Pledge of Allegiance IS Unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!

[spongebob]

NB, i think reading, writing, and arithmitic should be taught and sex-ed at the appropriate age, really just covering the general stuff. period. i want my kid to learn how to learn, thats it. they seem to be having a hard time accomplishing that because of all the other bullshit going on.

 

[musclebrains]

here's a question, should religion be taught at school? there are many of those who think some topics should not be taught at school, like sex ed and/or religion. curlings post was basically whining about how God is no longer taught in the classroom and that's why schools suck. But by his own words the government sucks and the schools are run by the government so why would you want the schools to teach your kids about God if they're gonna fuck it up?

Exactly. The same people who want to keep religion in school are usually the same ones who think sex education should not be taught. It's not the state's job to teach objectively about sex, but it is the state's job to promote religious belief.

 

[spongebob]

I don't understand how removing god is creating a bad society. Society was/is fucking run by 'god' all over the world, and nothing good happened. Midevil europe, ancient asia, modern middle east, etc. these are real bastions of human rights and scientific progress.

for me its has nonthing to do with religion, it has everything to do with crybabies. we need to be more tolerant of others in all regards. and to have those two words in the pledge is not that big of a deal. deal with it. my kid gets subjected to things at school that i dont agree with but for the sake of others and just wanting to live my life as uncomplicated as possible, i've decided not to sue the school district and make a big stink about it.

 

[plornive]

plornive,
Well it seems that you do have faith in evolution. Let me explain...
Simple fact is, 'you weren't there'. When you formulate an opinion about the past you are exhibiting faith in your 'calculations' 'theorys' etc... plain and simple.
Science isn't as exact as they exhibit it to be. There are numerous factors that play into formulating a theory. Firstly, it has to be testable. Secondly it has to be measurable.etc. You don't know how many controls they have to throw out just because it doesn't support their postulation (pre-theories).
There have been numerous debates about the age of the sun, for example.
After all what is belief? When you consider temporal issues like time, since we can't see the future, we have to exhibit faith that things would be consistant. Can I beleive that I will wake up tommorrow morning? Shure, why not. I have been waking up in the past 27 years, it's measured, why not tomorrow? Will I know if I will have massive failure in my vital organs and die? Probably not. I have to have faith in the fact that I WILL wake up.

Faith involves emotion, if I am not mistaken. I don't have my heart in evolution --- only my intellectual interest and curiosity. I'm sure faith is a bit different for everyone who has it. If I want to bone a specific woman, I may have "faith" that I will bone her --- my emotions are involved. I think this is different from a measured assessment. In deciding whether evolution is an accurate model or not, I try to make a measured assessment.

Furthermore, science has a process. This process has been shown to assist in making accurate assessments of nature. Code went through this process so I won't repeat it. We can repetetively verify Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity using atomic clocks. We can repetetively drop a ball and calculate the same accelleration each time. Although we don't know 100.0000000% that we will continue to record the same results, it is highly practical to assume so. Similarly, it is practical to assume that we can test a fossil's age by repeating an understood process on fossils of known ages first, and repeating on a fossil of an unknown age.

Religion generally is not based on these principles (in all cases I can think of). There is no proven process that logically leads to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other religion. Therefore, I think my *beliefs* are much more trustable than someone else's religious *faith*.

That is how I distinguish faith from belief or statistical confidence. It is an issue of semantics, really.

 

[plornive]

for me its has nonthing to do with religion, it has everything to do with crybabies. we need to be more tolerant of others in all regards. and to have those two words in the pledge is not that big of a deal. deal with it. my kid gets subjected to things at school that i dont agree with but for the sake of others and just wanting to live my life as uncomplicated as possible, i've decided not to sue the school district and make a big stink about it.

So is it ok if we change the pledge to "one nation under no god"? You won't complain?

Am I a crybaby for dissagreeing?

 

[plornive]

well, let me be the first to say that I totally respect that...
I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. I have thought a lot about such things for quite some time now and have researched it extensively. I am just trying to share what I know, maybe it will enlighten the person. I by no means want to 'convert' you but by all means discuss. Science cannot answer all of the questions. If you are determined enough to live your life with those beliefs then you should be WITHOUT REASONABLE DOUBT that it is true. Because if it is not, there isn't much hope.
I am saying that there is room to doubt, a big room.
Thanks for sharing

Could you rephrase the third to last sentence? I don't get it. It almost sounds like you are speaking of Pascal's Wager.

 

[plornive]

Re: in addressing the God influence in our government...

We have to understand that we all live under a moral law. Atheist, post-modern thinkers, relativists must answer this question… can we run an effective government on subjective criteria? Probably not…because someone’s morals may be different from another person’s. If you purport relativist laws who will abide by them? I don’t have to. What if killing your child is a moral imparative for me? Would you hate me or respect my views?

Society runs on moral standards, I don’t care who you are or what you believe you abide by them. Man didn’t create them…psychopaths have admitted guilt and wrong doing on several occasions…even THEY are atune to these STANDARDS.

What our ancestors realized is that no man is fit to set a standard law. Man is fallable. They must look towards a governing authority for influence and pattern their articles to that standard. That standard happens to be the CHRISTIAN GOD and His revelations through a collective of manuscripts called the septuagint, and later the BIBLE.

America was patterned after Roman republica. Where the Romans failed is in their lack of a MORAL STANDARD which led to the demise of the empire. Germanian tribal raids only aided in the downfall. Theocracy doesn’t work, history has proven that.
That is also where socialism failed.

So in essence, our governmental system is based on Moral absolutes (don’t kill, steal, etc…) which so happens to be influenced by the christian God. And rightly so.

IF THERE IS A MORAL LAW. THERE IS A MORAL LAW GIVER.

Where has our society turned for the worst? Take a guess…

Governments have to be run with absolutes, that’s how you govern. You have to be JUST, that is the reason for incarceration and execution for wrong doing. If we dessolve these absolutes we wouldn’t have any basis for a functioning government.

IMO, quibbling over mandates such as wether or not to say “under God” is not the issue.

Dying for our country, as honorable as that is, isn’t the issue either. Believe me, I am very greatful for the personal sacrifice that each of you committed to give someone like me freedom in this country.

The issue at hand is important enough for the government to address. I don’t think this country’s problems (even the world) can be fixed through government mandates. It has to start with the individual. It all leads to those MORAL ABSOLUTES. The government can only pass laws that will potentially offend people, it will always do that. In order to fix our present situation is to examine those MORAL ABSOLUTES and their application in our lives. It is how we raise our kids. It’s how we treat our wives and husbands. And to perpetuate those absolutes…

Atheism cannot run America, relativist theories will not run this country.

Please, I realize that this is a bit long-winded but if you got this far I welcome any questions or opinions that we can discuss. Atheism, any eastern religion, agnosticism, I would love to discuss apologetics and philosphy with you. If there are any legitimate questions, you can PM me. If you want to flame, just post a reply

If you read some scholarly journals on China, you will find some interesting ideas that relate to the above. Some people say that the cause of corruption in Russia and China is due to a lack of universal moral code.

Fortunately and unfortunately for China, religion truly has been replaced by the love of money. I hope it is possible for society to live in harmony without religion. I see flaws in a multicultural society with and without religion.

The one thing I want to say is that it is possible to abide by a set of standards without believing in a religion --- religion is not the only modus operandi of conformity. People want to belong, be respected, help society, love and be loved independent of religion because we are social beings. Moral codes can rationally be derived from these.

 

[spongebob]

So is it ok if we change the pledge to "one nation under no god"? You won't complain?

Am I a crybaby for dissagreeing?

you can change it to "one nation under plornive" for all i give a shit. i usually just turn and walk away from stupid shit. i might try to aggitate a little though.

read my whole post, my point is not that you are a crybaby for disaggreeing, you are a crybaby for trying to change things your way just to appease yourself. i said people should practice tolerance, i do, i dont let little pitly shit bother me like this. tell me why it bothers you or someone so much because of those two words. and how has it affected you or your freedoms to have those two words.

 

[plornive]

you can change it to "one nation under plornive" for all i give a shit. i usually just turn and walk away from stupid shit. i might try to aggitate a little though.

read my whole post, my point is not that you are a crybaby for disaggreeing, you are a crybaby for trying to change things your way just to appease yourself. i said people should practice tolerance, i do, i dont let little pitly shit bother me like this. tell me why it bothers you or someone so much because of those two words. and how has it affected you or your freedoms to have those two words.

It promotes conformity and abrahamian religions, specifically christianity. I don't want my future child to be subjected to this.

Actually, I think President Bush and congress are being crybabies as much as the person who filed the lawsuit. I could justifiably say that many of the people who are voicing their outrage at the decision are reactionary crybabies.

 

[plornive]

Also, it is obviously a big deal to the people who are outraged. This matter is more important than you make it to be. It is symbolic.

The government is the instigator of unconstitutional coersion... why are they making a big deal out of a simple request to *stop*.