Asking politicians to use religion is pretty much begging to be lied to
[QUOTE=Fables;32384995]Maybe they should recognize other religions exist besides Abrahamic ones?
I'm opposed to it because it doesn't just exclude atheists it excludes other religions.[/QUOTE]How so? Christians/Catholics aren't the only ones who believe in a God. In what way does it mean Christ specifically?
[QUOTE=loco;32384632]And if they remove it? The public would have a bigger uproar.[/QUOTE]
I'd be pissed.
"OH WE WANNA PUT A JEWISH CHURCH (Or whatever they are called) IN THE CORNER, BUT NOOOO YOU CAN'T HAVE A CHURCH BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST OUR RELIGION"
You can have your religion just as long as you don't go apeshit when I pratice mine.
[QUOTE=Robot Jesus;32384966]It was founded so people could practice religion freely, but the government can't push (even subtly) a national religion either. In the first amendment, it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and having the words "Under God" in the pledge is promoting the establishment of a monotheistic religion, which is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
I honestly do not consider that promoting. If it was " HEY BE A CHRISTIAN YOU ATHEIST FAG!" then thats where I'd draw the line.
[QUOTE=Fables;32384995]Maybe they should recognize other religions exist besides Abrahamic ones?
I'm opposed to it because it doesn't just exclude atheists it excludes other religions.[/QUOTE]
That is asking a lot of your average Joe American. In this post 9/11 America it would be hard to instill those ideas.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;32385075]How so? Christians/Catholics aren't the only ones who believe in a God. In what way does it mean Christ specifically?[/QUOTE]Christ or not, it still only states a singular god, which still excludes polytheistic religions and atheists.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;32385075]How so? Christians/Catholics aren't the only ones who believe in a God. In what way does it mean Christ specifically?[/QUOTE]
You do realize not all religions believe in God or just one god? Buddhism and Hinduism for example
No, because it's not important. It's two words, not forcing religion upon our youth.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;32384104]Saying the pledge should be optional anyway.
Or just throw it out because it's pointless.[/QUOTE]
it isnt optional? I haven't said the pledge in like.. 6 years
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;32385093]
I honestly do not consider that promoting. If it was " HEY BE A CHRISTIAN YOU ATHEIST FAG!" then thats where I'd draw the line.[/QUOTE]But it is still stating the existence of a monotheistic god, which is promoting those ideals. It doesn't matter if it's stating the existence of Jehovah, or Allah, or Xenu, it's still promoting a monotheistic religion, which is unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=OutOfExile2;32385115]You do realize not all religions believe in God or just one god? Buddhism and Hinduism for example[/QUOTE]
Slightly off-topic, but buddhism is one of the religions which does not have a God (at least in the contemporary meaning of the term, i.e. "all powerful being")
Additional Question for more variety:
If the pledge included "Under Allah", and not "Under God", would your opinion be different? Explain.
[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;32385130]No, because it's not important. It's two words, not forcing religion upon our youth.[/QUOTE]
You have to draw the line somewhere, not to mention it was a totally unnecessary addition to begin with.
[QUOTE=Max of S2D;32385156]Slightly off-topic, but buddhism is one of the religions which does not have a God (at least in the contemporary meaning of the term, i.e. "all powerful being")[/QUOTE]
Yeah I probably should've made that more clear but I wanted that to be the example of no God while Hinduism was the multiple Gods
also if you guys are going to say something is unconstitutional at least try to provide some sort of case law citation to back up your opinions
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;32385075]How so? Christians/Catholics aren't the only ones who believe in a God. In what way does it mean Christ specifically?[/QUOTE]
Abrhamic means specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Not only that, Catholics are Christians, if you're going to branch off Christians you should say:
"Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox"
There are still polytheistic and atheistic religions, and there are other monotheistic religions that don't refer to "God".
[QUOTE=ZenX2;32385162]Additional Question for more variety:
If the pledge included "Under Allah", and not "Under God", would your opinion be different? Explain.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say "Under Allah" ,but hey I'd still maybe stand up if they asked me to at least do that. They aren't asking me to praise Allah just show a bit of respect for their ways.
[QUOTE=ZenX2;32385162]Additional Question for more variety:
If the pledge included "Under Allah", and not "Under God", would your opinion be different? Explain.[/QUOTE]
Fun fact!
"Allah" means god, it's just that the word somehow never gets translated by the media.
They'll translate every word into English. BUT they won't translate "Allah." Allah is just the Arabic word for God. But notice the difference between these two translations:
• "Allah commands death to the infidels!"
• "God demands we kill the non-believers!"
These are exactly the same. They both describe the same order from the same God, but the second one sounds much less foreign. For many, it's a disturbing reminder that the exact same God they worship in church every Sunday is worshipped by Muslims they demonize.
[QUOTE=Robot Jesus;32385114]Christ or not, it still only states a singular god, which still excludes polytheistic religions and atheists.[/QUOTE]I believe that portion is for the individual to make his own definition of the phrase. It may say "under God", but can't polytheists interpret the pledge how they see fit? This situation is similar to how people say "man" or "his" when referring to both sexes.
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32385180]also if you guys are going to say something is unconstitutional at least try to provide some sort of case law citation to back up your opinions[/QUOTE]Besides the fact that the First Amendment states it clearly, Engel v. Vitale is a good example. It's not the exact same debate, but it uses the same argument that it's unconstitutional for a school to promote a religion, even if the other students have the opportunity to opt out.
[QUOTE=Max of S2D;32385221]fun fact!
"allah" means god, it's just that the word somehow never gets translated by the media
(supposedly because it makes it sound more foreign / threatening / not like "OUR" religion or something)[/QUOTE]
If you were to track down the religious history of Allah he was the god of the moon from older polytheistic religion. However do that with any religion you will find many of it was stolen from pagans.
Christian religious holidays for example.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;32385226]I believe that portion is for the individual to make his own definition of the phrase. It may say "under God", but can't polytheists interpret the pledge how they see fit? This situation is similar to how people say "man" or "his" when referring to both sexes.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that isn't the official pledge so they won't be truly saying the pledge.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;32384406]Wait, there's a law that forces you to say it?[/QUOTE]
I know in Illinois you have to say it every day.
Is it promoting the establishment of a religion? Everyone has their own opinion. Given the role our pledge actually plays in our lives, I would honestly say no. After school, you're almost never going to say it unless if you frequent sporting events, which I highly doubt people on facepunch are going to do. :v:
It's on our money, but how much time do you spend looking at anything else besides the numbers?
I understand why people find it unconstitutional though, as it is embedded in our everyday lives. It's all opinion really and is up to interpretation. The only real interpretation that makes a difference though, is the supreme courts, and they say no. Sorry guys.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32385326]I know in Illinois you have to say it every day.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me a source?
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32385326]I know in Illinois you have to say it every day.[/QUOTE]
See, now stuff like that in my opinion has to be changed.
[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;32385130]No, because it's not important. It's two words, not forcing religion upon our youth.[/QUOTE]
it's not this specifically, but it opens the gates for other things that go against the same values the country was founded on because they can use the excuse "it's like the pledge including "under god", it's not that big of a deal"
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
i say the old pledge already anyway, i've got shit for it but i don't care
[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;32385130]No, because it's not important. It's two words, not forcing religion upon our youth.[/QUOTE]
If it's not important enough to remove, then how is it important enough to keep?
[QUOTE=Robot Jesus;32385243]Besides the fact that the First Amendment states it clearly, Engel v. Vitale is a good example. It's not the exact same debate, but it uses the same argument that it's unconstitutional for a school to promote a religion, even if the other students have the opportunity to opt out.[/QUOTE]
what the first amendment states is important, but how the courts interpret what the first amendment states is even more important. in engel v. vitale the supreme court declared that mandated school prayers violated the establishment clause, but in elk grove unified school district v. newdow the supreme court declared that "under god" served a secular purpose as a part of our pledge and thus didn't violate the establishment clause.
the two cases pertain to different issues, but the newdow case contains the ruling relevant to this thread. as much as I disagree with the idea of ceremonial deism being touted by the government, it isn't unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32385326]I know in Illinois you have to say it every day.[/QUOTE]
Now, there's a difference between being forced to say it, and the school just does the pledge everyday. All throughout my public schooling it was always optional to say the pledge. I never did past the 6th grade. Not only did I find it pointless to waste time on a silly tradition, but I also had no idea what it actually meant until later.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32385401]Now, there's a difference between being forced to say it, and the school just does the pledge everyday. All throughout my public schooling it was always optional to say the pledge. I never did past the 6th grade. Not only did I find it pointless to waste time on a silly tradition, but I also had no idea what it actually meant until later.[/QUOTE]
You seriously didn't know what the pledge meant at 6th grade?
[QUOTE=wlzshroom;32385353]it's not this specifically, but it opens the gates for other things that go against the same values the country was founded on because they can use the excuse "it's like the pledge including "under god", it's not that big of a deal"[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy[/url]
Support your reasoning as to how this could happen. Give an example, because honestly, I don't see religion getting anymore deeply embedded in American culture with the given trends and the constitution to block anything that will [b]really[/b] affect Americans.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.