God..

[stonedpimp69]

This is a very simple question. Are you for or against taking god out of the oath of allegiance and the removing the ten commandments and other religious items from view in government controlled places. And why.(I think i can predict the answerof most on this board but anyway)

[Chaoslight]

At 12/7/03 12:47 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: This is a very simple question. Are you for or against taking god out of the oath of allegiance and the removing the ten commandments and other religious items from view in government controlled places. And why.(I think i can predict the answerof most on this board but anyway)

I'm gonna surprise you. I think they shouldn't take god out. However, I do think the entire thing should be optional. I mean, as these things go, and by that I mean the lengths to which they are taken, the whole thing is just another form of prayer. The flag is an Idol, the way some people treat it.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against people pledging to it, or anyhting else. I just don't think people should be suspended if they chose not to.

How about something a little less mindless-automoton? How about:

" I pledge my respect to the ideals that the flag represents, that the United States of America were founded on. They are: Freedom of speech, press, and religion. Freedom from oppression. Policy from intelligent thought, not from tradition. The duty of every citizen to speak out peacibly for what they believe in, and against what they do not.
I pledge never to harm someone who disagrees with me, as long as they do not first harm me. I pledge to encourage dissent and change, for without change there is no progress.
And I pledge to stand up for all my fellows, no matter what they believe, against an oppressor who subdues our right to disagree.
I pledge this by (insert oath here, it should be whatever each speaker decides it to be for themselves.)"

There. It's a bit long, but I think it's better than the one we've got. Of course, you're free to disagree. =)

[stonedpimp69]

Now I feel guilty for expecting the barring of god from the anthem, to some hippy lefty bullshit hymn. =)=)=)I guess this board still has some people with common sense(even if they are leftwing). =)=)=)

[heyitsjohn]

At 12/7/03 01:11 PM, Chaoslight wrote:
I'm gonna surprise you. I think they shouldn't take god out. However, I do think the entire thing should be optional. I mean, as these things go, and by that I mean the lengths to which they are taken, the whole thing is just another form of prayer. The flag is an Idol, the way some people treat it.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against people pledging to it, or anyhting else. I just don't think people should be suspended if they chose not to.

How about something a little less mindless-automoton? How about:

" I pledge my respect to the ideals that the flag represents, that the United States of America were founded on. They are: Freedom of speech, press, and religion. Freedom from oppression. Policy from intelligent thought, not from tradition. The duty of every citizen to speak out peacibly for what they believe in, and against what they do not.
I pledge never to harm someone who disagrees with me, as long as they do not first harm me. I pledge to encourage dissent and change, for without change there is no progress.
And I pledge to stand up for all my fellows, no matter what they believe, against an oppressor who subdues our right to disagree.
I pledge this by (insert oath here, it should be whatever each speaker decides it to be for themselves.)"

There. It's a bit long, but I think it's better than the one we've got. Of course, you're free to disagree. =)

that should be the pledge of this politics forum. that's basically what i base my arguments on. i think our current pledge is good though, but if you dont want to say god, then dont. it's unconstitutional to force someone to pledge to god.

an interesting side bar; the pledge didn't contain the words "under god" until the cold war, when the government threw it in there so we would feel more important than them ruskies.

[Dagodevas]

I don’t have a problem with the pledge as it is, but if they do change it, I hope they change it back to the way it originally was; “…one nation, indivisible…”. It sends a better message, wouldn’t you say?

[Alejandro1]

Honestly, I don't see a problem with it; as long as no one's forced to say 'under god' in the pledge, religion is not enforced. I think the focus on the pledge is a waste of time, seeing how there are retarded religious laws getting no controversy *cough* blue laws *cough*.

[RedSkunk]

At 12/7/03 04:17 PM, Dagodevas wrote: I don’t have a problem with the pledge as it is, but if they do change it, I hope they change it back to the way it originally was; “…one nation, indivisible…”. It sends a better message, wouldn’t you say?

Exactly. While obviously it doesn't really matter how it goes (does anyone ever hear it again after graduating HS?), it just irks me a little that a small group of religious zealots were able to change it to read 'under god' some fifty years ago.

[Stormwarden]

I agree. "One Nation, Indivisible" sends a much better message. The "Under God" part was added in the 1950's when the nation was under Joseph McCarthy's grip. Not the kind of person you want as a role model. He established his idiocy to help "root out" the communists.

But we know McCarthy was full of shit anyway, so moving on. I personally do think that the 10 amendments should stay out of the courthouse. The reason being that it has this feel that someone is trying to ram religion down someone's throat.

[Chaoslight]

At 12/7/03 08:35 PM, Stormwarden wrote: I agree. "One Nation, Indivisible" sends a much better message. The "Under God" part was added in the 1950's when the nation was under Joseph McCarthy's grip. Not the kind of person you want as a role model. He established his idiocy to help "root out" the communists.

Seems to be the role model of Cheny, Ashcroft, and Ridges, though.
"I have in my hand a list of 57 terrorists..."

But we know McCarthy was full of shit anyway, so moving on. I personally do think that the 10 amendments should stay out of the courthouse. The reason being that it has this feel that someone is trying to ram religion down someone's throat.

We all know warden meant commandments. But this typo got me to thinking: What if, instead of, or perhaps next to the ten commandments, we put up stone tablets that bear, carved into them, the ten amendments. As opening lines go, I think:

"I am the Lorg your God, you shall have no other Gods before Me."

pales in comparison to:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In fact, now that I see the two side by side, I think it would be a good idea to keep the ten commandments, while ading the amendments. Sends a powerful message, don't you think?

The message it sends me is: "Think long and hard about which of these documents is a crock." And as an agnostic atheist, the answer is plain.

[Locke666]

I would just like to throw in a bit of perspective here.

The use of god in the anthem is really trivial just about everybody in the world has a god or a chief god or something. The only people who it could possibly offend are atheists and I being an atheist myself would like to say that we dont give a damn. Go ahead and leave it there is really no reason to change it.

[Nylo]

I honestly don't see a big problem with it either. "Under God" sounds perfectly fine to me, and ends up being a good representation of how lots of laws have some ties to the 10 commandments, even if it wasn't originally in the Pledge. Really, I can't see why people have such a shit-fit about it. If you don't want to say it, don't say it. If you do feel like saying it, don't let anyone tell you that you can't. 'tis the beauty of a free society.

[TheShrike]

At 12/7/03 01:11 PM, Chaoslight wrote: " I pledge my respect to the ideals that the flag represents, that the United States of America were founded on. They are: Freedom of speech, press, and religion. Freedom from oppression. Policy from intelligent thought, not from tradition. The duty of every citizen to speak out peacibly for what they believe in, and against what they do not.
I pledge never to harm someone who disagrees with me, as long as they do not first harm me. I pledge to encourage dissent and change, for without change there is no progress.
And I pledge to stand up for all my fellows, no matter what they believe, against an oppressor who subdues our right to disagree.
I pledge this by (insert oath here, it should be whatever each speaker decides it to be for themselves.)"

That's pretty good. Did you come up with that yourself?

As for the rest of this... I won't even bother. (I can anticipate the response from the religious right, and it isn't worth my time.)

[Chaoslight]

At 12/8/03 03:27 PM, TheShrike wrote: That's pretty good. Did you come up with that yourself?

Yeah. Is it really that good?

[Ravens-Grin]

At 12/8/03 03:27 PM, TheShrike wrote: As for the rest of this... I won't even bother. (I can anticipate the response from the religious right, and it isn't worth my time.)

Times are changing on newgrounds. New faces with new ideas. There hasn't been many rightest religious people advocating for or against the "under god" part of the constitution.

For myself, there is nothing wrong with the pledge of allegiance. But to others, especially the other 4(maybe 3 if Allah=Christianity's God) major religions of the world, there is something wrong with it. They don't want to feel that they must love god to love the country. The Pledge should be changed back to what it was. It gives the power of the word 'indivisible' to the country instead of god, which is what this country needs. Unity.

In my opinion it really doesn't make the slightest difference whether a fictional character is in some writings that people obey.

God, Luke Skywalker, Tricky the Clown they are all the same to me.

however this would mean that i would be under no obligation to not lie. So i suppose you would have to put my country into it.

[JMHX]

More time should be invested in students understanding the meaning of the pledge of alligence, not just mindlessly repeating it every day. It's about knowing what the words mean, knowing what you're saying, moreso than just saying it.

[Matty233]

I think that God should be out of the american anthem. I mean, not everybody believes in God, and we're just assimilating them by feeding them religious information. What we are basically doing is brainwashing kids so they follow the Christian faith. Another example of the corrupt church...

But on the other hand, if we're changing the national anthem here, let's really think about this! There are so many untrue statements in that song! The land of the free. Aren't we all really bound by money? If money dropped in value to 1/10th of what it is now (eg. a dollar= 10 cents) what would you all do? What if, on the other hand, money ceased to exist? Chaos, for sure. Think about it...

By the way, I do believe in God.

[Commander-K25]

At 12/9/03 10:02 PM, Matty233 wrote: What we are basically doing is brainwashing kids so they follow the Christian faith. Another example of the corrupt church...

How does "under God" refer explicitly to Christianity? Most mjor religions have some conception of a god or gods.

As for whether the words should be in there? Probably not.

[Matty233]

That's true, but God is generally represented by the Christian god. When I say god, you think Christian, right? Besides, in other religions, it's not God, it's Buddha or other things. Using God is assimilating people.

[RedMauler]

At 12/9/03 10:31 PM, Matty233 wrote: That's true, but God is generally represented by the Christian god. When I say god, you think Christian, right? Besides, in other religions, it's not God, it's Buddha or other things. Using God is assimilating people.

Matty, you may dismiss this as semantics which it is ultimately, if you count Chirstianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the Eastern philisophical cults as the major religions then for the Judeo-Chirstian-Islamic tradition there is only one G-d. Hinduism recognizes 6 Gods with Brahmin as the Creator and the Eastern p-cults have no G-d per-se. It seems to me to be a great misunderstanding when people talk about Allah and/or Yahweh as seperate entities from the Christian G-d. They are the same. All three are the same G-d and all three religions with the exception of the fringes of those three recognize that. Allah is arabic for G-d. Yahweh, if memory serves, is Hebrew for "I am." This makes it less a name than a statement of pure existance but I am going to skip over that for now. Finally, The Eastern p+cults are instruments of cultural order (with the possible exception of Shinto which I have not studied in depth) and personal recognition. Budda and Confucious are not deities, perhaps enlightened. But not deities, nor is Mohammud an avatar or a sub-god in Islam. He is their Prophet much like Elijah is one of Judaism's many prophets.

On the issue of the Pledge, I see no reason for under G-d to be in it. Religion is defined as a personal choice in the Constiution of this country and the idea that someone, nay anyone, can impose their religious ideas on my person or my life disgusts me. Even when I agree with them.

[Locke666]

Ok you people are starting to think this is actually important again. Lemmee just ask you, how many of you ever really thought about the words when they made you recite the pledge of alleigance in elementary school? Hell, did any of you even say the real words? I know i didnt.

[karasz]

i have just one measley question on this...

which god?

allah, god (christian), zues, jupiter, vishnu, apollo, athena, mars, neptune, poseidon, ares, buddha, dali lama, confucious...

(ok maybe i took it a wee bit far since buddha, dali lama, confucious are more like the pope than a god... meaning they are the leaders not the god... but we all get my point)

since it just says god, and everyone automatically assumes its the christian one they are wrong,... since its ambiguous its not discrimatory against anyone... except athetists, but fuck trying to make the world even MORE PC than it is...

seriously i hate political correctness...

[Chaoslight]

At 12/9/03 11:07 PM, Locke666 wrote: Ok you people are starting to think this is actually important again. Lemmee just ask you, how many of you ever really thought about the words when they made you recite the pledge of alleigance in elementary school? Hell, did any of you even say the real words? I know i didnt.

That's just the thing. If there's going to be a pledge, it should be one that everyone can get behind.

I pledge allegance to the Politics BBS
Of the Newgrounds.com site
And to the free speech
For which it stands
One forum
Under Mod
Extremely divisible
With liberty as long as you're not a jackass
For all.

[Valdearg]

At 12/7/03 04:54 PM, EnigmaOfTheDark wrote: Honestly, I don't see a problem with it; as long as no one's forced to say 'under god' in the pledge, religion is not enforced. I think the focus on the pledge is a waste of time, seeing how there are retarded religious laws getting no controversy *cough* blue laws *cough*.

All right here we go. I am technecly not a very religios guy but I believe in following the main rules. OK and the "in god" part doesn't bother me because God is just a, Latin or Greek I can't reamember, word that means all mighty it's not a nam so all religions have a "God" but it's the pledging of legens to an inanimant object like the flag that I refuse to do. Even they changed it to somthing like "I pledge aligents to America" I would still not say it for land is still just an object.

[stonedpimp69]

At 12/7/03 10:09 PM, Locke666 wrote: I would just like to throw in a bit of perspective here.

The use of god in the anthem is really trivial just about everybody in the world has a god or a chief god or something. The only people who it could possibly offend are atheists and I being an atheist myself would like to say that we dont give a damn. Go ahead and leave it there is really no reason to change it.

Nope it could also offend communists, who believe themselves ot be atheist, but who actually are highly religious(they simply believe in Stalin/Lenin/Marx/Engels/whoever else is their leader) as opposed to god/jesus/allah/buddha and whatever the fuck else buddhists believe in/any other form of deiti/prophet.