Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
----
On a side note your insane and just plain ignorant if you think the bible is fiction regardless if you are from the Judeo-Christian beliefs.
____
I also find it interesting that you "atheists" are so weak in your beliefs that you are threatened by WORDS that don't even mean anything to you (or so you claim). You'll argue "we aren't threatened blah blah blah" , well if thats the case then whats your agenda??? You guys willingly negate the fact that 90% of Americans, and thats who we are talking about here, believe in some high power, A God. Get serious, maybe its you guys that need to be more mindful of other people's beliefs...
|
Wow, that is quite a large brush you are painting with Mojo! You know I usually try to stay out of the "Religi-politics" that go on here, but these two comments really blew me away, but then again according you you I am insane and ignorant.
I attended religious schools from Kindergarden through High School. I have a very solid understanding of the bible and Judeo-Christian beliefs,dogma, history and allegory. I have also studied other religions, philosphies and even cults. To believe that the Bible does not contain large amounts of fiction is really quite ignorant. Any serious Biblical scholar will attest to the fact that much of the Old Testament was taken from existing religions and altered to fit within the Judeo-Christian framework and much of the New Testament is allegory and has been edited over and over again(and lets not get into Revelations). I could go on and on, but I simply reccomend you read the Epic of Gilgamesh and see if you see any similarities to parts of the Bible.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...ian/gilgamesh/
Now, as far as athiests being afraid of a word, I think that is a little too simple and easy. I don't know what denomination of Christianity you are, but have you ever been approached by someone of a different belief who will not leave you alone? It gets annoying and eventually offensive, and this is how many athiests I know feel. In addition, it is not only athiests who are opposed the the "under god" portion. Those who wish to minimize the confusion that is inherent in the Constitution whould prefer that the governement not get involved at all with religion.
While I do not think that the "under God" portion in offensive in any way, I do not think it should be included. It was never part of the original Pledge and was only added in the 50's by Eisenhower.
Here is a quick history of the Pledge:
1892
The pledge, written by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, debuts September 8 in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion. He wants the words to reflect the views of his cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of "Looking Backward" and other socialist utopian novels. It reads: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."
1924
The words "the flag of the United States of America" are substituted for "my Flag." Fittingly, the change takes place on Flag Day.
1942
The government officially recognizes the Pledge of Allegiance.
1954
Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
2002
June 26 The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the words added in 1954. The decision affects schoolchildren in eight states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Hawaii.
August 9 The Justice Department files an appeal of the circuit court's ruling.
2003
The U.S. Supreme Court says it will decide whether the current form of the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
Source: The Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica Inc
I now have remembered why I try to avoid the "religi-politics" threads.