one nation under god

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by TrailorParkPimp@Jun 14 2004, 11:11 PM
maybe they should change it to:

One nation, under Canada, above Mexico.

:unsure:

:lmao:

i agree. at least then no one bickers about it.
 
Since I'm not an American citizen, I won't say anything...

but everyone has some good arguments.
 
Originally posted by ahedau@Jun 14 2004, 08:12 PM
There is too much to respond to here.

If you're an atheist and it turns out you're right but you live a life based on Christian morals and precepts, who is going to suffer while you're alive?

But what if just maybe you're wrong and live a life of moral relativity and tolerance of everyone except the intolerant. Can you afford to be wrong for eternity?

Who are you to say that all Atheists lead lives of "moral reletivity." My moral standards are MUCH higher than most of the practicing christians I know. I'm not attacking your right to base your life arround christian morals, in fact, the world would be a much better place if everyone did. The problem is that there really isn't any coalation between religion and morality. There are lots of things in the bible (the basis for christian morality) that I do not agree with. I accept it as a good starting place for a morality structure, but it should not be the sole source of one's ideals.

Secondly, I object to other people pressing their beliefs on me. If you want to be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buhdist, Shinto or any other religion it is perfectly fine with me, and I will even discuss theology with you, as long as you arn't trying to "sell" your belief system to me. Therefor I feel that "One nation under God" does not belong in the pledge of allegance. What damage does it do if it is removed?

--It proves that we are not all the same. And that idea scares a lot of people out there. They want to believe that everyone is just like them and that belief confirms (in their mind) that what they do is the right thing to do.--

You shouldn't need this assurace that everyone does it so its ok. People need to think for themselves more and stop relying on dogma to lead their lives.

Removing the simple clause hurts no one and will make many others feel more comfortable living in this country; knowing that no religion is being pushed on them.
 
Originally posted by TrailorParkPimp@Jun 14 2004, 10:11 PM
maybe they should change it to:

One nation, under Canada, above Mexico.

:unsure:

LMAO!! :werd:

But someone would try to get politically correct and say "nope we're south, not under Canada" or some shit.
 
the reason they dropped the suit, is the surpreme court ruled the guy had no grounds because he was not even a legal guardian of the kid! The guy is sucha loser.

Also, as far as the "under God" slogan. that does not refer to any 1 religion, although many people infer it to mean Jesus Christ/God. In the original Declaration of INdependence youll find a reference to a "god".

Nobody is arguing to remove that. The country was partially, not fully, founded by men who believed in a higher power, and its our tradition. I have read many books on the subject, and what I can show you to tally up the truth is that the USA is the best society BY FAR in the entire world, in the history of mankind.

What makes is the greatest is the freedom, granted from the values of the founding fathers who implemented guidelines based on their moral fiber. Which, for many of them were the belief in Jesus Christ. the Bible is responsible a great deal for the laws we now enjoy in this country, because of the founding fathers belief in freedom, etc. etc.

Some of the founding fathers did not believe in God, you could argue. I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who spoke out when GOD was being talked about amoung thr group. He tried to silence the Christian members from speaking of it in meetings, by saying it was the religion of England and that it was frowned upon. (thats the view he had, not what he said in those words)

Also, if you study history, secularism is the best damn thing we have in our society. Whether you are an athiest, a liberal or whatever, Christian leadership in this country is VALUABLE and SUCESSFULL. Secular leadership is the most successfull type of leadership of the last 2 thousand years.

To prove my point, look at athiestic type leadership.

Site example #1 Adolf Hitler. Was religious in his youth, then turned athiest, and then you know what happened. read his book.
Site example #2 Russia. Stalin. Same thing. When he turned athiest, guess what, a few million people started getting sent up the guloags (Sp).

You see secularism brings good things, whether you like it or not. It brings morals, order, structure, guidelines, promotes peace, and ethics. With athiestic societies, all history has shown it to do is be immporal, unethical, murderious, genocide, no freedom, mass graves...

A quick study of history will point anyone to want to live in a society run by a Christian based secular leader.

And without war, there would be no peace. The left wing people have no answer for what you do when the other side can't be reasoned with, can't be bargained with, can't be dealt with. they just have to be defeated/killed. That means war. That is the only option. period.

Again, Look at Hitler. can't be reasoned with, nothing. You just have to kill him. Saddam Hussien, same thing.

so back to the main point, the idiot lost 8-0 in the supreme court because he did not have custody of the kid he was basing his argument on. What a jackass. I heard him on the radio today arguing with mark Levin for 1 hour. The guy is mental. He kept saying that under god meant under Jesus Christ.

He didn't understand the government is not supporting any 1 religion. there is NO state religion. Its supporting any/all you want to choose.

BTW, back in the late 1700's or so, there was many states with OFFICAL STATE RELIGIONS.

lol. Boy, the religion haters would have hated to live in those times.

Good nite all.

Jeff
 
Um...you might want to double check the meaning of secular....

sec·u·lar
adj.
Worldly rather than spiritual.


Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.


Relating to or advocating secularism.


Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.


Occurring or observed once in an age or century.


Lasting from century to century.

It actually means non-religious.
I'm not attacking you, or bashing you, just thought that you should know.
 
Originally posted by lsvtec+Jun 14 2004, 08:22 PM-->
Originally posted by NotUrAverage_Si@Jun 14 2004, 04:38 PM
lsvtec
@Jun 14 2004, 11:36 AM
You might want to check your facts there, the phrase "Under God" was added in 1954.

I am not sure what school you went to but we were not allowed to skip any part of the pledge where I went to elementary school.


Ok, is that or is that not still part of American history? 50 years ago is still history.

What school did you go to that forced you to say it? At my elementry you didn't have to say 1 word of it if you didn't want to.

This guy is obviously just some jackass who wants his 15 minutes in the spot light, to make such a big deal over it and use his daughter as an excuse is retarded. He needs to shut up and let his daughter speak for herself.

The point was,in case you missed it, that "under god" was not in the original pledge. So why does it need to stay there? Quite honestly I think that any contribution made by McCarthy and his cronies ought to be removed.

Yes, I'm quite aware it wasn't in the original pledge. "Why does it need to stay there?" Why does it need to be taken out after 50 years since it was added?


Hardcore atheist fanatics are every bit as bad as hardcore religious fanatics. They both are trying to force their beliefs on others.


I completely agree with this statement.
 
Originally posted by NotUrAverage_Si@Jun 15 2004, 05:15 PM
Hardcore atheist fanatics are every bit as bad as hardcore religious fanatics. They both are trying to force their beliefs on others.


I completely agree with this statement.

Never seen a atheist standing on the street corner preaching, and yelling at passerbys, calling them fornicators, or sinners.
 
Originally posted by 92b16vx+Jun 15 2004, 10:36 AM-->
NotUrAverage_Si
@Jun 15 2004, 05:15 PM
Hardcore atheist fanatics are every bit as bad as hardcore religious fanatics. They both are trying to force their beliefs on others.


I completely agree with this statement.

Never seen a atheist standing on the street corner preaching, and yelling at passerbys, calling them fornicators, or sinners.

No, but they go to the Supreme court to take two words out of a phrase, or to take words out of money, or remove a stone tablet from a court. THEY don't like it, so they want everyone else to not have it either. Same thing as the religious folks doing the opposite.
 
Never seen a atheist standing on the street corner preaching, and yelling at passerbys, calling them fornicators, or sinners.


I have never seen a christian do that either, I have only seen cults who "think" that they are christian. I guess you can consider me a christian, I went to a private school and church, but have gone astray from it. For the most part christians are not like that, there are those that try to spread the word, but if you don't want to hear it walk away, say I am not interested or something like that. Also, I though there was freedom of speech and religion in this country, I can call someone an asshole, or I can call them a blessing to humanity, I have that right. So, they also have the right to call someone a sinner or fornicator. I remember the entire time I was in High School, about 2 miles away from my school, everyday this guy held out signs that said Jesus loves you etc. He yell at anyone just wanted to show his faith I respected him for that, he didn't force it upon anyone, and did it everyday, that is devotion. Anyway, to get back on topic, Under God isn't really hurting anyone in the first place so why take it out? If you don't agree with it, just skip, once again, you have that right.
 
for the record- president Ike added it in 1954.

as far my opinion- frankly, i think its stupid.

I don't beleive in the easter bunny, but you know what, seeing eggs and baskets every april doesn't phase me at all.

god, yet another "phathom of imagination" to me, at least, is the same way. it doesn't piss me off, just makes me wonder why folks are wasting perfectly good sleep time every sunday morning to go talk to someone they don't know.

:shrug2:

I find religion to be a pretty stupid concept. I don't mean to offend anyone's beliefs- but i mean, beleiving in something that just can't be proved is like trying to solve pi to the 3412423453242341234234234234234234234234234324324234234423 4234 234 23432 432423423 42323 423 432423 ^ 1234124123424 digit every sunday.

you'll never find the answer- and the more you try, the more fucked up in the head you get.

But, hey- if it makes you "feel better about your self" or "gives you somethign to beleive in" by all means, do it.
But in my opinion, you can do it on your own.

-B
born/raised/confirmed Catholic.... and could give 1/4 of a shit about it now.
 
I hate arguing religion via the internet, so, I won't.

However, if you'd like to have an adult conversation without any personal attacks, I welcome your questions or comments about the existence of just and omnipotent God, the damage of organized religion, creationism, why evil exist, etc send me an e-mail and I'll shoot you my AIM nick
 
Originally posted by ahedau@Jun 15 2004, 08:19 PM
I hate arguing religion via the internet, so, I won't.

However, if you'd like to have an adult conversation without any personal attacks, I welcome your questions or comments about the existence of just and omnipotent God, the damage of organized religion, creationism, why evil exist, etc send me an e-mail and I'll shoot you my AIM nick

Huh? Is that directed to me?
 
Originally posted by Havok+Jun 15 2004, 08:20 PM-->
@Jun 15 2004, 08:19 PM
I hate arguing religion via the internet, so, I won't.

However, if you'd like to have an adult conversation without any personal attacks, I welcome your questions or comments about the existence of just and omnipotent God, the damage of organized religion, creationism, why evil exist, etc send me an e-mail and I'll shoot you my AIM nick

Huh? Is that directed to me?

for the answer, refer to your avitar...


its directed at this thread specifically and the entire forum membership in general
 
Originally posted by NotUrAverage_Si@Jun 14 2004, 06:38 PM
Ok, is that or is that not still part of American history? 50 years ago is still history.

Seeing as how our country is 228 years old, 50 years isn't that significant an amount of time... only around 23% of the whole period. Not everything that our country has done was right... slavery, racial segregation, Japanese internment camps during WWII, McCarthyism are just a few examples of our mistakes that needed to be corrected.

As an atheist, I don't see that I ever throw my beliefs in anyone else's face. My reactions are more from Christians doing their usual missionary spam thing at me. Just fucking stop with all of that and leave us non-Christians alone. Don't pray for my soul either. :angry:
 
Wow, since 50 years isn't signaficant, forget about the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars. Forget about the "Deepthroat" scandal, forget about JFK's assassianation or about Clintons impeachment, 9/11. I can go on and on, as for certain things not being right, it isn't right until later determined. Was it right for caveman to bonk his bitch on the head, drag her for miles, then pretty much rape her? Of course not, but they thought it was at the time, or they needed it at the time. Slaver, was without a doubt a sprouting point for this country, without it we may not be as powerful as we are now. Japanse camps, were wrong, NOW, but could we afford to let the Asians run around and possibly kill us? We don't do that with people of Middle Eastern decent, because it is "wrong," but we only view it as wrong after the fact that we have already done it.
 
Dude, they had no proof what so ever of Japanese-Americans aiding the Japanese government. If we were such a threat, why wern't the German-Americans rounded up or the Italian-Americans??? Oh yeah, thats right, because they were white.

Do you realize that the people that were interned got EVERYTHING taken from them. Their houses, businesses, and everything they owned....and then it was never given back. They were lated "repayed" by the US government but it never managed to cover all of the losses.

Stop trying to justify shit you don't know a thing about.
 
Originally posted by Frankie P.+Jun 15 2004, 06:52 PM-->

Never seen a atheist standing on the street corner preaching, and yelling at passerbys, calling them fornicators, or sinners.


I have never seen a christian do that either, I have only seen cults who "think" that they are christian.

I have, Christians, Muslims both, maybe some others, not to mention on any given Sunday morning or anyday early in the morning, TV is littered with them.

DarkHand Posted on Jun 15 2004
@ 06:47 PM
No, but they go to the Supreme court to take two words out of a phrase, or to take words out of money, or remove a stone tablet from a court. THEY don't like it, so they want everyone else to not have it either. Same thing as the religious folks doing the opposite.

Damn them for taking advantage of their rights and doing something Christians don't like, damn them. Seems to me that Christians have been taking away from people more and more and no one seems to question it except those it affects, I mean really just look at censorship in music, it's insane. If there ever was an example of the "moral majority" fucking with the peoples rights, that's it, and imagine, it's all because THEY don't like it. It's truely funny how christians can remove, rewrite, and rearrange to fit their views, but cry soooo much when someone takes a stand against something that shouldn't be in the first place.
 
Originally posted by 92b16vx+Jun 16 2004, 11:26 AM-->
DarkHand Posted on Jun 15 2004
@ 06:47 PM
No, but they go to the Supreme court to take two words out of a phrase, or to take words out of money, or remove a stone tablet from a court. THEY don't like it, so they want everyone else to not have it either. Same thing as the religious folks doing the opposite.

Damn them for taking advantage of their rights and doing something Christians don't like, damn them. Seems to me that Christians have been taking away from people more and more and no one seems to question it except those it affects, I mean really just look at censorship in music, it's insane. If there ever was an example of the "moral majority" fucking with the peoples rights, that's it, and imagine, it's all because THEY don't like it. It's truely funny how christians can remove, rewrite, and rearrange to fit their views, but cry soooo much when someone takes a stand against something that shouldn't be in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the Christians side at all, I'm just mentioning how both sides seem to do it. It's not right for ANYONE to force their will or beliefs on others, no matter what those beliefs entail.

EDIT: And yes, I realize that the previous statement contradicts itself... Having the tablets or whatever can be considered the Christians forcing their will on others too... There's really no end to this argument. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top