NBC omits "under God"

[Uncensored2008]

So I should be forced into religion?

That isn't the question nor what you desire - you want to silence others who hold beliefs you object to. No one is forcing you to do anything - it is YOU who seeks to force others to be silent - their faith offends you so you will deny them the right to express faith.

What has the first amendment got to do with forcing me to say "under God"

No one has forced you to say anything.

If some refuse to say that part of the pledge does that make you 'more' American and 'more' patriotic than those who don't?

I couldn't care less about what you do or don't say. It is your desire to silence others that i object to. You of the anti-liberty left are busy silencing ideas that you don't like.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Fox outed themselves for the bias they live by ( the soup they swim in).

ok what post are you referencing? In light of the discussion in the posts leading up to yours your post just doesn't fit.

 

[freedombecki]

Oh, my goodness gracious.

I was going to look up NBC News Anchors, research their universities, when I pulled up this image that said the NBC News is located in the GE Building.

hahahahahahahahawellkissmygritsandhahahahahahahahaha

The link/photo is here

 

[Caroljo]

Did they say "one nation without God"? I don't understand the outrage held by those who want to have people include the phrase "under God" (yes, as it is written). I think that the reason why they did not say "under God" was in consideration to atheists and agnostics. "God believers" should lighten up. Be happy that they did not say "One nation without God".

Where's the consideration for Christians then? We don't get any???
What's the matter with atheists & agnostics lightening up? All they do now is complain about everything that has to do with God, why don't they just ignore it? Why do the Christians have to always be the ones to give in to them? It's our right to praise God, it's their right not to. But why take away from one group of people?

That's just like so many courthouse's have always displayed the 10 commandments, now very few do because a few atheists complained about! They don't have to read them when they're in the courthouse...just ignore it! It's not going to change their lives one bit or put them in some kind of stress just because there's words on a wall they don't agree with.

 

[manifold]

No one is forcing you to do anything - it is YOU who seeks to force others to be silent.

So why do you want to force NBC to air that line from the pledge?

 

[manifold]

What's the matter with atheists & agnostics lightening up? All they do now is complain about everything that has to do with God, why don't they just ignore it?

Strawman fail.

If NBC had aired the line nobody would've said boo.

 

[Two Thumbs]

And its not illegal to NOT say it if you dont want to .

There was a ruling that made it clear that you didn't have to say it or even stand when it was being said. I think it was the mormons or later day saints that considered it idolatry. [even before "Under god" was added]

And this is why I dont see the issue with leaving it in, if i dont want to say it i dont have to.

I wonder if enough people would have made a stink if they had left it in?

How many people watch golfing anyway?

 

[martybegan]

What's the matter with atheists & agnostics lightening up? All they do now is complain about everything that has to do with God, why don't they just ignore it?

Strawman fail.

If NBC had aired the line nobody would've said boo.

I'm sure they would have gotten a few phone calls about being offended by the use of the word "God". This is the US of A, someone, somewhere is ALWAYS offended by something.

 

[manifold]

I wonder if enough people would have made a stink if they had left it in?

Nobody would've said a thing.

 

[manifold]

What's the matter with atheists & agnostics lightening up? All they do now is complain about everything that has to do with God, why don't they just ignore it?

Strawman fail.

If NBC had aired the line nobody would've said boo.

I'm sure they would have gotten a few phone calls about being offended by the use of the word "God". This is the US of A, someone, somewhere is ALWAYS offended by something.

I suppose you're right. But it's been aired with 'under God' many times in the past and I've never once heard about any mass complaints. It gets omitted just once and thumpers lose their shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's wrong with leaving it out? Religion should be kept in churches, mosques, temples and synagogues. Out of schools, baseball games, or any other past time for that matter...

Homosexuality should be kept in the closet, bathhouses, and private clubs. Out of schools, baseball games, or any other past time for that matter...

Funny how a couple of word changes reveal so very much.

Your desire to silence those whom you hate does not negate the constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of others, no matter HOW much better you are convinced you are than those whom you detest.

I'm agnostic, but will fight to the death to defend the right of others to practice religion as they see fit - in public, on holy-government ground or wherever.

 

[mattskramer]

As I see it, people (A) are “forcing” people to have “under God” remain (say “under God”) practically to the same degree that people (B) are “forcing” people to have “under God” removed (prohibit people from saying “under Go”). It all seems to be about the same.

I think that those in the group B category are on higher ethical ground. They are not calling for the replacement of that phrase with one that claims that God does not exist. Simply out of consideration for those who are not monotheists, they would like to have the phrase removed.

 

[martybegan]

Strawman fail.

If NBC had aired the line nobody would've said boo.

I'm sure they would have gotten a few phone calls about being offended by the use of the word "God". This is the US of A, someone, somewhere is ALWAYS offended by something.

I suppose you're right. But it's been aired with 'under God' many times in the past and I've never once heard about any mass complaints. It gets omitted just once and thumpers lose their shit.

Because omission in itself is an action with far more intent and meaning than inclusion of something that is supposed to be there. Including it would basically be a non-event, as for the past 60 years it has been part of the pledge. Only your dedicated nutters would make a stink over it, and these are what we would consider "career complainers"

Omission, however, implies a willful change to something that is expected. You see it when people skip a line in a song, the expected did not happen, and people therefore notice it. Add the fact that it IS the most contriversial part of the pledge and BANG, instant shitstorm.

 

[JohnA]

Below was the incident I had in mind, got it wrong specifically but not generally. Is it a big deal, the NBC thing or this? In the overall scope of things we have to deal with today, probably not. I don't care if Obama is religious or not, although I will say I don't like the hypocrisy of it, saying one thing and being another. But don't be editing the Pledge, or misquoting the Declaration on purpose to make a political point. And don't be telling me is was a mistake, these people know damn well what the words are and they should get it right or not say it at all.


Back in Sept 2010:

File this under the pseudo-Christian column. President Obama concluded his speech at this week’s Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gala with,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The U.S. Declaration of Independence reads,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

YES IT DOES but the word creator does not necessarily mean the Christian god
remember the fondling fathers were mostly deist . the word can mean different things to different people the problem arizes when the Christians claim every time the word god is used it applies to there Deity .

i in my work recite the pledge a lot never say god either leave the words out ( takes some practice) or say *under dog* eishenhower bastardized it needs to be reversed a sto the words as were written

The majority of our founding father's were Christian's. They were not deist's. Even the few who were deist's proclaimed of an active God.

The Founding Fathers Were Not Deists

The creator falls under Christians, Jews and Muslims, as many other type of religions do.
You have the right in this nation to drop the word under God or substitute it. But the majority of this nation is religious and those of you who don't believe, do not have the right to take those words out.

This is political correctness run amok again.

we have EVERY right to fight to have the pledge read AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN
cus you are the *majority *dont make your opinion right as it does.nt with any other subject
the MAJORITY of citizens support the right to abortion
doesnt mean the religious right *minority* cant fight to have the law changed

the creator could also mean the flying spaghetti monster

 

[mattskramer]

Did they say "one nation without God"? I don't understand the outrage held by those who want to have people include the phrase "under God" (yes, as it is written). I think that the reason why they did not say "under God" was in consideration to atheists and agnostics. "God believers" should lighten up. Be happy that they did not say "One nation without God".

Where's the consideration for Christians then? We don't get any???
What's the matter with atheists & agnostics lightening up? All they do now is complain about everything that has to do with God, why don't they just ignore it? Why do the Christians have to always be the ones to give in to them? It's our right to praise God, it's their right not to. But why take away from one group of people?

That's just like so many courthouse's have always displayed the 10 commandments, now very few do because a few atheists complained about! They don't have to read them when they're in the courthouse...just ignore it! It's not going to change their lives one bit or put them in some kind of stress just because there's words on a wall they don't agree with.

What about the Buddists, Muslims, people of less popular religions?

 

[manifold]

I'm sure they would have gotten a few phone calls about being offended by the use of the word "God". This is the US of A, someone, somewhere is ALWAYS offended by something.

I suppose you're right. But it's been aired with 'under God' many times in the past and I've never once heard about any mass complaints. It gets omitted just once and thumpers lose their shit.

Because omission in itself is an action with far more intent and meaning than inclusion of something that is supposed to be there. Including it would basically be a non-event, as for the past 60 years it has been part of the pledge. Only your dedicated nutters would make a stink over it, and these are what we would consider "career complainers"

Omission, however, implies a willful change to something that is expected. You see it when people skip a line in a song, the expected did not happen, and people therefore notice it. Add the fact that it IS the most contriversial part of the pledge and BANG, instant shitstorm.

Agreed. But again, my original reply was to point out the absurdity of Caroljo's implication that atheists and agnostics are bigger complainers than bible thumpers.

 

[Truthmatters]

Our founders did believe in people voting.

The constitution seems more concerned with voting than with making sure christians get to have top billing in this country.

Why are you more comcerned about your religion being in control than the people being in control?

 

[martybegan]

I suppose you're right. But it's been aired with 'under God' many times in the past and I've never once heard about any mass complaints. It gets omitted just once and thumpers lose their shit.

Because omission in itself is an action with far more intent and meaning than inclusion of something that is supposed to be there. Including it would basically be a non-event, as for the past 60 years it has been part of the pledge. Only your dedicated nutters would make a stink over it, and these are what we would consider "career complainers"

Omission, however, implies a willful change to something that is expected. You see it when people skip a line in a song, the expected did not happen, and people therefore notice it. Add the fact that it IS the most contriversial part of the pledge and BANG, instant shitstorm.

Agreed. But again, my original reply was to point out the absurdity of Caroljo's implication that atheists and agnostics are bigger complainers than bible thumpers.

Legally they have recently been the biggest complainers. First let me qualify my response as follows:

There are two types of atheists/agnostics. The normal everyday ones, who like normal people of faith, go about thier lives without issue. Then we have what I like to call "asshole atheists," the non believer counterpart to "bible thumpers" who feel a need to eliminate any trace of religion from the common arena, be it someone saying a prayer before a ball game, a menorah/manger in a public square, or the ten commandments in front of a court house.

The second group, on both sides are very annoying, but it seems to be the atheist side who goes the legal route with far more frequency, over what most of the other people on BOTH side see as trivial chickenshit.

I fail to see how a cross on a hill a person sees on thier drive to work consitutes such a egrareous affront to someone that they feel the need to remove it via the courts.

 

[Truthmatters]

Well its about protecting the constitution, one has to use the courts to protect our rights sometimes.

Much like the court indicting republicans who try and suppose black voters.

 

[manifold]

Because omission in itself is an action with far more intent and meaning than inclusion of something that is supposed to be there. Including it would basically be a non-event, as for the past 60 years it has been part of the pledge. Only your dedicated nutters would make a stink over it, and these are what we would consider "career complainers"

Omission, however, implies a willful change to something that is expected. You see it when people skip a line in a song, the expected did not happen, and people therefore notice it. Add the fact that it IS the most contriversial part of the pledge and BANG, instant shitstorm.

Agreed. But again, my original reply was to point out the absurdity of Caroljo's implication that atheists and agnostics are bigger complainers than bible thumpers.

Legally they have recently been the biggest complainers. First let me qualify my response as follows:

There are two types of atheists/agnostics. The normal everyday ones, who like normal people of faith, go about thier lives without issue. Then we have what I like to call "asshole atheists," the non believer counterpart to "bible thumpers" who feel a need to eliminate any trace of religion from the common arena, be it someone saying a prayer before a ball game, a menorah/manger in a public square, or the ten commandments in front of a court house.

The second group, on both sides are very annoying, but it seems to be the atheist side who goes the legal route with far more frequency, over what most of the other people on BOTH side see as trivial chickenshit.

I fail to see how a cross on a hill a person sees on thier drive to work consitutes such a egrareous affront to someone that they feel the need to remove it via the courts.

OK, point taken.

However, this NBC blow-up wasn't just the 'fringe' thumpers (or counterparts to asshole atheists) doing the complaining. If it were, they would've been ignored, not pandered to in an attempt to salvage viewership.