The Pledge stays as it is...

[crazyfingers]

Is this a recording?

Apparently some people need to have things repeated many times before the message sinks in. Claims that a god or a satan exist that are not supported by evidence are best ignored as baseless claims.

 

[WarSong]

So, a while back on a thread related to this topic, I posted a question (on an existing thread) that never got any response. I'll try again, though.

To the Christians who are in favor of "under God" remaining in the Pledge as is:

If, for whatever reason, a majority of the country were to convert to, say, Islam, overnight... would you be OK with the pledge being changed to "one nation, under Allah...

Majority rules? Ceremonial deism? Take your pick... yea or nay, would this be "harmless" and unimportant to you if your child was suddenly expected to recite this version of the pledge?

*hoping that the participants in this thread won't wimp out and refuse to answer like before*

Isn't Allah a God?

And if they start beheading people, or the county go the way of Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan I think I'd stay In England.

 

[renegade pariah]

......Allah or God there is no difference. The real question is weither the pledge is inclusive for those who are atheist, which it isn't. Weither children should be indoctrinated to make vows about issues they do not yet understand is another question. Still yet a further question is weither a vow to a government should be made at all.

 

[aeroz19]

So, a while back on a thread related to this topic, I posted a question (on an existing thread) that never got any response. I'll try again, though.

To the Christians who are in favor of "under God" remaining in the Pledge as is:

If, for whatever reason, a majority of the country were to convert to, say, Islam, overnight... would you be OK with the pledge being changed to "one nation, under Allah...

Majority rules? Ceremonial deism? Take your pick... yea or nay, would this be "harmless" and unimportant to you if your child was suddenly expected to recite this version of the pledge?

*hoping that the participants in this thread won't wimp out and refuse to answer like before*

God and Allah are the same. I used to not believe this, but after reading verses from the Quran, I saw that the Quran was indeed referencing the same God as described in the Bible.

Now, if we were to say, "One nation, under Zues," or--to use a favorite of most atheists on the board, who seem to have all read Lord of the Rings--"One Nation, Under the Elves," that would definitely be against my beliefs. I would refuse to say that part. When everyone else said "One Nation Under Zues," I'd be saying "One nation Under God." I'd probably respect the majority of the ancient Greeks and make no trouble.

If I was a Middle Eastern, I'd probably use the word "Allah," but this is an English-speaking country and we use English words.

When would I draw the line? When I was forced to attend a Mosque.

My point is that aethists and other non-Christians should allow the rest of us Americans to enjoy our culture and get in touch with our roots.

 

[aeroz19]

......Allah or God there is no difference. The real question is weither the pledge is inclusive for those who are atheist, which it isn't. Weither children should be indoctrinated to make vows about issues they do not yet understand is another question. Still yet a further question is weither a vow to a government should be made at all.

It's not narrowly a vow to a government; it's a vow to people who have a common heritage, language, culture, etc., who are all under the same government.

 

[aeroz19]

Chaos:

1) Moore campaigns for the office of Chief Justice. One of his slogans is "The Ten Commandments Judge," referencing the plaque he used to hang in his courtroom - which was deemed constitutional.

2) Moore is elected Chief Justice.

3) Moore foregoes the plaque for a two-ton granite monument, which naturally must be placed front-and-center in the rotunda in the middle of the night.

Presumably, you know the rest.

See there? Chaos. Moore's public recognition came almost entirely from his battle to hang his plaque. Would he have been a good, fair Chief Justice? Maybe. Who knows? Ensuring fair, speedy trials quickly became secondary to politicizing his religion - and not just his religion, mind you, but a not-so-subtle reminder that his God was a pretty angry, demanding, wrathful god once upon a time.

So, in conclusion, electing justices at pretty much any level is a bad idea.

Actually, I think appointing judges is chaos. These judges know they're in for life and so they have a much greater degree of freedom and security; they can and do get away with more.

The only chaotic thing that happened with Justice Ray Moore was how he got thrown out by the religiously intolerant.

 

[crazyfingers]

My point is that aethists and other non-Christians should allow the rest of us Americans to enjoy our culture and get in touch with our roots.

You are prefectly free to do so. But you are not free to use the state to impose your religion onto others and that is exactly what happens when public school children are told by the government that you god exists.

 

[crazyfingers]

It's not narrowly a vow to a government; it's a vow to people who have a common heritage, language, culture, etc., who are all under the same government.

Not everyone shares a common heritage of worship to your god.

 

[Philosoft]

It's not narrowly a vow to a government; it's a vow to people who have a common heritage, language, culture, etc., who are all under the same government.

You are clearly not referring to the US Pledge of Allegiance here. I've done my homework, and I discovered that Francis Bellamy, author of the pledge, intended it to be entirely a "vow to a government," specifically a "republic" with a strong federal core. Bellamy was a socialist and was deeply troubled by the aftermath of the Civil War and the notion of state secession that still lingered in the minds of many.

 

[crazyfingers]

Actually, I think appointing judges is chaos. These judges know they're in for life and so they have a much greater degree of freedom and security; they can and do get away with more.

The only chaotic thing that happened with Justice Ray Moore was how he got thrown out by the religiously intolerant.

False. Judge Moore was removed because he refused to obey a higher court order to stop abusing his position and using state authority to unlawfully raise his religion above all other religions and nonreligion.

 

[Philosoft]

Actually, I think appointing judges is chaos. These judges know they're in for life and so they have a much greater degree of freedom and security; they can and do get away with more.

I've been around lawyers my entire life and the one procedural thing they all agree on is that judges - right down to county and circuit level - should be appointed.

The only chaotic thing that happened with Justice Ray Moore was how he got thrown out by the religiously intolerant.

I don't know who Ray Moore is, but you nicely illustrate my point about Roy Moore. There should never be a public dust-up about the appropriateness of an overtly religious monument erected by a Chief Justice, because candidates who run on the platform "The Ten Commandments Judge" wouldn't be given a second look by a legislative committee.

 

[renegade pariah]

It's not narrowly a vow to a government; it's a vow to people who have a common heritage, language, culture, etc., who are all under the same government.

..........."and to the Republic for which it stands", certainly is the government.

 

[WarSong]

......Allah or God there is no difference. The real question is weither the pledge is inclusive for those who are atheist, which it isn't. Weither children should be indoctrinated to make vows about issues they do not yet understand is another question. Still yet a further question is weither a vow to a government should be made at all.

A vow to the government? If you are going to enjoy the freedoms that country has to offer, then their should be some obligation.

It seems a little silly to me that people would want the good things in life and not have to earn them.

 

[crazyfingers]

A vow to the government? If you are going to enjoy the freedoms that country has to offer, then their should be some obligation.

Why would I pledge to a government that is trying to tell me what to believe on issues of religion. No chance.

It seems a little silly to me that people would want the good things in life and not have to earn them.

And how does that comment relate in any way to the current pledge?

 

[ps139]

Why would I pledge to a government that is trying to tell me what to believe on issues of religion. No chance.

It isnt telling you what to believe on anything. That is the one of the biggest myths out there. That is taking things way out of proportion. Youre not forced to say it.

 

[crazyfingers]

It isnt telling you what to believe on anything. That is the one of the biggest myths out there. That is taking things way out of proportion. Youre not forced to say it.

It doesn't matter if I'm not forced to say it. The government is trying to tell me that a god exists and that is NONE OF THEIR BESINESS. It is doubly NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS to tell my children that a god exits.

I suppose that if the pledge said, "One nation under NO GOD" you'd think that would be perfectly OK?

 

[TrinityHerself]

It's not narrowly a vow to a government; it's a vow to people who have a common heritage, language, culture, etc., who are all under the same government.

Since when has any group of people living in the United States shared anything completely in common? If anything was shared, it was that many groups left opression in Europe to come to America to spread their "love" with the natives here by, oh, killing them off.

"Under God" was not added to the pledge until the 50's, because the Protestants, Catholics, Deists and the like who wrote our Founding documents WANTED the state to be separated from religion - so that no one group should have control over others. They wrote the Bill of Rights and other such documents to protect the minority from the majority. If America is a "Christian nation" (which it isn't), that still does not give it reason to oppress the other religious groups who live here - who HAVE BEEN living here since the beginning. "Under God" was not a part of the original pledge, so if we want to get "back to our roots," we should leave omit that part.

 

[ps139]

It doesn't matter if I'm not forced to say it. The government is trying to tell me that a god exists and that is NONE OF THEIR BESINESS. It is doubly NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS to tell my children that a god exits.

If I lived in a country where the pledge said "One nation, under Zoltar the bluish green master of the planets," I wouldnt say it because I dont believe it. And it wouldnt matter to me because I would think it is a stupid and ridiculous idea. There is no establishment of a state religion here and that is all the law rests on. I've talked to atheists who feel the exact same way, they think this is utterly ridiculous that people are complaining about it, when there are much more worthy causes to give attention to.

I suppose that if the pledge said, "One nation under NO GOD" you'd think that would be perfectly OK?

That would be stupid. It would be adding a negative. Why not then add everything that we are not?

 

[chalice_thunder]

Why would Christians pledge their allegiance to anything other than God?

 

[crazyfingers]

There is no establishment of a state religion here and that is all the law rests on.

Your opinion. Mine differs.

I've talked to atheists who feel the exact same way,

Few and far between. Besides which, that's not an argument for why you think that it's not an establishment of religion. It's slso a fallacy. Who believes what is not an argument as to what is true or false.

Why is it not a violation of the constitution for the government to teach school children that a monotheist god exists?

That would be stupid. It would be adding a negative. Why not then add everything that we are not?

I see that you failed to answer the question.

Would you or would you not object if every day at the beginning of school the public school teachers had your children say a pledge that would have them afirm that no god exists.