Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I think your first statement is very ironic. In fact, i think your entire post is the height of irony. Imposing a lack of a belief system is not what is going on here. Do you honestly think that this man wants to impose some sort of "antibelief" on america? What this guy seems to want is to not have to pretend he's a monotheist to pledge allegiance to his country. You trivialize his position when you nonchalantly claim that no one is forcing his daughter to say under god, but in doing so you admit that the phrase "under god" is essentially meaningless in terms of what the pledge actually represents. "Under god" in the pledge is filler. Not only is it filler, it is also filler that manages to, at the very least, alienate a minority of the populace.
|
First off, Let me explain something. Oft I use my oppositions argument to undo itself. My opening statement was to point out that this is not about self. Didn't you read my whole post? Sheesh, I hate having to explain this. The point to what I was trying to make is that this isn't about one side being right or wrong. This is about people's fears leading them to act in ways that cause our country to split. "Under God" is filler? Actually, a great deal of it is filler. "I pledge allegience to the flag" well, no. We are actually supposed to be pledging the constitution. "and to the republic" we are a democracy. "indivisable" m hmm. "with liberty and justice for all." nope.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I never put this as a minor inconvenience, i only pointed out your nonchalant attitude toward it.
Can we agree that there is a difference between attempting to impose one's beliefs and writing references to one's god into ceremonial pledges of allegiance to one's country? One is the very definition of politics, and the other can only be described as the action of a worshipper insecure in his savior's love. Need you be reminded that if one truly has a close personal relationship with jesus christ, one need not trumpet it from the rooftops. In fact, i heard christ frowns upon such public displays of piety.
Tell me how having "under god" in the pledge isn't exclusionary for every person who is not a member of a monotheist religion. Then try to imagine yourself as a member of a minority religion reciting a pledge to a god you don't believe in a country where all religions are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the government.
Even if newdow is a christiaphobe, how is that relevant? As i said before, i know plenty of christians who would love to see "under god" removed from the pledge. It would be the height of arrogance for you to claim them as christiaphobes.
|
Hahahahaha
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. most christians in America don't have a very good understanding of what is being taught by Jesus. People do think that it is their responsibility to make commercials and go door to door talking about Jesus because it's what God wants them to do. They haven't figured out that it is actually an attempt to get more parishners so the church can get more money. Just like we should be saluting the constitution, not the flag, christians choose to praise the bible, not Jesus. It's complicated, but the gist is that christians *not all christians, but some christians* will be upset about this. The only thing this suit serves to do is drive a wedge between christians and nonchristians.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Yeah, i mean, if we allow the word religion to apply to anyone with a unique perspective, then we'd have an infinite number of religions. And then the word religion is completely fucking meaningless and everyone would be a tax exempt religious organization. Woohoo, let's make all words mean the same thing, that way writing will be really easy.
|
That was really helpful. I hope all fo your contributions to the conversation are as constructive as this.
Why aren't you addressing the article beyond "I searched the rest of the site and it claims america owes its soul to the bible." Give me a break. Please read the article. It cites the fact that seperation of church and state *the foundation of your whole argument* is flawed.