the pledge of allegance, uncontutional?

[jn.loudnotes]

 Anyway Brain, if you're an atheist you don't believe in God, so morals couldn't have come from God. . .

Thus they would have to come from another source, as Bondo has clarified above.  Methinks I missed the hook . . .

[Bondo]

My arguments would have been much less convincing had I not taken Ethics last semester

[jn.loudnotes]

I've got it one semester next year. . .

I'm sure you all can't wait  

[Jeb]

Just cause your a athiest doesn't mean your a bad person, becasue god can't fill you with good. Shit alot of religious people are bad. Think of a athiest as someone who just doesn't do things in the name of god.

[*DAMN Hazard]

my question is are they gonna take everything with god in it out of america? doesnt our currency say god on it? isnt our callender based around the birth of christ? i got this question from the radio.

[†FiRE Infection]

my question is are they gonna take everything with god in it out of america? doesnt our currency say god on it? isnt our callender based around the birth of christ? i got this question from the radio.

omg lol we were listening to the same thing then...right when it came out they were like sit down...and if you're in a car please don't crash. ?

I saw a cartoon with porky pig this morning...well at 2pm...when i woke up so that's what i call this morning. ?He was saying the pledge withouht it already.

[Bondo]

...Our calendar isn't based on Christianity, our years are but not our monthly/daily calendar.  And where the years don't force a religious ideal on people, Under God does.  If we put, Under God, Gods, or no God, then it would be alright, but not Under God.

[Colin]

WOW, i'm a little late!  Ok, i don't mean to be a big, fat dickhead but i feel it is unconstitutional to include those words in something recited daily.  In Colorado or someplace in the US a while ago, they had a moment of silence everyday, a parent got angry, brought it to the supreme court and BOOM, out the window!

To tell the truth, i am athiest, so is gorf the dorf, but i really don't care if it is removed or not (especially since i go to a private school...damnit!), i'm just answering the question.

[Jeb]

colin, i hated being a athiest at a catholic school. there was no way to avoid praying

[Brain]

holy shit, i think i have created a monster

first off, i would like to remind everyone that being forced to religion in general, not just christinaty, is at issue here

also, can i get some backup here, i mean, jesus christ, bondo and loud are double teaming me here..

ok, here is a feeble attempt to counter bondos argument that will most likely be brushed aside in 2 seconds, or in bondos first paragraph.(like my confidence in my argument?)

while i think that your theory on the beginning of morality is a good one, i dont believe that it is the only reason that we have morality today, i believe that religion has also played a major part in defining and shaping our current system of moral values, even if it wasnt ther in the beginning, it has definatly has had an effect on the end result.

as for loud's athiest comment, back in the stoneage (atleast as back as the earliest recorded history) werent most people of the belief of some higher power? imean ater all, how you you explain it if you were a caveman, and you saw a tornado pick up trees like small pebbles and toss them around like they weighed almost nothing? now imaging that you had done something morally 'wrong' right before that, would you construe that as a gods anger at your actions. this isnt a refutation of your argument, just a question on how you would act in prehistoric times.

now to bondos asertion that the callender isnt religious(cristian, not totally, but it is most definatly religious). the calender whe have today was based off the  things, the sun and the moon, the egyptians worshiped the sun god, and made the calender to help scedule their religious events, as well as harves times
months. the different months of the year are based on worship of the cycles of the moon (i'm shure bondo already knew this, after all he is a smart person, i just thought i would point it out to everyone else who may not have known)

and as to collin saying he was late, nope, not really, only about 2 or 3 hours

thus ends this instalment, feel free to start picking apart as soon as you read it

[†FiRE Infection]

Brain and everyone else...is all that stuff really the first shit that popped into your minds when you heard this? ?When this thread was started ?I thought that it was going to be for a few laughs. ?I thought that it was a joke. ?Guys this really isn't a big issue and you and those idiotic people in the real world are actually making it into something. ?I just laughed and turned off the radio when I heard it. ?Really who the fuck cares? You want to be idiots and change something in history that nobody really thinks about go ahead...be my guest...be assholes that get made fun of by almost everyone except the people in this forum who are taking it seriously. ?This is such bs. ?When you say the pledge in school do you really think about it. ?OMG you spit it out a mile a minute and don't think a thing. ?All you are thinking about is getting back into your sit and how the faster you say it the faster you will be there. ?Please don't make such a big deal about this...the issue is going to go into a higher court and be dismissed. ?It will be forgotten soon. ?Heck I've already forgotten about it...is this shit affecting your lives so much?

Later guys ?I'm going on vacation...be back just in time for the tourney's. ?Keep signing up and practicing.

[Bondo]

ok, here is a feeble attempt to counter bondos argument that will most likely be brushed aside in 2 seconds, or in bondos first paragraph.(like my confidence in my argument?)

while i think that your theory on the beginning of morality is a good one, i dont believe that it is the only reason that we have morality today, i believe that religion has also played a major part in defining and shaping our current system of moral values, even if it wasnt ther in the beginning, it has definatly has had an effect on the end result.

as for loud's athiest comment, back in the stoneage (atleast as back as the earliest recorded history) werent most people of the belief of some higher power? imean ater all, how you you explain it if you were a caveman, and you saw a tornado pick up trees like small pebbles and toss them around like they weighed almost nothing? now imaging that you had done something morally 'wrong' right before that, would you construe that as a gods anger at your actions. this isnt a refutation of your argument, just a question on how you would act in prehistoric times.

Anyway, both your points above are true enough, religion was actually stronger in the early days because science wasn't available to explain the things it can today and thus they assumed it was a powerful spiritual being (think Black & White). ?Also, I wouldn't be so foolish as to say religion hasn't shaped morality, it has had a HUGE impact, but it certainly didn't bring about morality.

now to bondos asertion that the callender isnt religious(cristian, not totally, but it is most definatly religious). the calender whe have today was based off the ?things, the sun and the moon, the egyptians worshiped the sun god, and made the calender to help scedule their religious events, as well as harves times
months. the different months of the year are based on worship of the cycles of the moon (i'm shure bondo already knew this, after all he is a smart person, i just thought i would point it out to everyone else who may not have known)
[/color]

The calendar is based on science that was thought of with religious terms, but it isn't associated with any modern religions. ?While the eqyptians had a sun god and made a calendar based on the sun's movements in the sky, they were actually basing it on science of seasons and moon cycles like you claim. ?But they are scientific rather than religious. ?If for example we had a Christian based calendar, we'd have the month of Lent, the month of Advent, etc and they'd be longer or shorter than the other and make no sense.

[Jeb]

Infection, if you haven't already gone on your vacation, just know that america was started with religious freedom in mind. And this is just a steping stone for equality among all religous sects(athiests and agnostics included). This might lead to "in god we trust" being taken off money, and things of that nature. i think this isn't some bs court desision, but a landmark one.

[Grifter]

Secondly, Brain, what rights of yours are being infringed upon?

The right to say "god" in your pledge of allegiance? ?
The right to worship during public school? ?
The right to impose your religion on others? ?
The right to declare your religion in a place of government?

Actually, those are rights under Article One.... specifically the or prohibiting the free exercise thereof part.  And saying it isn't imposing anything on others....

Let me start with this...  In Michigan, this was contested in the courts a few years back.  It was decided here that any child wishing not to say the pledge was exempt. (didn't have to).  

As for Congress being hypocritical.... no, not this time.  Is it political posturing?  Sure.... but it's only hypocritical if they wouldn't have thought that way in the first place (this would be grandstanding).

As for the harm that saying "Under God" would do to any child... grow up.  Some of my good friends are athiests..  half my school was ismalic... Deadeye is a mix between some Native American and Zen... his navel is the Great Spirit or something like that.  Nobody was shunned or traumatized by those two words.... nobody really thought about them.  You aren't pledging yourself to God.... you are pledging your alegance to the United States of America. Stop making into more then it is... God isn't a Catholic or Chirstian or Jewish word, is it?  God is different for every person... and for an athiest, wouldn't it just mean.. under nothing?  Think about it... If an athiest believes that God doesn't exist... then the term means that the USA is under nothing... right?

And while you are bitching about people not reading your posts Loud (yeah, I read them)... try reading all of mine too.  You haven't talked about the point to it... what problem were they addressing... no.  

On to Bondo,

From your earlier post... I agree, Congress forces a false moral code on us too often.  You are blurring the lines between state laws and federal... but ok, I wont nit-pick on those...  What I will say is you should read a little more.  Like in Michigan, there is not crime "statutory rape".... hell, there is no crime called RAPE in Michigan... just "Criminal Sexual Conduct" in the first through fourth degrees....  Fourth degree isn't a felony... and would cover what you consided "statory rape"... but it's only for children 12 or under.... unless they suffer from mental defect or it is a figure of power (ie a teacher, priest, etc)... in which case it goes to 16.  Two 13 year olds having sex is not a crime in Michigan.  

This long lesson is actually for a reason... While I agree  that prostitution and weed should be legal and taxed, and that homosexuals should have all the rights as hetero's (but only if they get married... make it all the same).  But these all have to do with the States.  These aren't federal laws.  And there are states that are much more liberal in their views.  Like in Ann Arbor (where I'm working right now), it's a $10 fine for up to 1lb of weed.  (but I've heard it went up to $25).  That explains a lot of grad students at UofM....

People just need to not be so PC.... there was some stupid Sly movie (with Wesley Snipes) where he woke up in the future that was ultra PC.... and it was disturbing.... very disturbing.

[jn.loudnotes]

Grifter you make valid points, and I certainly read and took issue with your previous post.

What I find odd about the majority view that you espouse, is that you really don't think its all that bad to have to be a part of a group saying the pledge when it has the "under god" statement.  

Today I read in the news someone talking about how annoying atheists are, trying to impose their views on others.  I must admit, atheists make pretty easy targets.  I wish this case had been brought by a polytheist, however.

The issue at hand may be children saying the pledge, who perhaps might suffer no harm from it.  However, there is a larger issue at hand, and that is the presence of God in our government.

It is entirely true as you stated in your first post, that the US draws its roots from religious people, etc.  However, I question why as a nation we are trying to preserve those roots so strongly.  Surely today there is no need for our government to express thanks to God for its existence?  It would be a more fitting tribute if we simply carried out the ideals of our founding fathers.  They may have been religiously motivated, but as an increasingly diverse soceity, we need not be.

You ask me if anyone would be harmed by saying "under god", or being an outsider in a group that says it.  I think I have argued (bitched, if you will) clearly that it is offensive, and it leads to harassment.  

However, shouldn't I be asking you if anyone would be harmed by NOT saying "under god" in the pledge, NOT having god on our money, NOT seeing tributes to god in our courtrooms?

Our government already recieves its religious influence from the people who are in office.  If the majority were one day atheists, I would object just as strongly if they were to deny God in our public buildings and the like.

There are actually 3 levels of religion in this case, but the third is often overlooked.

1.  . . .one nation under god. . .  - this is a statement endorsing religion.

2. . . .one nation . . . -the absence of God does not endorse atheism

3. . . .one nation without god. . . - if atheists truly were imposing their view on the rest, this would be our pledge.  

I don't see any danger of this happening, and I would be just as opposed to it as I have stated.

However, what I am trying to say, through bitching, rants, etc. is that religion just doesn't belong in government.  There is an arguable case that it offends people to have all these mentions of God.  But if people weren't so accustomed to them, I don't think they'd mind at all if they weren't present.

Free exercise would not be limited in this case.  Free exercise is not infringed if the pledge no longer contains under god, or if the pledge is not said in public school.  Again, we have private schools.  Referring to the 3 levels I described earlier, shouldn't we pick the middle ground as the norm?  Again, it harms no one but significantly reduces the chances of anyone having religious objections.

(And yes I did read your posts even if I don't nitpick every detail, Grifter...some people are easier to nitpick than others.  I'll give you that - you are well-reasoned even when I think you're just plain wrong)

Also - its funny how much we seem to agree on other things.

homosexuals should have all the rights as hetero's (but only if they get married... make it all the same)

I would add there though that the "crime" of cohabitation is another victimless crime that should be abolished.  I don't know - maybe you don't have it in Michigan.  You are lucky to live in such a progressive thinking state.

[jn.loudnotes]

One thing I will nitpick though -

Political correctness is what the entire Congress did by acting together to denounce the ruling.  It is doubtful that all truly felt that way.

Indeed, Bondo's and my positions are in this case the polar opposite of political correctness.  It is your view that has been adopted without question and should be dubbed "Politically Correct"

[Bondo]

Grift, I realize that my complaints were against various state and federal laws, but both are decided by elected legislatures who bring their religious based morals into the room with them.  Glad to hear Michigan takes a more sane approach, I'm stuck in Republican Colorado.  Great state from a nature perspective (except when a dumb forest ranger sets it on fire), but outside of Boulder and to a lesser extend Denver there aren't many smart political people.

And Grift, isn't not saying Under God while the others do going to make the kid feel akward and thus cause pain?

[Grifter]

Here's what I believe the harm is.... losing our traditions.  Flat out.  I know that some of you don't think that American is actually a culture, but it is.  And as in any culture, we have our traditions.  I say that those traditions should be held sacred by the patriots, just as Christian's hold the Bible sacred, or Muslem's hold the Koran, et al.  The term "One Nation, Under God" does not, in my opinion, endorse any faith... It shouldn't mean a thing to an athiest... since they just don't believe it.  I'm not frowning on athiests, or denouncing them... I just hate all the rewording / renaming that goes on in our society because of a minority opinion often couched under Political Correctness.  To me, this is just as bad as calling for the Washington Redskins or Atlanta Braves to change their names.... those names don't have a damn thing to do with how Native American's are treated or thought of...  Any more then Spartans, Tigers, Bears, or Wolves.  No, it's just some people that want to stick it to the system usually that start this.  Somebody show me the children that are shunned... are cast out... or brainwashed to believe in a God, just because of the Pledge.....  I want some hard facts, not just opinion.  I know that it didn't have any effect on how I see the universe.... but the Pledge itself... that is something that can actually stir the blood of a patriot... just like the National Anthym can...  Next that will be on the chopping block, because it advocates war and violence....  

And Bondo, no offense, but a wannabe ex-patriot's opinion on the subject is a little suspect.

Oh, and one last thing.... unless a few of my history classes were wrong, we owe the modern calendar to one of the Popes.... including the leap year...  Can't remember which one off the top of my head, but it can probably be found on the net.  Yes, they took the cycle of the moon from the Hebrew calendar.... and the months from the Romans... (being the Roman-Catholic church).  You have to remember.. the curch took many "pegan" symbols into it back then... trying to bring about the will of the people.  Gargoyles is a second example.. a third would be that many churches are built upon shrines and temples from before....

[theN00b]

I guess I will chime on here too. I do not really care but because it is the only poiical argument on any of my talk borads I will speak up. Pledge of Alegieance my ASS! or however you spell it. When I went to High School they made us repeat the pledge day after day. I hated it and at times found it offensive. It made me feel alienated from the rest of the class. Usually I am a carefree troublemaker, but when the pledge was recited it really made me feel alien and foriegn. And of coarse the dumbasses would rag on me for being Russian. What I am tring to say is that the pledge should not be forced upon us. I have seen kids go to the principal's office for not saying it. That I feel is unconstitutional, and some schools do it. That type of thing would happen back in the Soviet Union. Also the words "under god" was supposed to offend us communist russkie bastards.

[+-KoS-+ Gorf]

Gorf's 2?:

There is no god.  Anyone that believes in god wastes hours of their life bowing down to this amazing being.

What's up there?  Oxygen, hydrogen, helium, and a bunch of other stuff.

I am jewish and have had my barmitzvah, it's all a load of BS.  Everyone thinks they believe in god, but that's only because ur parents made u, and u grew up with santa and god crap.  I would believe in santa more than god.

And also about  this pledge of alegance crap.   Personally i'm from canada and i don't really FEEL like praising the US's name EVERY MORNING.  Thank god i go to private school and they realize that people from mexico, brazil, and korea don't feel like praising the US either.

So i would be happy if the pledge was taken away.  I don't think everyone in the US needs to be forced to pledge their country every morning.  Think all the non-americans who would like to have the "pledge of mexico" or whatever instead.

If people want to say the pledge on their own time that's fine.  People shouldn't be forced to listen to it every morning if you think about how many international students there are in the US now.