Pledge! Now!

[Child of Flame]

On a topic note, seen with Danish eyes, even having a pledge in school is ridiculous, let alone having God included within it. (whom most of us doesn't worship). Now feel free to say something about my country, you arrogant bastard. ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Denmark is the setting for Hamlet. HA!

 

Take that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You can certainly do better than that Hades.

 

Like so.

 

According to official statistics from January 2002 84.3% of Danes are members of the state church, the Danish People's Church (Den Danske Folkekirke), also known as the Church of Denmark, a form of Lutheranism; the rest are primarily of other Christian denominations and also about 3% are Muslims. For the last decade Danish People's Church has seen a decline in the number of memberships.

 

Source*

 

Other forum members can feel free to post funny 'pwned' pictures following this post. Is really funny to claim the majority of your country's pop is comprised of atheists when your country has a state sanctioned church the majority of the pop is members of.

 

Scroll down to demographics.

[Lucius]

Actually, there's nothing funny about it. Most people in this country are baptized by tradition only, as the case is in my family, Christianity have been the religion of the land since Viking King Harald Bluetooth switched over to Christianity 1000 friggin' years ago. But today there's really nothing religious about it, people go to Confirmations and get married in Churches, celebrate Christmas etc. but that doesn't mean they're religious... far from it.

Neither do we have crazed ministers appearing on TV, nor strong anti-homosexual/anti-abortion religious fanatics running about spurting their hatred.

 

Surely you can do better!

[Child of Flame]

Actually, there's nothing funny about it. Most people in this country are baptized by tradition only, as the case is in my family, Christianity have been the religion of the land since Viking King Harald Bluetooth switched over to Christianity 1000 friggin' years ago. But today there's really nothing religious about it, people go to Confirmations and get married in Churches, celebrate Christmas etc. but that doesn't mean they're religious... far from it.

Neither do we have crazed ministers appearing on TV, nor strong anti-homosexual/anti-abortion religious fanatics running about spurting their hatred.

 

Surely you can do better! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nope, I stand by what I said, even if they aren't fervently religious, it's likely that if they get baptized, go to confirmations, get married in the church, etc. the majority of you hold a belief in God or some higher power.

[Lucius]

Nope, I stand by what I said, even if they aren't fervently religious, it's likely that if they get baptized, go to confirmations, get married in the church, etc. the majority of you hold a belief in God or some higher power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you are wrong.

 

You might also want to take a look at nation with the same system as we have, Sweden, possibly the (edit: okay China is pretty non-religious as well, but my point still stands!) most non-religious nation in the world.

The Church of Denmark, Sweden etc. are nothing but leftovers from the days of old, tradition if you will.

I went to confirmation, along with all my classmates and friends, we all said what we were supposed to say, in the name of Christianity and all that, but most doesn't really mean it. You see, this is the old Scandinavian way, the very reason our people once switched over to Christianity; because someone promised us gold. When you complete your confirmation, you get usually get a huge party and plenty of gifts/cash. :D

[Child of Flame]

Ye gods you're even more of a hypocrite than you seem to be.

[Lucius]

Excellent rebuttal, Eldar will be proud of you.

[Child of Flame]

Excellent rebuttal, Eldar will be proud of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

You just admitted you and your countrymen support the religion for a party, even though you carry no belief in it and only do it for the party. This perpetuates the religion, and ensures it stays. At least the idiots in America who do wacky stuff in the name og God believe in what they're doing, I'm not quite sure which is scarier.

[Lucius]

Well your country has aggressive right wing religious folks all over the place, trying to produce hatred against before mentioned people, all we do is to mentain a state church out of tradition, and in order to give and receive gifts. (some worship of course, but the majority doesn't). That we have an obsolete institution that many take advantage off doesn't create hatred, it only mocks this so-called god, who doesn't exist anyway imo.

 

That you can't see which is scarier is really the most scary part here.

 

The Church and religion is seldom heard about, seen or affects the day of the average Dane. Can you say the same for Americans? (I'm referring to the average atheist American)

 

Edited a few points.

[Child of Flame]

Well your country has aggressive right wing religious folks all over the place, trying to produce hatred against before mentioned people, all we do is to mentain a state church out of tradition, and in order to give and receive gifts. (some worship of course, but the majority doesn't). That we have an obsolete institution that many take advantage off doesn't create hatred, it only mocks this so-called god, who doesn't exist anyway imo.

 

That you can't see which is scarier is really the most scary part here.

 

The Church and religion is seldom heard about, seen or affects the day of the average Dane. Can you say the same for Americans? (I'm referring to the average atheist American)

 

Edited a few points.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't speak for the average atheists, because I'm not them. The ones I've talked to generally don't have a problem with it, other than the fundamentalists that I too have a problem with.

 

The fundamentalists are by and large a minority though, and it's mostly politicking that has made them such a big deal lately, when it isn't really. I expect it to pass when Dubya isn't in office anymore.

 

All I can say about the matter is at least we don't waste tax dollars on a state sanctioned church that no one believes in.

[Judge Hades]

Are you sure? What about the Moral Majority? That organization needs to be deep sixed.

[Child of Flame]

Are you sure?  What about the Moral Majority?  That organization needs to be deep sixed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If you want to deep six them, you'd have to do the same to pretty much every other lobbying group. They're all loony, just about different things and from different sides of the spectrum.

[Lucius]

Yeah, well I know that you're not one of those fundamentalists (that much I've realized), but from what I see on the daily show (not the ultimate news source, I admit) it's pretty amazing what these guys can bring themselves to say about other people in the name of Christianity. My point was merely that we, at least, don't have to listen to crazies such as those.

 

Honestly though, what the average family pays annually for this state sanctioned church isn't very much, is't approximately what you'd pay for a new pair of jeans or so. (Diesel) ^_^

 

You ask, "why pay for something noone believes in?" Well, of course some believe in it, some believe in a higher power but doesn't worship and never sets foot in a Church unless they have to (marriage, funerals etc), but I think it's the same reason we still have a crossbanner as our national flag; it's just history dude, it's tradition, we know it's there and why but doesn't really care. I'm proud of my flag, but not because it has a Christian cross within it, since it doesn't represent Christianity as such in this day and age. Just as the common name "Christian" doesn't have any religious significance either.

Now I personally have thought about exiting the Church as the first member of my family, merely due to principle that I've developed these past few years, but I'll still be celebrating Christmas as most other atheists here do, after all, it's tradition.

 

I guess it's difficult to understand when you don't live it.

[Colrom]

The history of a movement doesn't necessarily prove anything about the product of the movement.  If the nazi party enacted a law prohibiting operating a vehilce while under the effects of alcohol, the law would remain reasonable regardless of the source.  There is no better example than my own stance, which is that the pledge not be mandatory.  I'm a Catholic and have no problem with the phrase "under God."  So, while the movement to remove the phrase or change the pledge might find support among atheists, the end product of the movement, namely removing the phrase, is not necessarily anti-religious.

 

In fact, the words "under God" do not create a state religion, which is the only clear prohibition that I've seen so far.  Since God encompasses the idea of divinity, it could just as easily serve as a reference for any other deity.

 

I think many atheists cannot help but approach the issue with overt hostility.  That doesn't help their case.

 

Also, I'd like to know how many people in this thread are American citizens.  It is not a prerequisite in order to comment on the issue, but I am curious as to how many folks from other countries feel compelled to comment on the pledge as it is spoken in the USA.  I'm sure I'll get a few flames for bringing up the issue, but it's a legitimate question.  It changes the issue from how Americans regard our constitution and the separation of church and state to the issue of church and state in general.  Because, if I'm to listen politely to folks argue against the pledge in my country, I should expect folks from other countries to be equally polite in listening to me.  Of course, if an American has strong opinions aboutanother country, he's arrogant.  That's probably true.  By the same token, a citizen of another country who feels compelled to express strong opinions about my country is open to the very same charge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is no good using false analogies about Nazis. If the Nazi party somehow achieved power in America (since we are talking about the US constitution here - not the German constitution of the Weimer Republic) and enacted a law prohibiting operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, one would reasonably think their intent was to allow the arrest of drunk drivers - which would not run into constitutional issues. Now if they passed a law about eating matza and also made speaches about that law in which they applauded it as having a desireable punishing effect on Jews that would run against the constitution.

 

In the case of the pledge of allegience, it was the specific intent of those who made the change - Congress and the President - as made clear by their statements - that they would distinguish their pledge from a pledge that might be made by an atheist. They intended this pledge to be a problem for atheists and said so clearly. Their intent is important in enforcing laws and in interpreting them. Their intent was to establish religion as a national dedication - which is against the constitution according to my reading - especially in view of the writings of the original founders of the nation - many of whom were clearly not fond of organized religion.

 

FYI - I am an American - born and bred - and a (rebel) Catholic.

 

As a matter of right and wrong I consider it wrong to carry out myself or force others to carry out public displays of prayer or devotion.

 

So even Christians can find this business offensive.

 

As an emotional person, I am sick to death of seeing "God Bless America" on every car, every store window, every pizza box, and every dry cleaning garment bag, everywhere I go - and having to lead children of all religions and non religions and degrees of hypocracy in a pledge of loyalty to "one nation under God", and put up with every sneeze or other similar event being an occasion for a display of frivilous (although sometimes sincere) public prayers of "God bless you".

 

There are probably seventeen people who actually believe in God. The rest believe in religion. Establishing religion is against the constitution.

 

End rant.

[Cantousent]

I'd assumed that you were an American, colrom. Surely you can understand that one part of my post might address your statements while another part might make a comment about the broader discussion.

 

...And you're still wrong at any rate. You didn't like the nazi analogy? Fair enough, although you really didn't understand my point. Let me put it in a different way. It doesn't matter what the intention is when a law is passed. It only matters if it is constitutional. Your underlying premise is mistaken. Just because the proponents of the law may or may not have considered it the first step in creating a state religion, the law itself does not create a state religion. For my purposes, "religion" entails an actual set of beliefs, complete with a heirarchy and accompanied by religious rites. "under God" really doesn't describe an actual religion. It could just as easily mean "under the Jewish God" or "Under the god Zeus." Sure, most folks will understand the phrase to mean "Under the Christian God," but the phrase is simply not explicit.

 

So, you want to be a rebel. That's fine by me. My friend of flame is a rebel also, from what I've seen. Be a rebel. Rankle at the flag waving and God Bless America masses. That's your choice. ...But the path from your brief history doesn't necessarily follow a trail of logic clearly showing the phrase "under God" to be unconstitutional. You clearly believe it does, and we must simply disagree.

 

As for you, Lucius, I don't know that my flaming friend seeks affirmation. I'm actually quite proud of him, though. First of all, he's stayed on topic. He's taken a stand on an issue without joking or flaming. He's given what seems like a genuine response. So, yeah, I'm proud of Child of Flame. No doubt he'll be spammin', fightin', and raising some hell later. ...And he has some good points. Trying to change the issue from the argument at hand to how I'll see the argument just seems a bit... I dunno... desperate?

[Lucius]

Desperate, not really, I know that you're biased against me on all accounts so I thought it was a proper comment to be making. You being a mod and all.

 

As for arguments, you didn't even answer my questions as to why you are always so over the top defensive.

[Judge Hades]

It may not be unconstitutional, Eldar, but it makes the pledge unfit for state functions such as public schools and places of public office. It doesn't matter what god it infers, separation of church and state needs to be maintained.

 

I for one do not want to live in a religious state.

[Gromnir]

"2 - The "Wall" of seperation may not have existed in the original intent (which we really can't debate their intent), or the original wording. However we have come to a point where people believe that is the case, and most accept it."

 

first, why you think it is not possible to debate intent? look at what the framers said is a good start... then look at what they did. we not gotta know specific what is in the minds of each and every framer to glean their intent s a whole.

 

second, the fact that you assume that most folks accept the wall o' separation language seems based on gut feeling rather than reality. we got a very religious nation, and your certainty that most folks believes that the establishment clause creates a wall o' separation would be something that we would have no such certainty 'bout.

 

finally, what does it matter that most persons accept something as true? popular opinion is what Congress is 'posed to be swayed by. Congress is the folks elected by the people. if the people has changed their mind, then by all means, let them change the law by demanding their representatives to do so. that is the way the process is 'posed to work. stodgy old Justices who gots no accountability to the public is the ones who should be gauging the current trends and opinions o' the American Public?

 

oh, and while this ain

[Judge Hades]

I agree we live in a religious nation, but that does not mean we have to have a religious government. In order that all people within the nation to be treated fairly, religion needs to stay out and the government impartial and secular.

[Colrom]

OK Eldar, I think I understand some of your viewpoint.

 

Do you believe that the inclusion of the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance in conjunction with the mandating of the pledge as a schoolhouse requirement (doesn't somebody have to say it in full) does not have the effect of promoting the establishment of religion?

 

It just occured to me - how do they handle this in a school of all athiests?

 

Anyway, maybe we need to discuss and understand better what is meant by "establishment of religion" in terms of how it is recognized.

 

I think what religion you practice and even how you practice it certainly effects what practices you notice and which seem normal and which seem unnormal.

 

I think I recognize the establishment of Christianity (despite the occasional feeble genuflections to the Jewish faith) in our current American situation.

 

But I also think that other places like the UK and Germany and Israel and Pakistan and India and so on are in many ways more involved in certain kinds of priviledged (establishing) connections between religion and the state than the US.

 

I'm going to think about it for a while and also see what other's say before writing further.

[Cantousent]

I'm not biased against you, Lucius, just against your arguments.

 

Also, I'm not over the top defensive. Hell, there's not enough at stake in this argument to make me defensive in the first place. You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot more interest in the politics of a foreign country than your own.

[Judge Hades]

I'm not biased against you, Lucius, just against your arguments.

 

Also, I'm not over the top defensive.  Hell, there's not enough at stake in this argument to make me defensive in the first place.  You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot more interest in the politics of a foreign country than your own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So does our president.

[Child of Flame]

I'm not biased against you, Lucius, just against your arguments.

 

Also, I'm not over the top defensive.  Hell, there's not enough at stake in this argument to make me defensive in the first place.  You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot more interest in the politics of a foreign country than your own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So does our president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You could argue that's part of his job.

 

Anyhow.

 

ZING!

[Shadowstrider]

first, why you think it is not possible to debate intent?  look at what the framers said is a good start... then look at what they did.  we not gotta know specific what is in the minds of each and every framer to glean their intent s a whole.

 

They aren't here now to explain their reasoning, or what factors played in their mind. Its one thing to analyze the factors leading up to a decision and the decision itself, but the fact is we don't know ALL the things which played in their mind. Thus I'm not going to debate what someone's intent was. I never met George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. so I'll restrain myself from saying "I think they thought."

 

second, the fact that you assume that most folks accept the wall o' separation language seems based on gut feeling rather than reality.  we got a very religious nation, and your certainty that most folks believes that the establishment clause creates a wall o' separation would be something that we would have no such certainty 'bout.

 

Polls support that most people accept the seperation of church and state arguement. It might not be an overwhelming majority, but neither was Bush's election. In all likelihood if you went to a breadbasket state to poll, most might not accept it. *Shrugs*

 

I go by what the polls show.

 

finally, what does it matter that most persons accept something as true?  popular opinion is what Congress is 'posed to be swayed by. Congress is the folks elected by the people.  if the people has changed their mind, then by all means, let them change the law by demanding their representatives to do so.  that is the way the process is 'posed to work.  stodgy old Justices who gots no accountability to the public is the ones who should be gauging the current trends and opinions o' the American Public?

 

oh, and while this ain

[Judge Hades]

Yes, but should he be giving more resources to foreign governments when his own people are suffering? I don't think so. The president's primary concern, and the government in general, should be the welfare of his people.

 

The truth on how much he cares is obvious on the slow response time and diverted funds to New Orleans, Biloxi, and other hit areas in comparison to Iraq.

[Shadowstrider]

This ain't a thread about President Bush, y'all.