be true, you must live in another country, know absolutely nothing about any religion, or just want to make a point that suits you. By any means it's not my place to judge, but let me remind/tell you for the first time : That America is founded on Judeo Christian values. Your examples are another use of SPIN, as a step back would of course reveal that in order to have a free society and a society without a religion, certain things can not be mandated by law without obvious oppression. -This is an example how there is no established religion and there never will be, as your scenarios mentioned are not illegal.

Although it wasn't terribly kind to myself, -thank you for taking the time to contest my statements, and I hope my own have been, if nothing else - "thought provoking". (I of course expect more crassness and ridicule - but maybe I'll be surprised...)



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
Keinichn
02:54:53 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
207 posts
bishop


Reply
Re: Under God

Yea i'm a Pagan and you're a xian and you know more about Paganism than I do. Yea, right. Man can be both singular and plural based on its use. God is singualr. Gods is plural. There is no denying it. God is also the name of you're God. Damn you xians can't even NAME your God? Us Pagans have names for every God or Goddess. So I suggest you quit trying to prove us wrong. You are outnumbered here. And, as we all know, majority wins.

As for that stupid, long ass, worthless explanation up there, THERE IS NO FUCKING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM HERE!!!!!!! It doesn't matter what that stupid document says, there is NO freedom here. I've had Gods know how many xians try to fucking convert me! That's not freedom is it?! I haven't told my family i'm a Pagan yet because they would drag me to a church! That's not freedom is it?! Just because your God is on our money, pledge, government, etc doesn't mean shit. We are AGAINST it because it not only offends us but does indeed interfere with our basic rights. If you look in other parts of this forum you will see examples of it. Like one dude has to write a college paper about anything. Even religion, BUT it cannot be on Paganism, Buhdism, Satanism, etc. It can ONLY be on xianity. That's not only bias but it's ILLEGAL! What happens in this country when us "minor" religions try to express our opinions? NOBODY LISTENS TO US! We are outnumbered 5896892789435 to 1 here. There are Gods know how many religious events around this country that are ONLY xianity. I have yet to see one damn religious event for Pagans, Wiccans, etc. Now YOU tell ME if there is freedom here.
[Edited By Keinichn at 03:03:43 Sat Sep 21 2002]



---
He's YOUR god, They're YOUR rules, YOU burn in Hell!
 
 
richardland
05:27:42 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

Your lack of knowledge in both grammar and your own alleged faith is clear, and I won't push you over the edge on it. I understand it initially doesn't sound right, but do a little research on the topic and you will come across phrases such as "The work of God", "Gods jealousy of man" and so on that do indeed refer to more than one. I admit it's not common and used by more philosophical writers (Homer says a phrase or two) but its out there.

As for freedom... I can empathize with your hate and pent up aggression, but you must see that it is misplaced. You have all the freedom you wish to have and it's a choice every person has to make in their lives whether it be with parents, relationships, lifestyles, religion or what have you. -I understand your complaints, but it's a separate issue from God being woven into American culture. You contradict yourself by saying majority rules, but your minority rights should still outweigh that majority.

I apologize if I offended you, but none of your religious rights are being oppressed by God in the law. -You are being oppressed by people - not the government. I see that you've had a rough time, but point your energy towards ignorance and intolerance, not the use of God in our government.

-Thank you for your thoughts and input.



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
Human_Atrocity
06:06:43 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
193 posts
inquisitor

Mood Now: Pessimistic
Post Mood: Pessimistic

Reply
Re: Under God

Quote: richardland at 20:44:20 Fri Sep 20 2002

I never connected "Under God" to "the founding fathers putting God in control of the nation". I am aware of the addition in 1954 and aware of the colonists flee from persecution. The line in the pledge only reconfirms what has already been woven into the grain that makes America, and no persecution, religious or otherwise, has gone on in our country for quite some time.

This however doesn't change the fact that the settles did indeed give their society certain laws and freedoms that were "God given". It is the very idea of their rules. -If man is in complete control - you're just asking for another England. If God laws down some foundational laws - there's only so far you can go.

You should also consult your local Mormon or Jew and to confirm that they do indeed refer to the diety as just "God".
-Seriously...the Christian thing is all on you. But that argument is a misdirection from the subject. -Even if if the line read "One nation under Yahweh" - no ones rights are being betrayed. As long as the next line doesn't read "And everyone believes in, follows and worships Yahweh" - there's no persecution going on anywhere.

I can empathize and understand your wanting to cut religion out of our government because you aren't "part of that club" so to speak, but you've got to understand that as long as you're free - there's no injustice. It's not an "insult" to be welcomed into a country that stands for contrary beliefs but treats you as an equal nonetheless.


Jews and mormons have the same God as Christians... So of course they'd refer to him in the same way.

And I've heard you say that if "Under God" was removed from the pledge that the rights of millions would be trampled on? Yet... Other people who practice different religions rights ARN'T being stepped on by having it in there?? Well, if it were removed, then your rights wouldn't be stepped on either. It's not like its removal would keep you from practicing your faith. What if the pledge said "One nation under Pan"? Would that be stepping on your rights as a christian? What about other peoples rights? Atheists? Muslims? In a country as diverse as this one, we need a pledge that doesn't discriminate. The original pledge worked just fine. If you REALLY want that extra part in there, why not change it to "One nation, joined in freedom?" It states a value that ALL Americans have. Not simply "The majority".



  
richardland
06:31:56 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

You either havn't read much of my writings or you are ignoring them because your reply was pretty redundant to things I've already covered. -If you want to counter my arguements then that's fine, but your points have already been explained.

-If America was founded on the belief of Pan, and his presense was as woven into American culture as God in general is (and there's a Pan pipe and Nymph on the back of our money -etc) -then yes, duh, of course I would agree that we were "one nation under Pan".

If I'm allowed to believe what I want - I have no right to take away the rights of others. -When in Rome, do as the freakin Romans. You're being silly



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 
Human_Atrocity
07:06:13 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
193 posts
inquisitor

Mood Now: Pessimistic
Post Mood: Pessimistic

Reply
Re: Under God

It's the right of others to beleive what they want, yes. It's NOT their right to add their beliefs to state oaths. Having "Under God" in the pledge is NOT A RIGHT.
And we ARN'T "one nation under God". Only PART of the nation believes in God. Even if it IS the majority, it's still only PART. Therefore it's not "one nation under God" It's only "PART of a nation under God".

  
Mike420
13:35:09 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
402 posts
Black Pope [mod]


Reply
Re: Under God

uhhh...I'm a US citizen...a US ci-ti-zen...why the fuck should I, and the 30,000,000 other athiests in America have to pledge to any god?..."Under God" wasn't in the pledge before, why should it be in there now?...In a country that promotes religious freedom, why the fuck should the country choose a favorite religion?....Its fucking bullshit....Even thou a lot of dumbasses are xians, there are still a whole lot of minority religious people out there....The xians lose nothing from the loss of "under god", while we gain much....it should be removed...

  
richardland
15:53:00 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: Under God

Corrections :

- The country doesn't pick a "favorite religion" - "God" is not a religion.
(how many times are we gonna go through that one???)

-You are not pledging to ANY god - you are pledging to your nation, that is undenyably one that IS "under God". -It's simple fact that has nothing to do with your personal beliefs.

-The majority is what makes up the nation - its an understatement to say that just a "part" of America believes in a higher power. -It's the overwhelming masses of the population. If this majority isn't what the country stands for what would you suggest it does or should stand for? -Should we give our elections to the candidate who wins the minority of total votes? or do you just want to apply that theory to this situation (which is hypocritical)?

  
Keinichn
16:39:12 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
207 posts
bishop


Reply
Re: Under God

First off, I wish it was like the late Roman days. The days when xians started popping up. The Romans threw the xians into a pit of lions for the enjoyment of millions of people. Second, my religion is a helluva lot older than your's. Mine is about 40,000 yrs old. Your's is 2000 yrs old. You xians may have your way now, but that will change one day......



---
He's YOUR god, They're YOUR rules, YOU burn in Hell!
 
 
Human_Atrocity
22:27:31 Sat
Sep 21 2002

Offline
193 posts
inquisitor

Mood Now: Pessimistic
Post Mood: Pessimistic

Reply
Re: Under God

The countries pledge should stand for ALL Americans, not just the christian majority. It's not JUST the christians who live in, and love this country. Its people from ALL faiths. Therefore, a pledge which is to represent ALL people living in this country should represnt ALL of those people. Not JUST the christians.

And Christians do only make up only PART of the country. I'm going to liken America to a slice of pizza... It's an 8 sliced pizza; 6 of the slices are just pepperoni, and the last 2 slices are anchovies/sausage/peppers/mushrooms/and pineapple. Take out the peperroni part, and you've taken PART of the pizza. It makes up a whole which INCLUDES the anchovies, sausages/etc... Now, apply that situation to America and you get the same thing. Christians are only PART of a whole.

I'm not talking about minority rule here. I never once mentioned it. An election includes ALL Americans voting TOGETHER to decide who will take office. So yes, when ALL Americans (not just the christians) get together to vote, the majority wins. Whereas, the pledge (which should represent ALL Americans) only represents those who believe in God.

  
n0g0d
00:31:42 Sun
Sep 22 2002

Offline
110 posts
Lucifer [admin]

Mood Now: Annoyed
Post Mood: Devious

Reply
the religion of "Under God"

Quote: richardland at 06:31:56 Sat Sep 21 2002

You either havn't read much of my writings or you are ignoring them because your reply was pretty redundant to things I've already covered. -If you want to counter my arguements then that's fine, but your points have already been explained.

-If America was founded on the belief of Pan, and his presense was as woven into American culture as God in general is (and there's a Pan pipe and Nymph on the back of our money -etc) -then yes, duh, of course I would agree that we were "one nation under Pan".

If I'm allowed to believe what I want - I have no right to take away the rights of others. -When in Rome, do as the freakin Romans. You're being silly


you seem to think that for something to be called a religion it must have very strict guidlines and rules and specific gods, etc. religion occures when 1 or more people believe strongly in a certain idea mainly pertaining to the supernatural.

using the phrase "under god" in our pledge states that americans beleive in an un-named God (despite the fact that a capital God is the judeo-christian version of god and of course youmust remember that this was added by a catholic group that was trying to promote christianity in our nation). this god has a domain that he rules over... "america." and by adding god to thepledge you make everything in the pledge a part of that god, simply because the pledge is about the country that god is over. your religion has libertry and justice for all as one of god's gifts. i mean itdoesn't take much to show that this is a very vague/crude religion, but a religion non the less. especially since there are obviously thousands of followers, who showed their beleif in the "under god" religion by protesting the removal of the pledge recently.



---
Jesus is comming! Get yer gun!
 
 
richardland
00:53:59 Sun
Sep 22 2002

Offline
91 posts
priest

Mood Now: Loser

Reply
Re: the religion of "Under God"

If you have Alzheimer’s disease - then I apologize, but if your persistant connection to "God" automatically meaning the Christian God is an attempt to blindly make an invalid point - it's pretty lame.

The arguments have obviously gone flat as no one can of course dispute the solid pro evidence I've offered and instead just branches off into one red herring after another.

-As for nogod & the "religion" thing - I understand your mode of thinking, but I still think it's a pretty big distortion of the truth. Although it clearly escapes the establishment clause as being a "religion", if you want to view the mention of God as such, I can only respectfully disagree. "Religion" is defined and used differently by all uses of the word - but again, I can understand how all supernatural is "religion" to you.

This still doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the pledge though. Under our pagan friends examples of oppression everyone obviously doesn't have "liberty and justice" in his defined manner. -should we remove that too??

Bottom line is that you're seeking to cut out something engrained in our countries history and ideals just because you've got some misconceptions about it and you don't like it for personal reasons. -The phrase speaks for the masses and that just can't be argued. I am sorry so many of you have such a bad taste in your mouths about "religion" but its still just wrong to try and constrain the majority to fit the preference of the minority.



---
Richard Bushnell
http://www.richardland.com
 
 

Pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ]

 Total Members: 412

  • Can't start a new thread. (Everyone Registered)
  • Can't start a new poll. (Everyone Registered)
  • Can't add a reply. (Everyone Registered)
  • Can't edit your posts.(Everyone Registered)
  • Register :: Log In :: In Power

    The time is now 23:50:16 Thu Dec 8 2022

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net