Pledge! Now!

[Musopticon?]

^That's the right attitude on religions anyway. "hah, what do we care? You're gonna burn anyway."

[Child of Flame]

Essactly.

 

I was bein' sarcastic. Honest!

[Musopticon?]

Quite so.

 

You doofus.

[Child of Flame]

Indubitably.

 

I felt I had to give it away, even though they totally would have fell for it. I could have gotten in trouble if I didn't.

[Calax]

No no it's the mormons that go to heaven... don't you watch south park?

[Commissar]

Everyone except Christians are going to hell anyway so what does it matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that's a fine attitude to have, and I'm not going to fault anyone for it. The problem comes in when you decide it's your responsibility to save me. Christianity is an evangelizing religion.

 

Eldar, I hate to say it, but history isn't really on your side in terms of discounting the threat of radical, fundamentalist Christianity. The track record of that particular religion is worse than most of the others, and since I'd rather not be racked for suggesting that the guys who compiled the Bible four hundred years after Jesus' death might've gotten it wrong, you can bet your ass I'm going to keep an eye on Christian movements in my country.

 

Here's a little food for thought: why's it so difficult for a great many members of the religious organizations around the country to live their lives according to their beliefs without government endorsement? You, personally, don't have to get an abortion or engage in homosexual intercourse or frequent strip clubs. Why do you care so much if other people do?

[Cantousent]

Di, do you really contend that the Republic is more in danger of falling from the attitude of fringe Christians more than folks who advocate outright treason? You immediately jump to the conclussion that fundamentalist of any religion drive a culture towards bloodshed? ...But in the United States, the population has had, at different times, greater and lesser religious fervor. It obviously isn't something so simple as the lesson you learned from your studies of history. My lesson is that, should the government fall into chaos because the population is treasonous, fringe groups are far more likely to gain power.

 

Furthermore, you say it's intolerant for me to make an observation you don't like. If we're to go down that path, then I contend that you're intolerant of Christian fundamentalists. Let's not go down that path. I made a statement in good faith. I did not accuse you of pushing a hidden agenda. I took pains to let you, personally, know that I was addressing arguments from a variety of people. If you care to read the whole thread, you might find the posts to which I responded. I did state, and I still believe, that you are misguided in your beliefs. Isn't that the same charge you level at me? We might use different words, but it amounts to the same thing. You think I'm wrong.

 

Finally, I worry about these things also. Religion and politics are bad enough in isolation. Combine the two in one issue and it's sure to make for hard feelings. For my part, I continue to think of you as the charming and engaging member you've always been. I'll probably continue to disagree with you regarding Christian fundamentalists. That's probably because, even though they tend to be a bit borish, they tend not to advocate violence. Only the most fring of Christian fundamentalist advocate violence.

[Cantousent]

Other than abortion, of which I have posted my views elsewhere, I don't really care about homosexuality or strip clubs. While I have never had a homosexual experience, I have been to a few strip clubs with friends. The only thing I can say about strip clubs is that they overcharge, by a huge amount, for the drinks.

 

I'm far more liberal than folks seem to believe. Still, anyone who engages in political discussions is going to get a label of some sort. I'll accept conservative.

 

As far as legislating abortion, I've been against it for years. I think legislation is a losing battle and does not help the underlying issue. As for my extended comments, I'll leave those for a thread about abortion. This thread is about the pledge. I disagree with the idea that putting "under God" in the pledge has somehow cause untold grief or hardship for anyone... even atheists.

[Commissar]

Other than abortion, of which I have posted my views elsewhere, I don't really care about homosexuality or strip clubs.  While I have never had a homosexual experience, I have been to a few strip clubs with friends.  The only thing I can say about strip clubs is that they overcharge, by a huge amount, for the drinks.

 

I'm far more liberal than folks seem to believe.  Still, anyone who engages in political discussions is going to get a label of some sort.  I'll accept conservative.

 

As far as legislating abortion, I've been against it for years.  I think legislation is a losing battle and does not help the underlying issue.  As for my extended comments, I'll leave those for a thread about abortion.  This thread is about the pledge.  I disagree with the idea that putting "under God" in the pledge has somehow cause untold grief or hardship for anyone... even atheists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you square "under God" with an atheist's beliefs? You can't. How is obliging us to state something contrary to our beliefs constitutional?

[Cantousent]

I'll leave the question of the constitution to the courts. I just don't believe the phrase has caused hardship and grief for atheists. If the court decides that the phrase cannot remain in the pledge, I'll be perfectly happy.

[Commissar]

I'll leave the question of the constitution to the courts.  I just don't believe the phrase has caused hardship and grief for atheists.  If the court decides that the phrase cannot remain in the pledge, I'll be perfectly happy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We could create a segregated public school system today that wouldn't cause hardship or grief for anybody, if that's your only litmus test for what happens to be right.

[Commissar]

Or, I know...how 'bout we make it, "under no gods." Would you Christians be cool with that? I doubt it'd cause you any undue hardship or grief, right?

[alanschu]

How come it's only making the Athiests mad now?

[Cantousent]

Or, I know...how 'bout we make it, "under no gods."  Would you Christians be cool with that?  I doubt it'd cause you any undue hardship or grief, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Of course that would cause hardship and grief for Christians. Of course, it would cause hardship and grief for folks of any religion, but you're taking the two phrases as being logically equivalent. I disagree.

 

First of all, "no God" entails a statement to the negative rather than the positive. In other words, saying "under God" does not entail a denial of atheism. It entails an affirmation of divinity. It is sufficiently general that it excludes no major religion. Atheists can take "under God" to be a useless filler or simply ignore the phrase altogether. Fair enough. Still, it is not the same thing. It's tricky, I'll grant you. It's a clever approach. ...But, in the end, it's just a parlor trick. "Under God" was not included in the pledge in order to insult atheists. Changing the pledge to "under no God" would amount to nothing less than an intentional affront.

 

Now, entrenched atheists are a different story. They are undoubtedly deeply offended by the phrase, "under God." Of course, most entrenched atheists are offended by religion as a whole and by any mention of divinity.

 

Let's play the equivalency game for a moment longer, though, and say that the phrase "under Satan" is the equivalent of "Under God." Why don't we use that phrase? After all, there are Satanists in the United States, aren't there? "Under God" expresses a viewpoint that is more or less encouraged by the majority of Americans. The fact that the pledge contains the phrase "under God" undoubtedly causes hardship for Satanists, and yet it does so unduly. Would it be better for the atheists if we included the phrase "under Satan?"

 

Now, let's get to the matter of hardship and grief for atheists. How about the word "indivisible?" Obviously, that word does not cause hardship or grief for folks, but there is undoubtedly a segment of the population who finds the word offensive. Does it not offend anarchists to have a pledge in the first place?

 

So, I will amend my statement to say that the phrase "under God" does not cause excessive hardship and grief. I would have thought that this would not be necessary since it is clear that some folks are offended by the phrase.

 

So, to recap, the passage "under God" reflects the views of the population. It does not strip away the rights of any individuals. It does not force any person to join or contribute money to a state run religion. It is does not cause excessive hardship and grief, even for atheists. ...And unless you're willing to own up to the fact that atheism is a de facto religion, with the members creating and maintaining doctrine, you have no leg on which to stand. Finally, if atheism is a religion, and you insist on including the phrase "under no God," then you have gone further towards creating a state religion than any vague phrase such as "under God."

[taks]

How do you square "under God" with an atheist's beliefs?  You can't.  How is obliging us to state something contrary to our beliefs constitutional?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

then don't say under god. it is not required, last time i checked. nothing to square and no contrary statements. that's pretty much what i did (er, didn't do) when i was growing up (started my conversion around 12/13 or so). no sweat off my back and nobody seemed to care, not even my teacher.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

How come it's only making the Athiests mad now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

my exact wording was "even atheists." Since I assume the affirmation of divinity is most offensive to atheists, I included the phrase. While members of other religions might bristle at the phrase "under God," I see this issue as primarily regarding atheists. I think that's a fair enough statement. Feel free to disagree.

[taks]

Now, entrenched atheists are a different story.  They are undoubtedly deeply offended by the phrase, "under God."  Of course, most entrenched atheists are offended by religion as a whole and by any mention of divinity.

i'm not. IMO, the only reason other entrenched atheists raise a fuss in the first place is because they have a political axe to grind. sure they spout the whole "separation" theme over and over but that's a cover story. as long as i or my family are not told what do do, where are my rights being trampled?

 

oh well, i'll stay in the minority (of course, the ex prez or whatever of NOW is an atheist republican, which is very strange, and begs the question about her beliefs on this matter).

 

taks

[Cantousent]

I'm still trying to grasp the whole idea. Have we overstepped our bounds? Perhaps. I guess it doesn't hurt to keep taking a long look at ourselves. Still, I don't think the "under no God" idea helps the case. If anything, it probably raises the unrest level of Christians who don't fit that ever present "fundamentalist" description.

[Commissar]

Or, I know...how 'bout we make it, "under no gods."  Would you Christians be cool with that?  I doubt it'd cause you any undue hardship or grief, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Of course that would cause hardship and grief for Christians. Of course, it would cause hardship and grief for folks of any religion, but you're taking the two phrases as being logically equivalent. I disagree.

 

First of all, "no God" entails a statement to the negative rather than the positive. In other words, saying "under God" does not entail a denial of atheism. It entails an affirmation of divinity. It is sufficiently general that it excludes no major religion. Atheists can take "under God" to be a useless filler or simply ignore the phrase altogether. Fair enough. Still, it is not the same thing. It's tricky, I'll grant you. It's a clever approach. ...But, in the end, it's just a parlor trick. "Under God" was not included in the pledge in order to insult atheists. Changing the pledge to "under no God" would amount to nothing less than an intentional affront.

What sophistry! Please, Eldar, explain to me how you'd feel about affirming the divinity of...oh, I don't know, a can of pickles. Useless filler, sure, but it's still not a true statement.

 

Let's play the equivalency game for a moment longer, though, and say that the phrase "under Satan" is the equivalent of "Under God."  Why don't we use that phrase?  After all, there are Satanists in the United States, aren't there?  "Under God" expresses a viewpoint that is more or less encouraged by the majority of Americans.  The fact that the pledge contains the phrase "under God" undoubtedly causes hardship for Satanists, and yet it does so unduly.  Would it be better for the atheists if we included the phrase "under Satan?"

You bring up an interesting point. Why aren't Satanists allowed to replace "under God" with "under Satan"? Why are you allowed to express your beliefs during the Pledge, but not them?

 

Now, let's get to the matter of hardship and grief for atheists.  How about the word "indivisible?"  Obviously, that word does not cause hardship or grief for folks, but there is undoubtedly a segment of the population who finds the word offensive.  Does it not offend anarchists to have a pledge in the first place?

Well, I'll overlook your mixing of a secular discussion with a temporal one, and...wait, no, I won't. The apples-and-oranges rebuttal, I think, was made specifically for this argument.

 

So, to recap, the passage "under God" reflects the views of the population.  It does not strip away the rights of any individuals.  It does not force any person to join or contribute money to a state run religion.  It is does not cause excessive hardship and grief, even for atheists.  ...And unless you're willing to own up to the fact that atheism is a de facto religion, with the members creating and maintaining doctrine, you have no leg on which to stand.  Finally, if atheism is a religion, and you insist on including the phrase "under no God," then you have gone further towards creating a state religion than any vague phrase such as "under God."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First and foremost, I couldn't care less if "under God" reflects the views of the majority of the population. I really couldn't. The majority of the population was convinced that the world was flat at one point, and nobody uses numbers these days to make the case for that particular view being an inspired piece of wisdom.

 

You talk about what the phrase doesn't do, but you admitted earlier what it does do; it affirms divinity. For those who don't believe in divinity, that's problematic, no?

 

So just don't say it. That's well and good, but if we're going to use that argument, why not take it out and allow those who do favor the man-with-a-beard-in-the-sky point of view to insert it. In its current, published, government-endorsed form, it can't be considered a secular document.

[Commissar]

How do you square "under God" with an atheist's beliefs?  You can't.  How is obliging us to state something contrary to our beliefs constitutional?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

then don't say under god. it is not required, last time i checked. nothing to square and no contrary statements. that's pretty much what i did (er, didn't do) when i was growing up (started my conversion around 12/13 or so). no sweat off my back and nobody seemed to care, not even my teacher.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Gromnir]

How do you square "under God" with an atheist's beliefs?  You can't.  How is obliging us to state something contrary to our beliefs constitutional?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

then don't say under god. it is not required, last time i checked. nothing to square and no contrary statements. that's pretty much what i did (er, didn't do) when i was growing up (started my conversion around 12/13 or so). no sweat off my back and nobody seemed to care, not even my teacher.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

God forbear! don't you realize how traumatized your young brain was? heck, you were probably group-thunk into becoming religious... you poor dumb bastard. all those years o' repressed guilt over fraudulently reciting the pledge led to some sorta emotional backlash...

 

sounds silly? sounds like the kinda reasoning the Court should be using to declare what is and ain't Constitutional?

 

...

 

am catholic. our catholicism does not prevent Gromnir from thinking that a Wall o' Separation would be a good thing. however, we is pretty damned certain that the Framers did not believe that the establishment clause called for a Wall o' Separation, and the notion that the Court should use the touchy-feely nonsense 'bove to explain why such a construction should be retroactively attached to the First Amendment makes us more than a little queasy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I think we've both had our say, Commissar. I'm willing to leave it as it stands.

 

I'll leave it at this:

 

I won't be upset if the Supreme Court rules against the passage "under God." I hope it won't cause you hardship and grief if the court decides against the federal judge.

 

I simply don't see the two phrases as equivalent, regardless of how clever the idea was on your part.

[alanschu]

Eldar, I wasn't referring to you when I asked why Athiests are upset only now.

 

 

Although I do wonder why it seems, only now, that they are now getting upset about it, when it's been in that statement for a long time already?

 

How many athiests even knew it existed in the pledge before this event?

[Shadowstrider]

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

 

Does that make the complaint any less valid?

 

Nope.

[Gromnir]

you know, the part that we really don't get is, assuming ss and others is right 'bout most Americans being in favor o' Wall o' Separation, why don't you folks simply get Congress to change the gosh darn pledge? that is the way the system is 'posed to work you know.

 

HA! Good Fun!