|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 10, 2003 18:22:18 GMT -5
I'm a thoroughly established atheist and yes, I disagree with anyone who thinks it should stay. It's not about "Christian heritage." The great thing about America is, we have all kinds of heritage, AND we keep our minds open to new ideas and believe they too are important.
The government has a DUTY to not show preference to any religion. Of COURSE it matters, it links patriotism to religion. Any child who has said that pledge since Kindergarten is going to say it how they were taught no matter their religion. They're too young to know they have other options. And a child who has sad "under God" for all their life is going to mentally link government to patriotism to Christianity. That's not right.
And yes, it IS patriotic to challenge it, because democracy is based on the voice of the people and relies on THEM to fix flaws in their government. Was it "unpatriotic" of the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall to take a stand against segregation in court? People have to express their opinions and hold cases against government actions that they find unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 11, 2003 1:59:28 GMT -5
<<The great thing about America is, we have all kinds of heritage, AND we keep our minds open to new ideas and believe they too are important.>>
Its not about that, its the fact that this nation was founded by people with a profound faith in their God, and that should not be erased because it might breach some PC standard, or God forbid, offend somebody.
<<The government has a DUTY to not show preference to any religion. Of COURSE it matters, it links patriotism to religion>>
To which religion does the phrase "under God" link to? Government has a duty to not establish and ordain a state religion. In America, you have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It is not the duty of government to show preference toward nonreligion.
Even though the USSC is expected to over-rule this erroneous ruling quite soon, I support a Constitutional amendment that would protect the pledge and the national motto from future activist courts.
<<Was it "unpatriotic" of the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall to take a stand against segregation in court?>>
Comparing segregation to the Pledge? Come on now, there was little to no legal justification for segregation, and every reason to abolish it, it is just the opposite with this issue.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 14, 2003 8:32:52 GMT -5
I'm happy with the pledge as it is.
and we keep our minds open to new ideas and believe they too are important.
Not everything under the sun is important, good, valid, or right. It's the political correctness that is dangerous, not the pledge. Political correctness is creating the very situations that people accuse big government of doing. And often with stupid, useless, and ridiculous pointless results. We can't say this, we can't say that. Why because two people out of 250 million MIGHT be o-fended?
Hey too bad, that's life, and it's not always going to be comfortable. People are going to tease and not like each other. You think school is bad? Wait till you work at the office when someone goes behind your back, slips in a note to your boss, and now that someone has the promotion, not you.
You're going to be turned down for credit, you may not get into the school you want, looking for work is a chore unto itself, you'll pay insurance because others don't. After all that, you're the one on anti-depressants because the world doesn't revolve around one group or person.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on May 14, 2003 10:09:19 GMT -5
The government has a DUTY to not show preference to any religion.
I disagree... to some extent. It's just stupid sometimes. In the UK, Tony Blair isn't really allowed to state or show or talk about any of his Catholic faith for fear of hurting people, being politically correct, and wanting to be open-minded to all faiths. It's his own personal faith for goodness sake! What does it matter if he talks about it?! Sometimes this stuff is just taken too far.
The reason why I don't mind people talking about religion (in the UK we don't have a pledge or whatever) is firstly because I'm a Christian and I'm not anti-organised religion. Sometimes I think people that are atheists (harsh generalisation, maybe) are just against anything that talks about God. Perhaps its time to let loose a little. America has Christian roots, to take that away might cause a loss of identity and tradition... do you really want that? Secondly, the practise of religion encourages the vast majority to be benevolent, kind, caring. A huge amount of charity work and other such things is done by religious people. If you don't encourage religion or belief in God, you are getting rid of the potential for young children to grow up at least kind and caring. They can choose not to believe in God later, but the majority will still continue with kind acts.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 14, 2003 17:46:50 GMT -5
the practise of religion encourages the vast majority to be benevolent, kind, caring. A huge amount of charity work and other such things is done by religious people. If you don't encourage religion or belief in God, you are getting rid of the potential for young children to grow up at least kind and caring.
So now if I raise my children as atheists I'm preventing them from becoming GOOD CARING PEOPLE? Have you noticed a trend of some terrible things being carried out in the name of religion? Maybe it helps some people to act more morally....although that's debatable. But we know how many terrible things have been done in the name of God, so don't even try that argument.
We can't say this, we can't say that. Why because two people out of 250 million MIGHT be o-fended?
The point is that people of other religions have just as much of a right to be considered equal, and this isn't fair towards those people.
Come on now, there was little to no legal justification for segregation, and every reason to abolish it, it is just the opposite with this issue.
Do you have legal support for saying 'Under God' in the pledge? Is there anywhere in the Consititution that they say we need to support this? It's possible that the Constitution doesn't ban it, but it certainly has no support.
I disagree... to some extent. It's just stupid sometimes. In the UK, Tony Blair isn't really allowed to state or show or talk about any of his Catholic faith for fear of hurting people, being politically correct, and wanting to be open-minded to all faiths.
I don't have any problems with politicians discussing their faith. That's part of the job, they're selling their lifestyle to the public. But to push it upon young children, who don't know they have a choice in saying something else, is a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 14, 2003 23:56:14 GMT -5
<<The point is that people of other religions have just as much of a right to be considered equal, and this isn't fair towards those people.>>
What exactly is not fair about it? How does it make anyone less equal? Does it inflict any harm on you? No one is forced to recite the Pledge, or the term "under God," it does not support any specific religion, and merely recognizes the deep religious heritage of America that you seemingly want to ignore.
<<Do you have legal support for saying 'Under God' in the pledge? Is there anywhere in the Consititution that they say we need to support this? It's possible that the Constitution doesn't ban it, but it certainly has no support.>>
Of course there is no direct support for the Pledge in the Constitution, but it is not unconstitutional and their is no legal reason to label it as such. This is why we should have a Constitutional amendment that protects the national motto and the Pledge, because the Founders could have never envisioned such a crazed PC culture where it could be deemed offensive to use the word God.
<<But to push it upon young children, who don't know they have a choice in saying something else, is a different matter.>>
If parents have such a big problem with reciting the Pledge, then they can tell their children that they do not have to say the Pledge at all, or the phrase "under God," infact Im sure most teachers are required to tell them this as well.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on May 15, 2003 0:21:57 GMT -5
So now if I raise my children as atheists I'm preventing them from becoming GOOD CARING PEOPLE?
I agree. I was raised without a religion (although I do believe in a higher power) and I have better morals and values than many Christians that I know. Religion can be a factor in a person's morals and values, but please do not say that those who are not religious have none or have less, because that is a bunch of BS.
The point is that people of other religions have just as much of a right to be considered equal, and this isn't fair towards those people.
Again, I am not a Christian or religious in any way, but America is run by the majority, it always has been, always will be and the fact is that a majority of America believe in a higher power. A country does not cater to a minority because they may be offended. That's the problem with being PC as well. Pretty soon we won't be able to put together sentences because it might offend someone.
Do you have legal support for saying 'Under God' in the pledge? Is there anywhere in the Consititution that they say we need to support this? It's possible that the Constitution doesn't ban it, but it certainly has no support.
There doesn't need to be any legal justification for it. God is a part of America's heritage, whether it be the Christian God or whatnot, the point was that people came here for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and that included A GOD in some way.
I don't have any problems with politicians discussing their faith. That's part of the job, they're selling their lifestyle to the public. But to push it upon young children, who don't know they have a choice in saying something else, is a different matter.
How is the president pushing his religion on young ones? Do the kids not have parents? I think you're kind of overestimating the role of a figure outside of the family relationship, and underestimating the influence a family has on a kid. A kid will believe what they want to believe, they are not stupid. If they end up believing in Catholicism or Hinduism or whatever-ism, other than the religion or lack thereof that they grew up with, fine! Who cares? It is a person's choice as to what to believe and if they are influenced (we all are, whether it is by family, celebrities or marketing) so be it.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on May 15, 2003 11:33:48 GMT -5
So now if I raise my children as atheists I'm preventing them from becoming GOOD CARING PEOPLE? Have you noticed a trend of some terrible things being carried out in the name of religion? But we know how many terrible things have been done in the name of God, so don't even try that argument.I actually think its a pretty valid argument. The people that I see doing crime in my country are people that usually have been raised with no moral values; that have not been brought up to believe in anything. Maybe you don't agree with them, but surely most religions do bring their children up with some degree of moralty?! By saying that, I'm NOT saying that bringing your children up as atheists is going to mean they turn into bad people. But most people, if they are religious, want their children to follow their beliefs and let's face it, most religious people are good. Yes, some terrible things have been carried out but it would be ignorant to say that religious people only do bad. We don't hear about the good things that happen behind the scenes which are gradually making people's lives better. But we do hear of 9/11 and since then and before people have blamed religion for causing massive atrocities. Yes, I might be biased, but I do know that a massive majority of the charities in the UK - where I live - are run by religious groups, in particular Christians. You cannot say they don't have an influence. Anyways, in the UK we don't have a pledge and I only half get what you guys are on about, so I'll close now
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 15, 2003 18:30:16 GMT -5
let's face it, most religious people are good.
Hitler
Saddam Hussein
Osama Bin Laden
Most terrorists are deeply religious. To say that just because someone believes in God will make them moral, is bull. Completely and a hundred percent bull.
I'm not saying religious people only do bad. They do start charities. They also start brutal wars (anyone heard of the Crusades?) The point is, you CANNOT generalize. Not everyone religious is good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 15, 2003 18:52:02 GMT -5
<<Hitler
Saddam Hussein>>
Saddam and Hitler werent particularly religious people, thats a bad example.
<<(anyone heard of the Crusades?) >>
So now we need to go back 600 years?
This discussion has gotten way off track, we should focus more on the Pledge and its implications.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on May 16, 2003 3:22:02 GMT -5
Most terrorists are deeply religious. To say that just because someone believes in God will make them moral, is bull. Completely and a hundred percent bull.
Seeing you didn't read what I said, I'll post it again: let's face it, most religious people are good. Yes, some terrible things have been carried out but it would be ignorant to say that religious people only do bad. We don't hear about the good things that happen behind the scenes which are gradually making people's lives better. But we do hear of 9/11 and since then and before people have blamed religion for causing massive atrocities.
How many devout Muslims, do you think, in the US and the UK, for example, agree with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?!!! And since when was Hitler a devout Christian?!!! He wasn't! He tried to banish the church and seriously disliked it when respected Christian figures spoke up against him!
So now we need to go back 600 years?
Precisely. Besides, as I said, lots of crime - in fact, a vast majority - has been done by people with no religion and no morals.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 16, 2003 10:08:12 GMT -5
Saddam Huessein, Hitler, and Osama bin-Laden are religious, in their attitudes toward life. Everyone is religious, that does not always mean following a diety.
However, Saddam, Osama, and Hitler are not representative of good religious people. And as I've been finding out, the Crusades were for a very good reason. See for yourself.
As to the Pledge, don't say it if it offends you, but it's been around for 50 years and "Under God" is here to stay. The US has a background of Christian heritage. other countries do not modify their documents, pledges and governments just because of immigrants, and don't really care if that country's flag offends, neither should we.
Case in point, if I moved to Central or South America somewhere, and lived amongst a tribe, and they said a pledge to their flag and said, "Under Quatzequatl." What do you think the response would be if I came up to them and said, "Hey listen, I don't beleive in Quatzequatl, do you think you guys could omit that part to accommodate me?"
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 16, 2003 14:51:38 GMT -5
Case in point, if I moved to Central or South America somewhere, and lived amongst a tribe, and they said a pledge to their flag and said, "Under Quatzequatl." What do you think the response would be if I came up to them and said, "Hey listen, I don't beleive in Quatzequatl, do you think you guys could omit that part to accommodate me?"
And if it were one immigrant in the US, or it were just me, I would not have any problem with keeping it.
However, Saddam, Osama, and Hitler are not representative of good religious people.
EXACTLY. They're religious, but not good people. There are lots of good religious people, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of bad religious people as well.
And as I've been finding out, the Crusades were for a very good reason.
Feel free to explain, but I seriously doubt that.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on May 19, 2003 3:08:25 GMT -5
And as I've been finding out, the Crusades were for a very good reason.
Feel free to explain, but I seriously doubt that.
Whatever... they were YEARS ago! You can't possibly be using that as an example, it's like "religious people are bad today, and do a lot of bad things, let's see we've got Hitler 60 years ago, the Crusades 600 years ago". Maybe it's a good argument, but at least give up-to-date examples.
EXACTLY. They're religious, but not good people. There are lots of good religious people, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of bad religious people as well.
The vast majority of religious people are good. Think of the people who aren't religious that do crime... there's quite a lot! I'm just aware that you're bracketing all people who follow a religion into the same bracket as people who flippantly call themselves Muslim, never follow it, and are terrorists (as an example). That's not fair. As a Christian, I'm not the same as Hitler! He didn't follow the religion in the same way I do. YES there are bad "religious" people! I'm not saying there aren't, but a massive number of following religious people are good and do good things. The majority is HUGE.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 19, 2003 7:43:29 GMT -5
And if it were one immigrant in the US, or it were just me, I would not have any problem with keeping it.
And that is what we're doing.
EXACTLY. They're religious, but not good people. There are lots of good religious people, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of bad religious people as well.
The good outweigh the bad.
Feel free to explain, but I seriously doubt that.
It was to keep the Muslim armies at bay and while there are some unfortunate incidents of murder, that was the real reason. It wasn't that the Crusades were out to kill everyone, despite what PC revisionist history might say. It was to hold back the Muslim armies that in thier own right were trying to take over the world.
Many of the biggest charites in the world are Christian organizations. They have done the hard work of feeding the destitute, the diseased where no one else would touch them, and dig and build wells so the people could have clean water. If there is a problem with those who help others, it doesn't surprise me that there is so much trouble in the world.
|
|