|
Court OKs ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| naeblis |
So sick of hearing separation of church and state... so repetitive and monotonous.
Joss, a lot of people have a lot of different views (some weird) about God. It would be foolish to simply look at the strangest and most counter-productive views and then base that on who God is. Plus it is not strange to think that after all you can do, and if that is still not getting you the result you want, that someone would pray to God. Last ditch effort, near death experiences, simply when we realize that we don't have the strength or know-how to do something, are all times that people reach for something beyond themselves... Simply refusing to do everything within your power, and trusting deity to solve problems you can yourself is unnecessary and shows that whoever would do that doesn't really understand... |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
No harm? Inaction in the belief that a all powerful omnipotent being will take care of your issues? That can't be harmful? What about the children and even adults that die because they do not seek medical attention, believing that some sort of higher power will save them? For the adults, thats their decision, if they are stupid enough to make it and do not become a burden on society because of it then so be it, but children... Children do not have the power to make those decisions. A parent putting their trust in "God" is the same as inaction and a cold contempt for their child's wellbeing. |
You´re arguing from the belief in a personal God though, not a generic God. You´re still basing your vision of God on that of the God of religion. You´re also arguing that "trust" means an expectation that that God will solve your problems, which is incorrect. A "trust" in God could simply imply that you trust the high-being in its control of the big picture, even if It doesn´t help you (or even the state proclaiming it´s trust, I realize, so even my interpretation of asking for its protection would be incorrect, it´s even more vague than that). It´s a simple proclomation that, if there is an omnipotent being, it would have the wisdom to know what´s best for its creation, and carry it out.
When you look at it from that stand-point, you realize that you still HAVE to put in the proper efforts and actions, because there is no voice in your head telling you what to do, there is no promise of redemption. There is only the thought that, after you´ve done your bit, and everyone else has done theirs, whatever happens, it´s for the best. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not so sure this is accurate. |
You´re right, there are tons of different agnostic viewpoints, so it´s actually inaccurate to state that I´m arguing "the" agnostic view. But they all share the same belief in a generic possibility of a God, that may or may not be the God of one of the existing religions. Some believe it to be a personal God, some believe that it did nothing more than start the universe in motion, I land somewhere in the middle. In most cases, the end result is that it´s existence has little to no bearing on one´s personal life, and as such, one should live life to the best of their ability, as if there were no God intervening on their behalf. |
|
|
| Slipmat |
| Why do you need a pledge of allegiance at all? Especially if it's mandatory. A mandatory pledge doesn't mean anything. :conf: |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
You´re arguing from the belief in a personal God though, not a generic God. You´re still basing your vision of God on that of the God of religion. You´re also arguing that "trust" means an expectation that that God will solve your problems, which is incorrect. A "trust" in God could simply imply that you trust the high-being in its control of the big picture, even if It doesn´t help you (or even the state proclaiming it´s trust, I realize, so even my interpretation of asking for its protection would be incorrect, it´s even more vague than that). It´s a simple proclomation that, if there is an omnipotent being, it would have the wisdom to know what´s best for its creation, and carry it out.
When you look at it from that stand-point, you realize that you still HAVE to put in the proper efforts and actions, because there is no voice in your head telling you what to do, there is no promise of redemption. There is only the thought that, after you´ve done your bit, and everyone else has done theirs, whatever happens, it´s for the best. |
Any belief in a god is a religious belief. There is no separation.
Also I see no need for the belief in a higher power, what is the point, especially so if you believe he has no direct control over your actions or future. Trust and believe in yourself and do what is right by others, not out of god. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slipmat
Why do you need a pledge of allegiance at all? Especially if it's mandatory. A mandatory pledge doesn't mean anything. :conf: |
Its not totally mandatory. The only time it becomes legally mandatory for someone to say it is when they are gaining their citizenship.
Children are allowed to stand silently during school and do not have to put their hand over their heart.
Even though schools are legally required to perform it once per day with the entire student body I can not remember doing it the last two years of High School. |
|
|
| bas |
I can't remember doing it through any of my high school.
I remember this one kid in junior high used to end it with "amen"...really? Really? You're the only in here saying "amen", get the out. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
I can't remember doing it through any of my high school.
I remember this one kid in junior high used to end it with "amen"...really? Really? You're the only in here saying "amen", get the out. |
I jumped around head banging on the last day of 6th grade while it was going on... I honestly didn't hear it start and the teacher sent me to the principal. :( |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
By mentioning a generic God, the government IS representing the agnostic view (as agnostics believe in a generic God, and are exactly the viewpoint I´m arguing from). |
Erm.. no, no they don't. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
To remove the God concept from the books COMPLETELY would be to represent ONLY the atheist view, leaving every group with faith without representation. |
Wait, so the pledge before 1954 was atheist because it did not mention God?
An atheist pledge would say, "Under no god." And I would disagree with that just as much as "under God." |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
Off the top; I find it funny that the guy's argument was that the inclusion of the word God disrespected his religious beliefs as an athiest, which by definition necessitates he has no religious beliefs. This is neither here nor there for the sake of the actual discussion; however, I found the sentence funny (although this is probably just simplified reporting as opposed to the guy's actual argument).
I entirely agree that reference to God in any official document, pledge, anthem, currency, etc. of any wholey secular entity should not be permitted. In the case of the US government; they are the government of ALL citizens, not just those that believe in some (albeit nondescript) diety. No person should be forced, coerced, or pressured to adopt any position with regard to religious/spiritual belief nor should they be forced, coerced, pressured, to make a false declaration (such as a pledge they do not agree with). In order to swear the Pledge of Allegiance one must at least tassidly express a believe in "God" as the Pledge recognizes that "God" is supreme to the state. I would not second guess the judges, as they are likely more learned then I on the law and I did not actually hear the arguments, so I will not opine on the case itself; however, I do believe that no diety or reference to the divine should be included in anything that is controlled by the state or an arm thereof. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
By mentioning a generic God, the government IS representing the agnostic view (as agnostics believe in a generic God, and are exactly the viewpoint I´m arguing from). |
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The term 'agnostic' is not a strictly religious term, it's just a term coined by T.H. Huxley that means that the truth value about certain things is either unknown at the time or is unknowable. You can be agnostic about the existence of extraterrestrial life, for example. That only means that you acknowledge that it is the wise position to hold in light that there is no evidence yet to support it, but at the same time there is no evidence to deny it completely either.
To say that "agnostics believe in a generic god" only displays complete ignorance about the term.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Off the top; I find it funny that the guy's argument was that the inclusion of the word God disrespected his religious beliefs as an athiest, which by definition necessitates he has no religious beliefs. This is neither here nor there for the sake of the actual discussion; however, I found the sentence funny (although this is probably just simplified reporting as opposed to the guy's actual argument).
I entirely agree that reference to God in any official document, pledge, anthem, currency, etc. of any wholey secular entity should not be permitted. In the case of the US government; they are the government of ALL citizens, not just those that believe in some (albeit nondescript) diety. No person should be forced, coerced, or pressured to adopt any position with regard to religious/spiritual belief nor should they be forced, coerced, pressured, to make a false declaration (such as a pledge they do not agree with). In order to swear the Pledge of Allegiance one must at least tassidly express a believe in "God" as the Pledge recognizes that "God" is supreme to the state. I would not second guess the judges, as they are likely more learned then I on the law and I did not actually hear the arguments, so I will not opine on the case itself; however, I do believe that no diety or reference to the divine should be included in anything that is controlled by the state or an arm thereof. |
See, you can say smart things when you put your mind into it. :p |
|
|
|
|
