| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > What do you think of this? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 15 2004, 02:33 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > What Do You Think About This? Posted by: YoungInFaithlessness May 11 2004, 09:48 PM I'm new at this so bear with me..LOL! In the United States there are issues going on about the Pledge Of Allegiance and the fact that a line in it says, "One nation under God". I'm sure if you live in the U.S. you are familiar with this debate. I was just wondering what everybody's opinion is on this subject. Posted by: Matthew May 11 2004, 10:03 PM I personally have no problem with the interpolation "under God" removed from the Pledge or "In God We Trust" removed from our currency. The fact of the matter is that the first phrase was not originally a part of our Pledge and so it's no big deal to me if it's taken off. If the phrase on the currency wasn't always on there- take it off then! However, I am personally concerned about the timing of all of this. I suspect it's a bit too soon for these kind of changes to happen. No doubt Michael Newdow will become the most hated man in America if he succeeds and gets the Supreme Court on his side. I am worried that he will anger too many fundamentalists and he will wind up with a bullet in his head. Seriously. I think he's probably going about this the wrong way. Right now, religion is still very much a part of American culture and we should wait until America outgrows its religious beliefs. Unfortunately many Americans these days are as religious as ever and the boat is being rocked way too soon! Should Newdow fail, no doubt his life will be hell if not in actual danger ( if some fundamentalists will bomb an abortion clinic, what's to stop some of them from attempting to murder him?) and if he succeeds and gets the Supreme Court on his side, conservatives may decide that they have had enough and all hell can break loose. Matthew Posted by: Lokmer May 11 2004, 10:13 PM Although I agree with you to some extent, Matthew, I don't think there's any dodging this bullet. The country is in a period of religious ferment, and it is a question of what and when, not if, the theonomists will break loose with violence. Better to do it sooner, provoke them to rash action before they have the power they want, then later when they have had time to move even more pieces into place. -Lokmer Posted by: YoungInFaithlessness May 11 2004, 10:31 PM I'm pretty neutral on this subject myself... About the "under God " part, i think that it shouldn't be a big deal since it wasn't in the original text. But what about the school systems? How do you feel about saying the Pledge Of Allegience in school, or the "lord's prayer" for that matter? Posted by: Matthew May 11 2004, 10:46 PM I am never in a place or time where I am forced to recite the Pledge. If I had to, I just wouldn't utter the words "under god". As far as the "Lord's prayer" is concerned, I don't recall being forced to recite that but I would raise hell if I was forced to. Lokmer: I think you have a good point there. I hadn't thought about what might happen if we wait too long. Perhaps we should get it out of the way before fundamentalists get too much power in politics and it becomes impossible to do so. Matthew Posted by: BlueGiant May 12 2004, 12:40 AM Can't say that I like the phrase too much, espicially since it in a way seems to trivialize my own beleifs. I'd just suggest rolling back to the pre-McCarthy version. That shouldn't be a problem. Oh, and before anyone misquoptes the national motto again, it's E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), not "In God We Trust." I can just see someone jumping in with that in this thread, call it preventative medicine. Posted by: TruthWarrior May 12 2004, 05:50 AM Well no one got shot for removing that silly ten commandments monument. Though with this it's all "for the children" so emotions would probably be higher. When I was Christian I was still against school prayer. It goes against what Jesus said about prayer: QUOTE "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." - Matthew 6:5-8 That's all the school prayer supporters want it for, to be seen by men (or children), using it as a conversion tool. When I was evangelical I noticed also that people loved to use "many words" when praying outloud to be seen by men (just watch any televangelist). Silly Christians can't even follow their own book properly. If the god word was removed the christians would just see this as persecution and be even more hard on. Don't forget it would also piss off the other monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam, which would make them more phsyco then usual too. I don't think it's worth all the fuss to remove it though, it's all very trivial. However I would love to see the entire plege to be removed. What the hell is it good for anyway? Anyway there is more important issues that christianity is imposing on the world, things that actually effect peoples lives. Posted by: TruthWarrior May 12 2004, 06:00 AM http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html Posted by: sexkitten May 12 2004, 10:57 AM The only timing issue I'd be concerned about is before/after this election. If those who value the total and true separation of church and state were to push these issues right now, it can mobilize the conservative vote and give Bush enough of an edge to gain the election, unless Kerry came out against it as well. In any case, it would distract from issues of pressing urgency, such as the way we are handling this war and active violations of civil liberties in the Patriot Act. However, I do believe that sooner is better than later, for the reasons that Lokmer outlined. Posted by: notblindedbytheblight May 12 2004, 12:18 PM There is a forum on the bottom link which deals directly with that question. Many informative posts. I have a 5 year old it is very hard to put her in a situation of possible ridicule by not saying "under god". The old "you don't have to say it" line is proven false when Rep. Jim McDermott omitted it ..and this is how adults reacted! http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040427-105435-1862r.htm http://www.restorethepledge.com/ Please visit the forum. It's kind of slow over there right now. Posted by: TexasFreethinker May 12 2004, 12:42 PM QUOTE (YoungInFaithlessness @ May 12 2004, 12:48 AM) I'm new at this so bear with me..LOL! In the United States there are issues going on about the Pledge Of Allegiance and the fact that a line in it says, "One nation under God". I'm sure if you live in the U.S. you are familiar with this debate. I was just wondering what everybody's opinion is on this subject. I don't see why we need a pledge at all. Especially to a flag. If someone wants to share their patriotism in their own words then good for them. Repeating a memorized pledge seems as dronish and useless as repeating the "lord's prayer". Posted by: Madame M May 12 2004, 03:13 PM QUOTE (YoungInFaithlessness @ May 12 2004, 12:48 AM) In the United States there are issues going on about the Pledge Of Allegiance and the fact that a line in it says, "One nation under God". To quote Creed: "Only in America, we stamp on our god "In God we trust". America's God is money. Posted by: Matthew May 13 2004, 04:09 PM QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ May 12 2004, 03:42 PM) QUOTE (YoungInFaithlessness @ May 12 2004, 12:48 AM) I'm new at this so bear with me..LOL! In the United States there are issues going on about the Pledge Of Allegiance and the fact that a line in it says, "One nation under God". I'm sure if you live in the U.S. you are familiar with this debate. I was just wondering what everybody's opinion is on this subject. I don't see why we need a pledge at all. Especially to a flag. If someone wants to share their patriotism in their own words then good for them. Repeating a memorized pledge seems as dronish and useless as repeating the "lord's prayer". I don't see the reason we need to make our young school children pledge their allegiance. It's not like 2nd graders are going to engage in domestic terrorism and anti-government rebellion if they don't swear their absolute allegiance to the American flag and to the country. Most of us don't learn the difference between a republic and a democracy until high school or college. You'd think the government was afraid that if kids in grades K-8 didn't swear absolute allegiance to the country and flag that there would be anarchy and chaos nation-wide starting in the public schools. I wouldn't make any school children pledge allegiance until they understood what it was that they were pledging to and why it was important. It should be completely voluntary as far as the people who are pledging want to do it because they are patriotic and understand what such an action means. Matthew Posted by: LadyFeline May 13 2004, 04:57 PM QUOTE (Matthew @ May 13 2004, 03:09 PM) I don't see the reason we need to make our young school children pledge their allegiance. It's not like 2nd graders are going to engage in domestic terrorism and anti-government rebellion if they don't swear their absolute allegiance to the American flag and to the country. Most of us don't learn the difference between a republic and a democracy until high school or college. You'd think the government was afraid that if kids in grades K-8 didn't swear absolute allegiance to the country and flag that there would be anarchy and chaos nation-wide starting in the public schools. (cue stereotypical hick voice) Wael, a corse! If we dun get 'em young, and drill it inta thuur skulls that they need ta worship that thurr flag, they culd turn inta tearrurists! We dun want are kids turnin' inta tearurrists!! So we gotta teach 'em early on that that they gotta worship an' respect that thurr flag an the cuntry it reprusents!! (cut stereotypical hick voice) Well, that's the attitude I was presented with by several idiots on another message board where this topic was brought up a while back. Seriously, at least ONE person said that teaching children the Pledge and forcing them to say it every morning "gave them a sense of love and respect for their country and God!" and, that, if they didn't recite the Pledge like good little drones, then they mustn't love their country! To which I have have one thing to say: Posted by: YoungInFaithlessness May 13 2004, 05:20 PM QUOTE (Matthew @ May 13 2004, 08:09 PM) I don't see the reason we need to make our young school children pledge their allegiance. It's not like 2nd graders are going to engage in domestic terrorism and anti-government rebellion if they don't swear their absolute allegiance to the American flag and to the country. Most of us don't learn the difference between a republic and a democracy until high school or college. You'd think the government was afraid that if kids in grades K-8 didn't swear absolute allegiance to the country and flag that there would be anarchy and chaos nation-wide starting in the public schools. I get what your saying! I recited the pledge of allegiance everyday in school from k- 12, and I don't think I even knew what I was saying until I got in high school. I had no clue. And about anarchy and terrorism in schools...it's already there. Just look at Columbine! Posted by: Quicksand May 13 2004, 06:44 PM One of the important points that Nedow made that should not be overlooked is that every time we say the word "God" we invoke a connection to that God or that God's protection or blessing. So yes, it is an endorsement of a particular God over another and not some historical statement as the protectors of that phrase would have you believe. The founding of this country was more than less an entrepreneurial enterprise than anything. An immigrant regardless of religion has a back and a set of hands like anyone else. I asked my parents, both church goers, and they have no problem with the removable of "under god" And...get God off my money thank you. Posted by: Tocis May 14 2004, 03:40 AM If endlessly repeating anything would make people believe in and follow that anything, methinks many fundies would have to be less hateful, no? Posted by: Ro-bear May 14 2004, 04:31 PM "Under God" has to go. It outrages me that my daughters must acknowledge a deity they have no beleif in every day at school. It doesn't belong in a pledge of loyalty to one's nation. I'm not as patient as Matthew. It must go NOW. Ditto with "IN GOD WE TRUST", which IS our national motto despite what a pevious poster asserted. "E PLURIBUS UNUM", a vastly superior motto, was supplanted in the 50's by an act of congress. When I'm bored or pissed off, I cross it out and put E PLURIBUS UNUM or NO GODS NO MASTERS on all my bills. I delight at the thought of some Christian becoming apoplectic at the sight. The motto and "under God" must go because they make me angry at my fellow Americans who want to shove their god down my throat. Posted by: woodsmoke May 15 2004, 12:44 PM Shit, muslim fanatics got nothing on the self-appointed king-of-the-school jocks who feel it's their sacred duty to push around anyone with an IQ higher than their own. The often tragic environment in schools gives a whole new meaning to the term "terrorism." Posted by: Harvey May 17 2004, 06:39 PM It surprises me that a country like the US should cede the missionary position so easily. Seriously, putting those words in the pledge is like taking a glass of beautiful wine, and squeezing a big blob of tomato sauce into it. Doesn't fit, doesn't gel, has no place, gotta go. E Pluribus Unum all the way. Posted by: woodsmoke May 17 2004, 08:24 PM Well, considering the context of the time period in which the phrase was first added to the pledge, it's not all that hard to understand--though still difficult to stomach. Reminds me of an old comic illustration I saw in my history book a few years ago. A guy with a sash around his torso with "hysteria" written on it was climbing a ladder toward the torch on the statue of liberty holding a pale of water. Unsettling in its accuracy. Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |