| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2007 11:36:31 AM · #226 |
In God appealed
This is one reason that christian leaning folks might feel an unease towards non-believers.
Although I am curious, that if the Pledge and our US currency did not have references to "God" before, then why were they added later?
In my lifertime, I have not known any other "Pledge" version nor seen any currency without "In God We Trust" inscriptions. Perhaps some of you MUCH OLDER participants could shed some light on congresses reasoning for the additions.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 11:42:00 AM · #227 |
Research it.
"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins"
Here is a good summary on the pledge of allegiance changes.
Message edited by author 2007-12-04 11:44:18. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:23:47 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This is one reason that christian leaning folks might feel an unease towards non-believers. |
Why? Why is it a problem for you that some people in your country wish to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"? |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:31:50 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Why? Why is it a problem for you that some people in your country wish to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"? |
I want to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm a piece of cloth. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:43:45 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
This is one reason that christian leaning folks might feel an unease towards non-believers. |
Why? Why is it a problem for you that some people in your country wish to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"? |
1. Are you trying to bait me into an argument?
2. The word might was intentionally used in the sentence.
3. It is not a problem for me.
4. I do not see what is "coercive". A) adults are not required to say the pledge. B) Neither my credit card nor my checking account have "In God" imprinted on them. I am fully capable of pruchasing goods/services without handling that "evil" paper money with the insideous "god" words on it.
5. The post was made in an attempt to show how extreme positions hurt a particular cause. As you so eagerly point out when referencing the atrocities associated with religious zealots - in history.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:49:17 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
This is one reason that christian leaning folks might feel an unease towards non-believers. |
Why? Why is it a problem for you that some people in your country wish to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"? |
1. Are you trying to bait me into an argument?
2. The word might was intentionally used in the sentence.
3. It is not a problem for me.
4. I do not see what is "coercive". A) adults are not required to say the pledge. B) Neither my credit card nor my checking account have "In God" imprinted on them. I am fully capable of pruchasing goods/services without handling that "evil" paper money with the insideous "god" words on it.
5. The post was made in an attempt to show how extreme positions hurt a particular cause. As you so eagerly point out when referencing the atrocities associated with religious zealots - in history. |
If someone decides not to spend cash and simply use their checks and debit/credit card for all spending, all of their transactions are recorded and easily traceable. That's how the Evil Empire keeps close track of the non-believers. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:57:47 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If someone decides not to spend cash and simply use their checks and debit/credit card for all spending, all of their transactions are recorded and easily traceable. That's how the Evil Empire keeps close track of the non-believers. |
I thought the "evil empire" was the non-believers...
;-}
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 01:09:09 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
This is one reason that christian leaning folks might feel an unease towards non-believers. |
Why? Why is it a problem for you that some people in your country wish to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"? |
1. Are you trying to bait me into an argument?...[etc] |
No, I'm not trying to bait you. You yourself offered this article as an example of why god-believers feel "unease" toward those who are not. Then, I asked why, since you didn't offer any explanation beyond providing a link to the article. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's wildly unreasonable to ask why you're putting forward a particular point of view when you provide no meaningful context for an opinion you offer. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 01:32:47 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If someone decides not to spend cash and simply use their checks and debit/credit card for all spending, all of their transactions are recorded and easily traceable. That's how the Evil Empire keeps close track of the non-believers. |
I thought the "evil empire" was the non-believers...
;-} |
I suppose it depends on who is tracking who. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 01:44:13 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
This is one reason that christian leaning folks might feel an unease towards non-believers. |
Why? Why is it a problem for you that some people in your country wish to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"? |
1. Are you trying to bait me into an argument?...[etc] |
No, I'm not trying to bait you. You yourself offered this article as an example of why god-believers feel "unease" toward those who are not. Then, I asked why, since you didn't offer any explanation beyond providing a link to the article. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's wildly unreasonable to ask why you're putting forward a particular point of view when you provide no meaningful context for an opinion you offer. |
Louis, If you had ended your post after the first Why?, you would have said enough to elicit an explanation of "why" it might make christian leaning folks uneasy. But you didn't stop there. Instead, you challenged Flash to defend a position ( the second Why? ) that he never stated he held. That's baiting, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 01:59:09 PM · #236 |
Ron, it's baiting to you because you're a like-minded individual. If the high court of the land has determined that certain words in the pledge represent a coercive requirement by the state to affirm the existence of God, and if that has made a believer uneasy, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why. To refine it: why should it matter to any believer that there are those who do not wish to affirm belief in God? Why does the believer's uneasiness trump the uneasiness of the non-believer who doesn't want the state to control how a citizen interprets alliegance to his/her country?
Furthermore, it seems to me that if every utterance here is to be interpretated as baiting, perhaps it's best simply not to post? With each post, you are opening up your views to challenge, which is as it should be. It would be rather pointless to have a forum, let alone a Rant section, if this were not the case. You are in a thread started by a non-believer asking how best to live in a believer's society, after all.
If after all this you truly think it's baiting, I strongly encourage you to report my post to SC. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:16:16 PM · #237 |
In answer to those who were asking how "God" crept into the pledge and the currency/coinage, it's because a lot of folks were worried that American society was becoming, to its own absolute detriment, entirely too secular, that it was going morally adrift. This is not what the founding fathers had in minds when they separated church from state; they wanted to have a society in which the state could not dictate a particular religion that must be followed, having in mind the great inequities visited upon apostates in Europe and the United Kingdom. It was not their intention to encourage a nation that would turn its back on God.
From the Declaration of Independence:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of natureand of nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness...
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-12-04 14:17:41.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:35:35 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Ron, it's baiting to you because you're a like-minded individual. |
What do you mean by saying that I'm a "like minded individual". Like minded on what issue? And on what basis have you determined that I am "like minded" on that issue? I think that you presume too much.
Originally posted by Louis:
If the high court of the land has determined that certain words in the pledge represent a coercive requirement by the state to affirm the existence of God, and if that has made a believer uneasy, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why. |
a) There is no state in the U.S. that requires or coerces any individual to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Such a requirement was declared unconstitutional years ago ( 1943, I believe ). Therefore, there is no coercive requirement by any state to affirm the existence of God by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
b) "Coercive requirement" is not the basis of the lawsuit. The lawsuit is based on "promotion" of the Pledge, containing the words "under God", not a "requirement" to recite it.
c) It is perfectly reasonable to ask why it would make a believer uneasy, but that is not what you asked in your second question to Flash.
d) You COULD have reasonably asked Flash IF he held the view you charged him with holding, and if so, to defend that view. But to ask him to defend it without proof that he held it, is baiting.
Originally posted by Loius:
To refine it: why should it matter to any believer that there are those who do not wish to affirm belief in God? |
It shouldn't.
Originally posted by Louis:
Why does the believer's uneasiness trump the uneasiness of the non-believer who doesn't want the state to control how a citizen interprets alliegance to his/her country? |
I didn't know that it did.
Originally posted by Louis:
Furthermore, it seems to me that if every utterance here is to be interpretated as baiting, perhaps it's best simply not to post? |
That is one alternative.
Originally posted by Louis:
With each post, you are opening up your views to challenge, which is as it should be. |
But you didn't ask Flash to defend his views. You asked him to defend a a position that he never actually stated he held.
Originally posted by Louis:
It would be rather pointless to have a forum, let alone a Rant section, if this were not the case. You are in a thread started by a non-believer asking how best to live in a believer's society, after all. |
Yes, I am. So are you. And the thread could avoid going off-topic as much if posters could respond to what's actually stated rather than inventing statements or positions, attributing them to others, and then challenging them to defend those statements / positions. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:41:13 PM · #239 |
| Come now. It is not completely unreasonable to deduce that Flash was one of those made uneasy, despite the fact that he did not explicitly say so, given his posting history. Nor is it unreasonable to deduce that you would rush to the aid of an individual who is as fundamentalist in his thinking as you. (You may wish to challenge that interpretation of all you've said over the years, but what would be the point?) |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:53:12 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In answer to those who were asking how "God" crept into the pledge and the currency/coinage, it's because a lot of folks were worried that American society was becoming, to its own absolute detriment, entirely too secular, that it was going morally adrift. |
You're forgetting the Red Scare. That was a huge part of the decision, a fear of Godless Communism.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is not what the founding fathers had in minds when they separated church from state; they wanted to have a society in which the state could not dictate a particular religion that must be followed, having in mind the great inequities visited upon apostates in Europe and the United Kingdom. It was not their intention to encourage a nation that would turn its back on God. |
Your quotes are evidence that the founding fathers were doing all they reasonably could to distance themselves from a Christian view of God. "nature" ... "nature's God" ... "Creator" ... "Divine Providence" In none of your quotes do they simply say "God." You're right about them wanting to preclude any inequities visited upon apostates, and it is utterly in this spirit that atheists should now be protected. Whether or not the nation turns its back on God is none of the government's business. That was the USA's great innovation, and it's so sad that we are backsliding.
The Pledge of Allegiance is proto-fascist, and anti-American at its core, whether there's God in it or not.
And don't tell me nobody is being coerced into saying it. I am coerced into saying it almost every month, just so I can participate in my local historical society.
Message edited by author 2007-12-04 14:53:53. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:59:49 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am coerced into saying it almost every month, just so I can participate in my local historical society. |
Forgive my ignorance (and my derailing of the thread now that it has returned slightly closer to its original intent) but on what sort of occassions is the'Pledge' recited, and what sort of a reception would someone get if they didn't take part? |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:59:53 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Come now. It is not completely unreasonable to deduce that Flash was one of those made uneasy, despite the fact that he did not explicitly say so, given his posting history. Nor is it unreasonable to deduce that you would rush to the aid of an individual who is as fundamentalist in his thinking as you. (You may wish to challenge that interpretation of all you've said over the years, but what would be the point?) |
It MAY have been reasonable to deduce that Flash was one of those made uneasy. It was NOT reasonable to deduce what his reasons for being made uneasy were. That wasn't deduction - that was presumption.
It may not be unreasonable to deduce that I would "rush" to the aid of an individual who is as funadmentalist in his thinking as I. It IS unreasonable to deduce that I defended Flash because I am as fundamentalist in my thinking as he is, or that he is as fundamentalist in his thinking as I am. That is not deduction - that, too, is presumption.
The point is that you presume far too much, and then compound your error by stating those presumptions as though they were facts. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 03:08:15 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
And don't tell me nobody is being coerced into saying it. I am coerced into saying it almost every month, just so I can participate in my local historical society. |
I'm not saying any of those things. I was just offering a rational explanation for how the phrases "under God" and "In God We Trust" crept into the pledge and the currency.
I don't think they belong there, myself. And I agree the Pledge of Allegiance is something of an abomination.
Which reminds me of something I remember from Art Linkletter's "Kids Say the Darndest Things" show, way back when, before "Under God" was shoehorned into the pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the republic for which it stands, one naked indvidual with Liberty and Justice for all.
Which segues naturally into the anecdote about the grammar-school teacher who was having her kids do drawings of the manger scene at Christmas time (boy, I can remember doing ALL SORTS of Christian-themed stuff in school during the holidays, it was apparently OK then). Anyway, the teacher was complimenting the kids on their drawings, ticking off Joseph, the Virgin Mary, the Baby Jesus, the wise men, the animals, complimenting everyone, and she came to Johnny.
She looked at his drawing and said "Oh, Johnny, this is great! Mary is beautiful, Jesus is adorable, Joseph is every inch the patriarch, the wise men look all-knowing and serene, the animals are true-to-life, but..."
"But what, Miss Tompkins?" said Johnny.
"Well," she replied, "I'm just wondering who is that plump little boy standing at the foot of the crib?"
"Oh Miss Tompkins, don't you KNOW?" he cried. "That's Round John Virgin!"
:-)
R.
Message edited by author 2007-12-04 15:09:16.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 03:10:47 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The Pledge of Allegiance is proto-fascist, and anti-American at its core, whether there's God in it or not. |
It's not proto-facist, it's very nationalistic. Frankly this country could use a bit more nationalism. I figure when the Vietnam generation of self-hating, appeasement prone, war-losing, closet socialists finally age themselves out of actively participating in politics that this country might swing back towards the nationalist side of things. Will be a nice change. People will be able to feel good about being an American rather than the current vogue of taking a shit on it at every turn.
There you go. Testicles fully exposed. Don your steel toed boots and have at them. If you could write "George Bush ruined the country" before you start kicking, it will really enhance the experience.
bless America! |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 03:11:38 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It MAY have been reasonable to deduce that Flash was one of those made uneasy. It was NOT reasonable to deduce what his reasons for being made uneasy were. That wasn't deduction - that was presumption.
It may not be unreasonable to deduce that I would "rush" to the aid of an individual who is as funadmentalist in his thinking as I. It IS unreasonable to deduce that I defended Flash because I am as fundamentalist in my thinking as he is, or that he is as fundamentalist in his thinking as I am. That is not deduction - that, too, is presumption.
The point is that you presume far too much, and then compound your error by stating those presumptions as though they were facts. |
I quite agree with this. I have come to the "defense" of several in this thread who do not share my specific point of view. I don't recall anyone deducing from this that I agree with the points they are making.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 03:17:24 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Frankly this country could use a bit more nationalism. |
I think pretty much all countries in the world, and arguably especially ours, could do with a little less nationalism and a lot more global thinking.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 03:22:47 PM · #247 |
| Sorry Ron, but what some see as presumption is nothing more than using past ranting style (a phrase used in the best possible way) to predict what's coming next. It's not completely outrageous, unfair, or whatever else you may wish to imagine, to make assumptions, even presumptions if you like that better, about the motives of an individual when taking into consideration all they've said on certain subject. Your words damn you, if you like. Taking Bear_Music as an example, while he may come to the aid of a poster taking an indefensible position, his past conversations rarely indicate what his motives may be. Yours do. I feel perfectly comfortable if you wish to call that presumption, assholery, or whatever else. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 03:40:36 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Sorry Ron, but what some see as presumption is nothing more than using past ranting style (a phrase used in the best possible way) to predict what's coming next. It's not completely outrageous, unfair, or whatever else you may wish to imagine, to make assumptions, even presumptions if you like that better, about the motives of an individual when taking into consideration all they've said on certain subject. Your words damn you, if you like. Taking Bear_Music as an example, while he may come to the aid of a poster taking an indefensible position, his past conversations rarely indicate what his motives may be. Yours do. I feel perfectly comfortable if you wish to call that presumption, assholery, or whatever else. |
Louis, I believe you need to rethink this.
What you are saying is "Joe's a pastafarian. Mike's a pastafarian. When Mike defends something Joe says it's because he shares a pastafarian bias with Joe."
By doing this, you are essentially trivializing Mike's intellect, implying that it's safe to disregard his defense BECAUSE he's a known pastafarian.
That may be a fair assumption IF what Mike is defending is the CONTENT of Joe's statement; "Yeah, I believe he's right, 'cuz I'm a pastafarian too!" But to be fair to Mike, you really need to cut him some slack; perhaps what he's actually defending is the SYNTAX, as it were, not the context.
It's perfectly feasible to defend someone with whom you do not agree if others are unfairly (in your opinion) attacking the logic of what he is saying. By the same token, it's perfectly feasible to defend someone with wom you DO agree not on dialectical grounds but on logical grounds.
I see too often in these threads that people are completely disregarding ANYTHING someone like Ron says or does BECAUSE he's a Christian Fundmentalist, and that's a dangerous, even bigoted, way of thinking.
I'm not saying YOU'RE doing that, btw; I haven't looked closely at what's gone on here lately. I am just discussing the "structure" of the argument and warning against some pitfalls in it.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 04:25:16 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
There you go. Testicles fully exposed. |
Damn! Put your junk back in your pants, man! |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 04:29:04 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Louis, I believe you need to rethink this.
What you are saying is "Joe's a pastafarian. Mike's a pastafarian. When Mike defends something Joe says it's because he shares a pastafarian bias with Joe." |
My take is this: Ron selectively tears down the arguments of those he most disagrees this. I have yet to see him concede a single point to anyone who doesn't share his world view, irrespective of the avalanche of evidence he's presented with. (I would be happy to be proven wrong in this, by the way.) That's all fine and well. It would seem only natural, however, for me to conclude that the opposite is true, that he would rush to the aid of a like-minded individual. Whereas that's not necessarily a defensible position with respect to formal argument, it's not an outrageous one, nor is it beyond all fairness for me to adopt it based on Ron's past arguing style. As I said, I am happy with however anyone would like to characterize it. I'll call it an opinion, but I'm just as happy with calling it presumption, attitude, high-handedness, etc. |
|
