|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 19, 2003 15:09:00 GMT -5
It was to hold back the Muslim armies that in thier own right were trying to take over the world.
I've never seen any evidence of that, so I'm waiting for you to prove it or at least make a convincing argument.
YES, I get that not all religious people are BAD, and that many of them are GOOD. But I see now evidence that on average, they are better people than non-religious ones, or that more crime is committed by people w/o religious reasons. The whole point I've been TRYING TO MAKE is that YOU CANNOT MEASURE GOODNESS, and there is no proof that religion makes people better, and thus that is no reason to keep the pledge as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 19, 2003 15:47:06 GMT -5
Erm.. this is not about the Crusades, but oh well. <<I've never seen any evidence of that, so I'm waiting for you to prove it or at least make a convincing argument.>> The Crusades started out to be more about politics than anything else. I believe that the first Crusades began at the plea of the Byzantine emperor to the Pope for assistance against the encroaching Muslum armies that threatened the existance of the empire. The Pope also saw this as an opportunity to reunite the Church after the schism of 1054. The religious aspect was used more just to get armies from Western and Central Europe to assemble and go to the Holy Land. The fact is that the Muslum armies did have dreams of taking over the world and converting all to Islam, they basically succeeded in the ME and SE Europe for hundreds of years. I believe that at one point the Ottoman Empire stretched all the way to Hungary. The Crusades were not just some crazed Christian exposition, it was in effect, a battle to save their Christian brothers to the East, even though ironically enough they sacked Constantinople. <<and thus that is no reason to keep the pledge as it is.>> Your reasoning gives no reason to change it. This argument isnt about how religious people act, its about the Constitutionality of the Pledge, which I have heard no argument that proves the Pledge is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 19, 2003 19:29:16 GMT -5
The pledge is Unconstitutional because it uses a specific religious reference in a national pledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 19, 2003 19:49:09 GMT -5
^Is that really unconstitutional? Does it establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercize thereof?
All it does is recognize the religious heritage of America. The First Amendment does not bar the mention of God in government.
|
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 19, 2003 21:25:32 GMT -5
No one has ever made me feel that Christianity is this nation's only/strongest religious heritage, or the only one that should be recognized.
|
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 19, 2003 22:12:04 GMT -5
<<No one has ever made me feel that Christianity is this nation's only/strongest religious heritage, or the only one that should be recognized. >>
Well of course Christianity is the nation's strongest religion, and thus far it always has been. Im not quite sure what youre getting at.
Even so, the term "under God" does not endorse any particular religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by m on May 20, 2003 8:05:11 GMT -5
I've never seen any evidence of that, so I'm waiting for you to prove it or at least make a convincing argument.Pettyluv already did that, and probably in less inflamatory terms than I would have used.  However there is nothing to "prove" if you already have the mind set about some other way. Also, since you are an atheist, you will not be able to understand the depths of religions and their precepts, it's easier to ignore it all. That's nothing against you, personally, it's just an observation I've noticed. The whole point I've been TRYING TO MAKE is that YOU CANNOT MEASURE GOODNESS, and there is no proof that religion makes people better, It's a good way to insure that a person can become good, or less evil. It makes one realize there is more to life than himself and to live for others and put them first. That's the idea anyway. and thus that is no reason to keep the pledge as it is. What would be accomplished by changing it? It would still appear as Under God elsewhere, in print and other media, and it's so ingrained in the public, we'd be saying it anyway. Now we're stepping on the toes of free expression.
|
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 20, 2003 15:09:37 GMT -5
' the term "under God" does not endorse any particular religion. '
Of COURSE it does. It endorses monotheistic religions.
|
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 20, 2003 15:31:00 GMT -5
<<It endorses monotheistic religions. >>
Does it endorse or merely recognize the huge impact of monotheistic religions on the history and culture of the United States?
It does not violate the establishment clause because there it does not institute a state religion and it does not infringe on your right to practice your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by m on May 21, 2003 7:25:42 GMT -5
Would it be better if the Pledge endoesed Polytheistic religions?
It endorses neither. It does not endorse any religion, it merely recognizes that we are not the highest intellect, and at times, desparately need the help of God / Higher Power / Surpreme Being and whatever other adjective we want to give Him / it.
|
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 21, 2003 15:27:50 GMT -5
It says that there is a God, and only some religions believe that, so it only recognizes those religions.
|
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 21, 2003 16:32:35 GMT -5
^^And explain to me how that violates the First Amendment??
|
|
|
|
Post by Frosty The Ice-Bitch on May 21, 2003 22:49:01 GMT -5
^^^ It doesn't violate the first amendment unless you try to say where it says freedom of religion is a violation, but the pledge doesn't say in any way "YOU MUST BELIEVE IN ONE GOD!!!" It was just what this country's founders believed in when they wrote the pledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Medley on May 24, 2003 2:34:23 GMT -5
Actually the "under God" part was added in the fifties, to make the point that we were better than those godless Communists, or something. pledgeqanda.com/If you read stuff written by the Founding Fathers, you'll find that they weren't exactly religious in the traditional sense. And from what I gather from the site I linked, they didn't write the pledge. |
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 24, 2003 11:19:44 GMT -5
It was just what this country's founders believed in when they wrote the pledge
As the above poster said, no. The founding fathers didn't write the pledge in the first place, and 'Under God' wasn't added until long after they were dead.
|
|
However there is nothing to "prove" if you already have the mind set about some other way. Also, since you are an atheist, you will not be able to understand the depths of religions and their precepts, it's easier to ignore it all. That's nothing against you, personally, it's just an observation I've noticed. 
