Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/22/06 07:22 AM, Nylo wrote:

At 3/22/06 01:45 AM, bakem0n0 wrote: No, it implies that our nation is hypocritical, that's all.

Your guys' perception of hypocracy is so contorted it's just sad. Please go to a true and blue religious-based government and come back to whine about America's evil "de facto" religion that supposedly runs our lives.

I love it when people assume stuff about me based on a single post. I never claimed America's "de facto" religion was evil, nor that it ruined lives. The only claims I've made on this subject are:
1. Putting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegience as a propaganda device was a bad thing, a belief that comes from a distaste for propaganda rather than for belief in God.
2. That the Pledge of Allegience is a totemic ritual, making the entire debate ironic.
3. That leaving it optional makes the whole Pledge look bad.
4. The issue is not worthy of wasting court resources.
5. That the use of references to God appear hypocritical alongside the first ammendment and lack of a national religion.

If you can reasonably pull life ruining and evil out of these claims, I will retract my next comment: Shut up until you learn to quit jumping to stupid conclusions.

At 3/22/06 07:32 AM, bakem0n0 wrote: If you can reasonably pull life ruining and evil out of these claims, I will retract my next comment: Shut up until you learn to quit jumping to stupid conclusions.

Arguably, you jumped a stupid conclusion for me. I could honestly care less if the concept of nationalism is lost on you when you groan every time the fifteen-second pledge is recited.

I said "runs" our lives, not "ruins". Judging by the dissent you clearly have over the resources used in courts, and the needless ritualistic pledge and it's three letter word that seems to burden you so much I'm moving on in the light you thought I was right anyways.

Which brings us full circle. Your view of the U.S government being hypocritical about endorsing religion is contorted and sad compared to religiously endorsed governments around the world do every day, to the point of no comparrison.

Quick question: Does anybody know when the Pledge of Allegience was created? Was God always in it, or was it added?

I just wanna get the history behind it so I can refute/support this statement better:

1. Putting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegience as a propaganda device was a bad thing, a belief that comes from a distaste for propaganda rather than for belief in God.

Thank you.

At 3/22/06 08:43 AM, Nylo wrote: Arguably, you jumped a stupid conclusion for me. I could honestly care less if the concept of nationalism is lost on you when you groan every time the fifteen-second pledge is recited.

I have nothing against nationalism nor the pledge. The only reason I'd possibly groan hearing the pledge is that years of marching band have trained my ears to cringe when half the group drops out for a couple beats -- thus when only some people keep up the "under God" it sounds bad.

I said "runs" our lives, not "ruins".

My apologies, that was my fault there for the misreading.

Judging by the dissent you clearly have over the resources used in courts, and the needless ritualistic pledge and it's three letter word that seems to burden you so much I'm moving on in the light you thought I was right anyways.

This is what I was talking about to begin with. You assume that I'm against the pledge and the "burdensome" three letter word, but I really don't care about the word God being in there. I would rather it never have been but in, yes. But I'm quite fine with it staying.
To put it clearly: It's the policy of ambiguity that I'm most annoyed with, not the word God.
If God offended me I would be ranting about money right now, but like I said, it's a waste of time to be this uptight about it.

Which brings us full circle. Your view of the U.S government being hypocritical about endorsing religion is contorted and sad compared to religiously endorsed governments around the world do every day, to the point of no comparrison.

How is my view contorted by the mere existance of religiously endorsed governments? You just said yourself that there is no comparison. You can't compare them because if the US endorsed Christianity this wouldn't be hypocracy and I would never have brought it up as hypocracy.

At 3/22/06 08:46 AM, Imperator wrote: Quick question: Does anybody know when the Pledge of Allegience was created? Was God always in it, or was it added?

I just wanna get the history behind it so I can refute/support this statement better:

1. Putting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegience as a propaganda device was a bad thing, a belief that comes from a distaste for propaganda rather than for belief in God.

Thank you.

The "under God" was added during the Cold War to seperate the Good Christian US from the Evil Athiest Soviets . . .
Wikipedia gives the year as 1954, but it doesn't mention who did it. I had originally heard of this in a history class, so my source is rather inacessable, and I don't have any link off-hand to relate it to, so you're going to either have to take my word for it or hunt one down if I don't find one first.

At 3/22/06 03:45 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: If God offended me I would be ranting about money right now, but like I said, it's a waste of time to be this uptight about it.

If it didnt offend you why did you start bitching about it then? You obviously care enough to present an argument that bitches about it.

Id consider myself an agnostic but people who bitch about the pledge are ridiculous. Who cares?

At 3/22/06 07:46 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 3/22/06 03:45 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: If God offended me I would be ranting about money right now, but like I said, it's a waste of time to be this uptight about it.

If it didnt offend you why did you start bitching about it then? You obviously care enough to present an argument that bitches about it.

I didn't. I complained about the fact that such base propaganda is not seen for what it is.
Then I pointed out the irony of complaining about monotheism creeping into a totem ritual -- that's right, I made fun of the people complaining!
I honestly don't see where you get the idea that I'm offended by "under God;" I'm not.

Id consider myself an agnostic but people who bitch about the pledge are ridiculous. Who cares?

Isn't that what I said?!? "On the other hand, it's definately not worth wasting time in courts bickering about the legality of it. If it's going to be that costly to worry about it, just don't mess with it."
I've said twice now that I really don't care that much about the pledge and that it's not a big deal; in fact, the only comments I've made on the subject of the pledge have nothing to do with any offense whatsoever. So, why do you label me as bitching about it?

I didn't. I complained about the fact that such base propaganda is not seen for what it is.

Maybe now it can be considered base propaganda. Back then there really were not enough religeons that weren't monotheistic to really make this such a bad thing (to my knowledge).

The "under God" was added during the Cold War to seperate the Good Christian US from the Evil Athiest Soviets . . .

hmmmm..........
That might be a bit of a stretch there, I don't think there's any major indication that it's implication was this.......just sounds like another Cold War conspiracy theory to me........

Let me rephrase, it WAS used as you said (atheist soviets, etc). What I don't see it as; is a continued propaganda device being used up to today........

I don't think it maintained that type of "power" after the Cold War, so keeping or removing it won't seem to have an effect. Thus, not really a propaganda device for the modern day, just a remnant of the Cold War (and in THAT sense, an old Cold War conspiracy theory).

But since America has an obsession with PC and making sure no one feels violated in any way, chances are someone smart with get it removed.......