Pledge! Now!

[alanschu]

A lot.  Probably as many as know "In God We Trust" is on the dollar.

 

Does that make the complaint any less valid?

 

Nope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But why is it only making Athiests mad now?

 

 

I still contend it's people looking for their 15 minutes.

[taks]

I still contend it's people looking for their 15 minutes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

precisely what i stated above... we are in agreement.

 

people get bent out of shape over things they don't even have to do anyway. why should commissar gripe when he doesn't even have to recite the darned thing. and to your pending argument that it impinges on others... why not let them worry about it.

 

oh, and it wasn't "under satan" because, whether you like it or not, 95% of the world believes/d in a higher power (a god, by many names) and worshipped said power when the words were added.

 

big deal, if the gov't would get out of the education business, which it coincidentally is not chartered to be in, we wouldn't be having this discussion. ach, but all i can do is try...

 

taks

[taks]

If it's not required, why does it need to be in there in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

why not? i mean, c'mon, say it if you believe, don't if you don't. big whoop if it's written down on paper one way or another. no life altering crisis there. either way, neither you nor i ever really have to say it anyway...

 

tak

[Calax]

to taks statement about requiring kids to say under god in the pledge.

 

It's not so much as required as it is thought to be required back in First grade I was a cub scout so I saluted instead of put my hand over my heart. Immediatly 3/4 of the class started to say that was wrong and the teacher said that I adhered to a different religion. Then next day I put my hand over my heart like a good little boy. Its more coercive because we are told to say it, not ordered but just told, when we are little. and if we deviate from the path laid down by our teachers we are ridiculed and hurassed by the other students and the teacher does nothing except to say you have different beliefs. Now if that's not bias I don't know what is. So while we are not forced by law to say the pledge we feel forced by religion and the fact that sombody told us to. and yes, sombody in power telling you what to do has a massive influence upon your actions. I don't care what Nuremburg trials said. Science has proven it. (can't remember the expiraments name but it's been done) I don't mind the fact that it's on the coin because so few people actually look closly at a coin, but the pledge is memorized from day one and thus changes your psyche in ways we don't even know.

[Shadowstrider]

But why is it only making Athiests mad now?

 

 

I still contend it's people looking for their 15 minutes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why does that matter?

 

Personally, I'm an atheist, and I'm not mad over this issue. I talk about it because its at the table.

[alanschu]

I'm curious about the motivation of those that are complaining.

 

People such as yourself and Commissar seem adamantly against it, but if it is really that big of a deal, how come I don't remember any dicussions about it before hand?

[taks]

how come I don't remember any dicussions about it before hand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

does the term "bandwagon" come to mind?

 

ooh, lookey, somebody is raising hell about something that will make conservatives (er, religious conservatives) squirm! let's all get on board.

 

taks

[Shadowstrider]

It has been discussed before. I don't know if it was on this forum or another.

 

Again, does that make the complaint any less valid?

 

What does it matter WHEN it is discussed? Its being discussed NOW.

[Commissar]

I'm curious about the motivation of those that are complaining.

 

People such as yourself and Commissar seem adamantly against it, but if it is really that big of a deal, how come I don't remember any dicussions about it before hand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am adamantly against it, whenever something brings it to mind, which isn't terribly often. I don't care about it enough to make it an issue I'll ever do anything more than discuss or vote on, though.

 

I learned a long time ago it's pointless to argue with Christians. Now, if only they'd learn it works both ways.

 

And for the record, there are indeed atheists in foxholes.

[Shadowstrider]

how come I don't remember any dicussions about it before hand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

does the term "bandwagon" come to mind?

 

ooh, lookey, somebody is raising hell about something that will make conservatives (er, religious conservatives) squirm! let's all get on board.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This basically boils down to an ad-hominem attack.

 

I should note I'm a conservative and an atheist, just like you!

 

It has nothing to do with bandwagon jumping. Its a topic for discussion, it was brought up, so I discuss it.

 

By this logic any time anyone brings up any political discussion, people jump on the bandwagon just because, rather than for real reasons.

 

"O'Conner is retiring from the supreme court!"

"Ya, but where were you in 1999 while she was still on the bench, we all knew she'd go eventually. You're just talking about this now to make X squirm."

 

Sorry, that don't fly.

[taks]

*snip*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first, the hand over the heart thing is a little different than under god, but either way... perhaps 25 years ago things were different, i agree. there was probably more pressure in the 50s for sure (particularly since the communism scare was in full force). but like i said, even in my grade schools (23-31 years ago, politically mixed area) there was never any pressure. today, it is almost non-existent other than the danged press generated by newdow and co.

 

taks

[alanschu]

It has been discussed before.  I don't know if it was on this forum or another.

 

Again, does that make the complaint any less valid?

 

What does it matter WHEN it is discussed?  Its being discussed NOW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why was it not a cause for concern for the last 50 years? I think the complaint is not particularly valid because it's not required to say the thing.

 

 

I am adamantly against it, whenever something brings it to mind, which isn't terribly often. I don't care about it enough to make it an issue I'll ever do anything more than discuss or vote on, though.

 

I don't know how you can be adamantly against something, yet not care enough about it to make it an issue.

[taks]

This basically boils down to an ad-hominem attack.

no, not at all. i did not criticize anybody, nor did i say their argument was invalid because they're somehow worthy of criticism. that's the requirement for an ad-hominem, i just threw in the "quote" to illustrate how bandwagons work. in other words, there's an opportunity for political muck-racking, and everyone else is doing it, so let's get on board. even commissar just said he normally doesn't care.

 

I should note I'm a conservative and an atheist, just like you!

but i'm really NOT a conservative. however, for the record (you can read all my posts to verify):

 

socially, liberal. pretty much anything goes though i understand restrictions on public speech (airwaves to boot) and other similar concepts. i do believe the gov't should get out of the whole marriage biz, however.

 

governmentally, strict constitutionalist, a federalist, actually. you can't call republicans that anymore, since they're into big government like anyone else. liberals and conservatives alike have a very warped view of "rights," IMO, so i don't fit in either camp there...

 

economically, capitalist. this is probably the most obvious of my traits. diehard.

 

philosophically, objectivist, which is really what drives each of the above points...

 

It has nothing to do with bandwagon jumping.  Its a topic for discussion, it was brought up, so I discuss it.

that it is on here is not a bandwagon jump, i agree. that it is suddenly a national crisis is, however. i mean really, if this is what we're worried about, we have bigger problems than anyone understands. this is the ultimate bandwagon simply because it is meaningless in terms of other issues.

 

Sorry, that don't fly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

like i said, the discussion itself is certainly valid. the fact that all the high profiles and media are making it into some big case is where the bandwagon resides. i'd be willing to bet this lies really, really low on voter priorities.

 

taks

[Shadowstrider]

It has been discussed before.  I don't know if it was on this forum or another.

 

Again, does that make the complaint any less valid?

 

What does it matter WHEN it is discussed?  Its being discussed NOW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why was it not a cause for concern for the last 50 years? I think the complaint is not particularly valid because it's not required to say the thing.

 

For particularly the reason you mention, its not required. That doesn't make it a non-issue, it just makes it less important.

 

The timeframe of the complaint is a non-issue. It doesn't detract from the complaints value in any way.

 

I've actually had a gripe with it and "In God We Trust" on the dollar for sometime, its just not something I'm particularly willing to take before the Supreme Court over, where someone else may.

 

I don't know how you can be adamantly against something, yet not care enough about it to make it an issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am adamantly against eating Oysters, muscles or clams, but I don't run around making an issue of it. If someone says "would you like oysters?" I say no and explain that I don't like them. Does that make my adamant refusal to eat them invalid?

[Shadowstrider]

This basically boils down to an ad-hominem attack.

no, not at all. i did not criticize anybody, nor did i say their argument was invalid because they're somehow worthy of criticism. that's the requirement for an ad-hominem, i just threw in the "quote" to illustrate how bandwagons work. in other words, there's an opportunity for political muck-racking, and everyone else is doing it, so let's get on board. even commissar just said he normally doesn't care.

 

I'd consider it borderline, myself. Personally, I see your calling my disagreement with "under God" or "In God We Trust" as an ad-hominem attack, as if you're questioning my credibility. I see it as you saying "you don't care about this issue, you just want to shake up the right wing!" This is entirely untrue.

 

*Cut stuff about taks' politics

 

Yes, I tend to agree with you in most debates in fact. People color me conservative, so I've just adopted it as what people consider conservative. Whether it is or not.

 

that it is on here is not a bandwagon jump, i agree.  that it is suddenly a national crisis is, however.  i mean really, if this is what we're worried about, we have bigger problems than anyone understands.  this is the ultimate bandwagon simply because it is meaningless in terms of other issues.

 

I don't find it meaningless, at the same time I don't think it is anywhere near a matter of importance. I don't think the Supreme Court considers it so either, the media circus surrounding it created the hysteria more than anything.

[Calax]

*snip*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first, the hand over the heart thing is a little different than under god, but either way... perhaps 25 years ago things were different, i agree. there was probably more pressure in the 50s for sure (particularly since the communism scare was in full force). but like i said, even in my grade schools (23-31 years ago, politically mixed area) there was never any pressure. today, it is almost non-existent other than the danged press generated by newdow and co.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm ninteen. not thirty. My first through 3rd grade education took place in the ninteys. This observation is not utterly false rather it is not necessairly true. I should say it's not so much the pressure of force that the teachers and the student's put on you it is the pressure of expectation. it is expected that you will say the pledge in uniformity without any devaition because that's how it's written. We have kids in the local districts (the ones affected by the ruling) who say that to say the pledge is to talk about the "heart of america" and to say that that is not warped is to be either blind or ignorant. So we are teaching the children that being under god (not allah not Kishrima, not even Odin or Gaia, just the christian one) is at the heart of america. And I was using the Hand over heart thing to demonstrate the lvl of pressure put on a child to conform to his peers.

[taks]

I'd consider it borderline, myself.  Personally, I see your calling my disagreement with "under God" or "In God We Trust" as an ad-hominem attack, as if you're questioning my credibility.  I see it as you saying "you don't care about this issue, you just want to shake up the right wing!"  This is entirely untrue.

i attributed motive to the general "movement," no personal credibility attacks. when the far left hops on a bandwagon, the purpose is primarily to attack the right. the same goes for right on left bandwagons.

 

Yes, I tend to agree with you in most debates in fact.  People color me conservative, so I've just adopted it as what people consider conservative.  Whether it is or not.

it actually annoys me since i tend to dislike the policies of true conservatives and liberals alike. people read one comment and can instantly vote an entire ideology my way? suuuurre...

 

I don't find it meaningless, at the same time I don't think it is anywhere near a matter of importance.  I don't think the Supreme Court considers it so either, the media circus surrounding it created the hysteria more than anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the media circus is pretty much a bandwagon, which is one of my two major points above regarding the statements... hysteria is, really, a bandwagon thing. perhaps not meaningless, either, but certainly unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

 

taks

[taks]

I'm ninteen. not thirty. My first through 3rd grade education took place in the ninteys. So your statement is utterly false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not utterly false at all... i clearly pointed out my experience, and called it as such. also, you never said there was an issue with under god, only the hand on the heart thing, which is not the same issue. be careful what you choose to argue...

 

taks

[Calax]

I'm ninteen. not thirty. My first through 3rd grade education took place in the ninteys. So your statement is utterly false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not utterly false at all... i clearly pointed out my experience, and called it as such. also, you never said there was an issue with under god, only the hand on the heart thing, which is not the same issue. be careful what you choose to argue...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My apologies,I said somthing in haste and with a flared temper. It's been changed.

[LoneWolf16]

*snip*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first, the hand over the heart thing is a little different than under god, but either way... perhaps 25 years ago things were different, i agree. there was probably more pressure in the 50s for sure (particularly since the communism scare was in full force). but like i said, even in my grade schools (23-31 years ago, politically mixed area) there was never any pressure. today, it is almost non-existent other than the danged press generated by newdow and co.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm ninteen. not thirty. My first through 3rd grade education took place in the ninteys. This observation is not utterly false rather it is not necessairly true. I should say it's not so much the pressure of force that the teachers and the student's put on you it is the pressure of expectation. it is expected that you will say the pledge in uniformity without any devaition because that's how it's written. We have kids in the local districts (the ones affected by the ruling) who say that to say the pledge is to talk about the "heart of america" and to say that that is not warped is to be either blind or ignorant. So we are teaching the children that being under god (not allah not Kishrima, not even Odin or Gaia, just the christian one) is at the heart of america. And I was using the Hand over heart thing to demonstrate the lvl of pressure put on a child to conform to his peers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True.

 

I love, and respect this country for what it is, but I just don't want to pledge myself to it every single morning...especially when it's done something to make me doubt its overall stability or capability to think in a rational manner.

 

You get weird looks from peers when you stay in your seat...and staff tend to look down on it. Pressure of expectation.

[Gromnir]

side note:

 

there is absolutely nothing wrong with ad hominem attacks, as long as the ad hominem ain't the totality of the argument.

 

"bob is a putz, and he has always been a putz. even bob

[taks]

calax, lonewolf, it's probably school/location dependent. where i grew up, standard middle class suburb though dominated by two major political drivers: unions and churches. the catholic presence in st. louis is incredible, as is the union presence. never an issue, nor have i ever heard of any.

 

btw, what gromnir is referring to is the fallacy fallacy. saying than an entire argument is fallacious simply because one committed a fallacy is in itself a fallacy.

 

either way, had i been referring to anyone in particular, my meaning could easily have been inferred to be an attack on credibility. however, i did clarify my position to mean the "movement" in general, and there is ample evidence of hypocrisy and not-so-hidden agendas. keep in mind, this swings the other way, too. the bandwagon to keep the pledge as-is is just as powerful.

 

before mr. newdow, nobody really cared one way or the other. it may have bugged some people, but never enough to do anything. along comes newdow (arguing on behalf of a daughter that disagreed with his position... pretty tacky, IMO) and bam! things change. the left has an issue to pound the right and the right thinks they can put the whammy down on the left on the same argument. sheesh...

 

taks

[Gromnir]

"btw, what gromnir is referring to is the fallacy fallacy. saying than an entire argument is fallacious simply because one committed a fallacy is in itself a fallacy."

 

that is part of it...

 

insulting one's adversary gots a long and storied history. some o' the greatest minds in history has been known as much for their insults as their arguments.

 

"What do you think of Western civilization?"

 

"I think it would be a good idea." replied Mahatma Gandhi.

 

just 'cause something is illogical does not mean it fails as an argument.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

Looking back Shadowstrider, you keep reiterating the validity of the complaint, which I actually never explicitly questioned.

 

 

I just asked why is it only a problem now?

 

 

As for the Oyster analogy, I'm not sure how accurate it necessarily is. I would consider that Commissar IS taking issue with it, since he continuously posts in this thread. Plus your position on whether or not you like oysters is a bit smaller in scale. Besides, you expressed your dislike and did take issue with the offer, in declining the offer. Not taking issue would be to accept the offer anyways, which is essentially what Commissar is doing.

 

Commissar claims to be adamantly against something, yet doesn't consider it a big issue (though his posting on this thread would make me think otherwise). If it's not a big issue to him, then how could he be adamantly against it?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adamantly

 

"Stubbornly unyielding."

 

If it didn't bother him enough to make a kafuffle out of it before, then he wouldn't be adamantly against it, as he's already making concessions because it's not worth his time or whatever.

 

 

But this is waaaaaaaaaaay off topic. If you really want to continue this part of the discussion, I'd be willing via PM.

[Nartwak]

But this is waaaaaaaaaaay off topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Way off topic in Way Off-Topic?