One Nation Under God?

[AVG-JOE]

'One Nation Under God' - NYTimes.com

Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, Congress added the words ''under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. But after millions of repetitions over the years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop of American life, just like the words ''In God We Trust'' on our coins and ''God bless America'' uttered by presidents at the end of important speeches.

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California ruled 2 to 1 that those words in the pledge violate the First Amendment, which says that ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' The majority sided with Michael Newdow, who had complained that his daughter is injured when forced to listen to public school teachers lead students daily in a pledge that includes the assertion that there is a God.
'One Nation Under God' - NYTimes.com

Generic 'God' ROCKS!!!

'Cause EVERY Monkey has a voice or two inside.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/306802-the-voice-of-god.html

`​

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . which has nothing to do with socialism.

Huh?

Thank you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

. . . which has nothing to do with socialism.

Huh?

Thank you.

For what?

 

[AVG-JOE]

So, are we Christians being told how we should define our own God? Isn't that a bit... presumptuous?

No.

We are a nation of many flavors of Christians, several flavors of Muslims, and a plethora of other tastes, based both in the ancient Abrahamic tales and other stories, and we keep a certain peace by not making a definition of God a requirement in most religious discussion.

Americans, thank (insert your preferred Deity here), are a bunch of pussies when it comes to defining their religious discussion, and I for one am glad for it. It would break my heart to see Americans begin to defend their various beliefs at the point of a gun like the Sunnis and the Shiites do overseas.

Fair enough. Though, I would never resort to such barbarity to defend my beliefs, that is unless I was forced to.

It's impossible for a tolerant man to be forced to defend his beliefs violently.

A tolerant man waits until he has the justification of defending his body violently, rendering the question of beliefs moot.

 

[jillian]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

Dispelling the myth of a ‘Christian nation’

Dispelling the myth of a 'Christian nation' | OnFaith

Um no.

Acknowledging God

propaganda from one of your religious right sites is not evidence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No.

We are a nation of many flavors of Christians, several flavors of Muslims, and a plethora of other tastes, based both in the ancient Abrahamic tales and other stories, and we keep a certain peace by not making a definition of God a requirement in most religious discussion.

Americans, thank (insert your preferred Deity here), are a bunch of pussies when it comes to defining their religious discussion, and I for one am glad for it. It would break my heart to see Americans begin to defend their various beliefs at the point of a gun like the Sunnis and the Shiites do overseas.

Fair enough. Though, I would never resort to such barbarity to defend my beliefs, that is unless I was forced to.

It's impossible for a tolerant man to be forced to defend his beliefs violently.

A tolerant man waits until he has the justification of defending his body violently, rendering the question of beliefs moot.

So I should be willing to submit and die for my beliefs? Become a martyr?

 

[AVG-JOE]

That's not at all what I mean.

I mean that waiting until violence, or threat of violence, is actually perpetrated to respond with violence is the difference.

And yes, there are times when not responding back with violence is the most appropriate response.

...turn the other cheek...

Just because I don't believe that he's God doesn't mean I don't think that Jesus doesn't have some good advice in his teachings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You say God doesn't exist, however you manage to be offended by something that doesn't exist. Just how do you manage that?

You are either unwilling or incapable of understanding, as is the case with most theists: god ‘exists’ as a human contrivance, as a component of religious dogma, and is ‘real’ to the extent that the concept of a ‘god’ can indeed motivate people to do good or evil; and it is when people elect to do evil in the name of their god that conflict arises.

And it is that evil and hate practiced by theists that those free from faith condemn.

It’s really not difficult to understand: the issue concerns the evil practiced by theists in the name of their ‘god,’ not the religious dogma they practice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The beauty of America and the good ol' USA is that the requirement to actually define 'God' in religious conversation is for the most part rare, and the more generic we keep 'God', the easier it is to pretend we're all on the same page.

So, are we Christians being told how we should define our own God? Isn't that a bit... presumptuous?

No.

Christians are at liberty to ‘define their god’ as they see fit; including a god of hate and ignorance.

Christians are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify that hate and ignorance in secular law, where such efforts to do so are in fact presumptuous.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify their anti-religious hate and ignorance in secular law, where such efforts to do so are in fact presumptuous.

 

[kjw47]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

You said--intelligent design is BS------ then you must believe in evolution--the big bang---where trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms exploded into utter kaos--yet everyone fell perfectly into place to create a whole universe and living beings.( talk about BS) there is 0 chance of that being reality. --this is--Genesis 1:1--Gods precision use of science and math= creation.

 

[Disir]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

Dispelling the myth of a ‘Christian nation’

Dispelling the myth of a 'Christian nation' | OnFaith

Exactly! I think some people forget that our founders had been British subjects and that history is also very much ours. So, the intrigues and political maneuvers by the Catholic church and the executions of Protestants and Catholics is in fact our history. Bloody Mary and Bloody Bess.

Rock-a-bye-baby was supposedly a threat passed around should James VII have a child that would become heir: another Catholic King. Hence the Establishment clause.

 

[Disir]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

You said--intelligent design is BS------ then you must believe in evolution--the big bang---where trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms exploded into utter kaos--yet everyone fell perfectly into place to create a whole universe and living beings.( talk about BS) there is 0 chance of that being reality. --this is--Genesis 1:1--Gods precision use of science and math= creation.

No. I don't do godidit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

You said--intelligent design is BS------ then you must believe in evolution--the big bang---where trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms exploded into utter kaos--yet everyone fell perfectly into place to create a whole universe and living beings.( talk about BS) there is 0 chance of that being reality. --this is--Genesis 1:1--Gods precision use of science and math= creation.

‘Intelligent design’ is religion, just as subjective, failed, and flawed as any other religion, as religion is in fact a creation of man, reflecting man’s imperfection.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

a) How is that possible?

b) How is it logical?

c) How, ultimately, is that rational?

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God.

5. We see these traits and emotions via the actions of others, but we don't necessarily see these things happening inside of them. That doesn't mean they should be discounted as being unreal or nonexistent.

6. Professor Antony Flew

Professor Antony Flew was a Professor at Oxford and one of the most prominent Atheists of his generation. For 50 years he championed atheism, stating that "one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces," but in 2004, he converted to deism, being compelled to do so by the theory of intelligent design. He later commissioned a book in 2007 majorly written by Roy Abraham Vargese There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind which incited New York Times Religious Historian, Mark Oppenheimer to claim the man was in "mental decline" and that he had Vargese do most of the work. He acknowledged that he did have him do most of the work because in fact he was 84 at the time. But he also unabashedly criticized Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the real premise of the book: the collapse of rationalism. He had this to say about atheists who accused him of betrayal:

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

7) What do you make of Mr. Flew's metamorphosis into a deist from devout atheist? Do you believe he did this in light of his senility or old age? I would think it incredibly bigoted to take down a man for revising his positions on religion, soon as they no longer matched yours.

8) And finally, what do you make of his belief in intelligent design, something courts all across America have forbade schools to teach?

"The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."

Under god was added to the pledge in 1954 as a knee jerk reactionary change because of the red scare.

If the country was just fine with the pledge sans the deity reference for most of it's existence what's the problem with going back to the original verbiage?

"...under god..." should never have been added but its like a pacifier some need to suck on.

As for christians and christianity, its as though they think they're alone on the planet. Believe whatever you want but stop trying to shove it down everyone elses throat.

BTW, the real reason christians keep saying "look at me, believe what I beleive" is that they know its all pretty silly, a lot of to-do over not very much.

But, you are more than welcome to it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

You said--intelligent design is BS------ then you must believe in evolution--the big bang---where trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms exploded into utter kaos--yet everyone fell perfectly into place to create a whole universe and living beings.( talk about BS) there is 0 chance of that being reality. --this is--Genesis 1:1--Gods precision use of science and math= creation.

‘Intelligent design’ is religion, just as subjective, failed, and flawed as any other religion, as religion is in fact a creation of man, reflecting man’s imperfection.

And, again, IMO, the intelligent design believers are welcome to their nonsense. They're welcome to whatever gets them through the night.

Just keep it to yourselves. You have your tax free churches but you cannot force it on our schools and govt buildings.

And, don't pretend anyone said you can't chant and mumbo jumbo in schools. You can. You just don't get to force it on the rest of us.

Why is any of that so hard to do? Christians have everything they want. So, why can't they just STFU about it?

 

[AVG-JOE]

The beauty of America and the good ol' USA is that the requirement to actually define 'God' in religious conversation is for the most part rare, and the more generic we keep 'God', the easier it is to pretend we're all on the same page.

So, are we Christians being told how we should define our own God? Isn't that a bit... presumptuous?

Not what I mean.

Precisely the opposite in fact.

America the Faith Neutral works because you define your 'God' EXACTLY as you need Him to be, and I define my 'God' EXACTLY as I need Her to be, and when the President says "...and God Bless the United States of America.", we can look at each other with a and an understanding about how Generic 'God' can keep the peace in a truly pluralistic society. Then we'll head our separate ways and worship as we each see fit. No guns, no Sharia Law, no bullshit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You said--intelligent design is BS------ then you must believe in evolution--the big bang---where trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms exploded into utter kaos--yet everyone fell perfectly into place to create a whole universe and living beings.( talk about BS) there is 0 chance of that being reality. --this is--Genesis 1:1--Gods precision use of science and math= creation.

‘Intelligent design’ is religion, just as subjective, failed, and flawed as any other religion, as religion is in fact a creation of man, reflecting man’s imperfection.

And, again, IMO, the intelligent design believers are welcome to their nonsense. They're welcome to whatever gets them through the night.

Just keep it to yourselves. You have your tax free churches but you cannot force it on our schools and govt buildings.

And, don't pretend anyone said you can't chant and mumbo jumbo in schools. You can. You just don't get to force it on the rest of us.

Why is any of that so hard to do? Christians have everything they want. So, why can't they just STFU about it?

Because for most on the Christian right religion is primarily about politics, having little to do with faith; where religion is a powerful political weapon.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

Then you're mind is closed to the concept of someone having a different belief system being tolerated as equal.

I can't help you to understand.

WHAT?!

I never said anything about being intolerant to another belief system. Have you not seen me defend Muslims right to worship freely? Such a brazen presumption is frankly offensive. My mind is closed to the fact that one faith or belief be superior than the other. I see Atheism as arrogant and self imposing. That still doesn't stop me from affording the same rights to believe what they want to believe.

You contradict yourself.

First you say that one faith is not superior to another and then you say that your beliefs are indeed superior to atheism.

You do this a lot. Its as though you don't know your own thoughts and beliefs.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

‘Intelligent design’ is religion, just as subjective, failed, and flawed as any other religion, as religion is in fact a creation of man, reflecting man’s imperfection.

And, again, IMO, the intelligent design believers are welcome to their nonsense. They're welcome to whatever gets them through the night.

Just keep it to yourselves. You have your tax free churches but you cannot force it on our schools and govt buildings.

And, don't pretend anyone said you can't chant and mumbo jumbo in schools. You can. You just don't get to force it on the rest of us.

Why is any of that so hard to do? Christians have everything they want. So, why can't they just STFU about it?

Because for most on the Christian right religion is primarily about politics, having little to do with faith; where religion is a powerful political weapon.

I agree. And, they want to change the most fundamental principles of our culture and government. They don't usually understand the First Amendment but they want it ended - but only for the heathens.