It's the pledge of allegiance... If I actually start believing in the words then when I say it i'll just skip over the two measly words that seem to appease conservative US...
fuck.
"God" - Pledge of Allegiance // Currency
-
-
i apologize here, i intentionally obfuscated the matter of this debate. so just ignore my whole "satanist" speaky.. lol. but whatever.
one other point tho.. yes it is true that the word god on the money and in the pledge may offend atheists. but would it not offend the especially religious people to remove the word "god", as that action would be symbolic of say that religion is unimportant or lesser than state?
alphaspider: you are very correct; the actual USA was formed not as much on religious freedom, so much as other economic and political suppressions by the english government. but the people who formed the USA through the revolutionary war (or rather their ancestors), were 'forced' to colonize the americas because of their seeking religious freedoms. So, had their not been religious suppression by the english government, the United States of America would not have formed as it is today. -
My big thing is either way you aren't going to please everyone either way. I personally think it should stay it was part of our history most people came here for religious freedom as well getting way from suppression and the founding father's added that. Plus many people have died to protect there freedom especially religious freedoms why make those deaths useless
-
What did the founding fathers add?
bmurdock60 wrote:
My big thing is either way you aren't going to please everyone either way. I personally think it should stay it was part of our history most people came here for religious freedom as well getting way from suppression and the founding father's added that. Plus many people have died to protect there freedom especially religious freedoms why make those deaths useless[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] -
It simply doesn't belong there; if the US gov. claims to be secular, that is.[CENTER]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER] -
fuck.
-
ByTor190 wrote:
It simply doesn't belong there; if the US gov. claims to be secular, that is.
there is a difference between "claiming to be secular" and "separation of church and state." -
Separation of church and state isn't mentioned in any of the documents, its a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to describe the 1st Amendment. Just throwing that out for reference.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER] -
I don't think it should be in our pledge of allegiance/on our money. However I do not see it as a priority in the country's agenda at this point."The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical no one will believe in it"-Bertrand Russell
-
As someone previously stated, some group of people is going to offended either way. So go in favor of the majority, which is keeping it.
-
The reason we have a democratic republic is so that the rights of the minority can be protected. I understand the point you're making, but that way of thinking doesn't solve much at all.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER] -
Zen wrote:
The reason we have a democratic republic is so that the rights of the minority can be protected. I understand the point you're making, but that way of thinking doesn't solve much at all.
the last time i said your post was irrelevant, i was not being all that truthful. however, this time i am 100% in the clear in saying your post is completely irrelevant and unproductive, and partially untruthful. The reason we have a democratic republic is not to protect the rights of the minority; however the reason is to protect the rights of all the people of the country. the way of thinking behind my last post does not matter, as, like i said previously, regardless of which side is chosen by the house or the court, some group of people will be offended. so no matter how one reaches the logical conclusion that i recently conveyed, the same outcome will also occur. -
How was his post not relevant? You may not agree with what he said, but he made an applicable rebuttal to your post.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TPM wrote:
the last time i said your post was irrelevant, i was not being all that truthful. however, this time i am 100% in the clear in saying your post is completely irrelevant and unproductive, and partially untruthful. The reason we have a democratic republic is not to protect the rights of the minority; however the reason is to protect the rights of all the people of the country. the way of thinking behind my last post does not matter, as, like i said previously, regardless of which side is chosen by the house or the court, some group of people will be offended. so no matter how one reaches the logical conclusion that i recently conveyed, the same outcome will also occur.
Your definition of "irrelevant" must not match mine or Advocate's. I assumed it was a given fact that the majority is protected if the minority is the one needing protection. I don't see why you find it necessary to nitpick things. I'd go so far as to say the majority of your posts towards me are in fact irrelevant because you do not address anything other than the fact you disagree with me.
My point is and remains to be this: Disregarding the minority to please the majority is not a favorable manner of thought.
"A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison, one of my favorite founding fathers.
Edit: Federalist No. 10, by the way.
The reason I compare your way of thought to styles of rule is because that is the clearest way I can put your idea into thought. If we all simply did what the majority wanted and cared nothing for the minority, there will be constant dissatisfaction among both groups.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER] -
Zen wrote:
1. Your definition of "irrelevant" must not match mine or Advocate's. I assumed it was a given fact that the majority is protected if the minority is the one needing protection. I don't see why you find it necessary to nitpick things. I'd go so far as to say the majority of your posts towards me are in fact irrelevant because you do not address anything other than the fact you disagree with me.
2. My point is and remains to be this: Disregarding the minority to please the majority is not a favorable manner of thought.
3. The reason I compare your way of thought to styles of rule is because that is the clearest way I can put your idea into thought. If we all simply did what the majority wanted and cared nothing for the minority, there will be constant dissatisfaction among both groups.
1. yeah i know. i stretched the meaning of "irrelevant" way beyond logicality. in more precise terms, i meant to say that i found your post's reasons to be somewhat ..unhelpful.. [i'll give an example. say fred gets shot; then joe tells fred he just got shot. that doesnt resolve anything.]
2. have i ever suggested not caring about the minority? if so, wow i must be retarded or something because i definitely do not feel that to be even a plausible option. i have suggested, and still adamantly back those suggestions, that going with the majority is the best option in this case. This is because i only see two options here: leaving the word god, or removing the word god. And so it would seem logical, if left with no other option, to cause offense to the least populous group, therefore the minority. I believe that going with the majority is not always the best option; but, when there are only two options that each cause offense to one group, going with the majority is better.
3. very true. i agree completely with that. but do you see another option besides the two clear ones: of leaving it and offending a much smaller group, or removing it and offending the much larger group? if u had to anger one of two mobs, a large mob, or a small mob, would you honestly anger the large mob? -
Like I stated two posts ago, I understand your point. I never said anything to the contrary of it or even disagreed. I was bringing up a different approach for the sake of discussion. I, personally, couldn't care less if God's name is in the pledge or on our currency. You were the one who jumped on my post, called it irrelevant, and proceeded to attempt to disassemble what I said as if it would somehow assist your position.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER] -
TPM wrote:
the last time i said your post was irrelevant, i was not being all that truthful. however, this time i am 100% in the clear in saying your post is completely irrelevant and unproductive, and partially untruthful. The reason we have a democratic republic is not to protect the rights of the minority; however the reason is to protect the rights of all the people of the country. the way of thinking behind my last post does not matter, as, like i said previously, regardless of which side is chosen by the house or the court, some group of people will be offended. so no matter how one reaches the logical conclusion that i recently conveyed, the same outcome will also occur.
According to your opinion... you forgot that very important statement...fuck. -
I'm an atheist, and personally, I'm not comfortable with it. I mean, I'm all for a belief in God, and whatnot, but I think it kind of contradicts seperation of church and state. And, I know people vote for their state and national goverment basing their decision on what they beleive in, and therefore, they're likely to have similar religons. Since this is a dominatinly, but not offically a Christan nation "Under God" will probably continue to be in the pledge. Though I would prefer it to be removed, I don't find it horribly offensive, I wouldn't go out of my way to have it changed just for the reason it really doesn't matter that much. All I need is my First Amendment Right.
-
Share