'Under God' - Pledge Debate rises again

[raVeneyes]

Seems to me that you are shopping religions to find the one that most coincides with what you believe in. What's the point? At that point, just be satisfied in what you have faith in, and don't go searching for a Church to reaffirm everything. As far as all your "research" goes, none of that qualifies a bunk. I spent every day I wan in school from pre-k until I left college in Catholic school, and I still didn't learn that much from them. I learned all of my knowledge from extra-curricular sources. Oh, you've raed the bible cover to cover three times?? Big deal. Being a Jehovah's Witness?? Ever wonder why they are put into the same group as Unitarians and all those other fringe "Christian" churches?

Again, not wanting to go in to my personal religious motivations, but to post a public response to your assessment... I was not shopping for religion...I was under the care and instruction of people who loved me learning about all faiths so that I could choose an enlightened path of my own.

And it may not matter that I studied for that long, but the questioned factor was whether or not I had. I have...and therefore mr argumentative up there is wrong.

So let's try to keep the conversation friendly now. Let's not bash churches I've studied with and try to glean insights on my personality with cheap shots designed to get a rise out of me, ok? Whatever questions of my faith and personal convictions you have I'll be happy to discuss in a less public forum...and I'll probably send you a PM explaining the difference between what you call 'shopping religion' and what I was doing, but let's keep it off this discussion board.

 

[raVeneyes]

So what's your point?? You said they weren't Christians, and when I inform you of the truth, now you are just reaffirming what I say or what? People refer to our laws as Judeo/Christian, not Puritanical. Our country wasn't founded by them either, our territory was settled by them. Jeez, man, get a clue.

Please carefully read what I say if you're going to accuse me of not having a 'clue'.

I said:

You are quite correct that our country was founded by Christians...in fact mostly by Puritans (a sect which if I'm not mistaken is almost completely gone now though was all the rage back in the 1700s)...which is why I referenced our puritanical roots. But just like the Puritans who have declined so has the influence of the Christian faith on the laws of the land.

So...I'm not quite sure how you misread it, but I'm not saying that Puritans are non christians.

 

[raVeneyes]

I believe my beliefs are right. Otherwise I wouldn't be a Catholic. It's not a question in my mind.

And I'm not saying it should be a question in your mind, but when thinking on things that rule an entire country you can not only consider yourself, you must consider the greater good. Not everyone lives in your headspace, or holds the same beliefs as you...and to say 'screw them' is wrong. Our country was founded to be inclusive of many peoples and beliefs...it is an ideal that I would like to think we can still stick to for the most part. Sure we have to be exclusive of people who don't share the broader goals of the country...goals like it's continued existence and prosperity, but to exclude those who love this country and not the God of the people who founded it is just plain wrong.

 

[fossten]

I've thought long and hard about my response to this all day. I can't help but notice that you are turning this argument in a personal direction all the while you've been accusing me of personal attacks.

I don't really want to go in to my personal history, but suffice it to say I have done much study of the major religions of the world as well as some not so well known ones (like the religions/histories of the native american peoples). I find it fascinating that you have judged my knowledge of the Bible unworthy as I've read it cover to cover three times as well as studying it for three years as a Jehovah's Witness, two years as a Baptist, one year in Catholic school, and several years as just a believer in God. Now my belief system is shaky at best at this point in my life, and perhaps I don't remember everything from reading the bible all those years ago, but believe you me I've studied it.

Now if we can get off my personal knowledge or lack of knowledge I'd like to come to some sort of conclusion in this thread. I am really of the belief a re-writing of the wording of the pledge is in order. At minimum it should be optional how we say it...at most it should just not include a reference to God.

The fact is, you brought up your personal history, not anyone else on this board. As such, it's fair game. However, I do not desire to tread on anyone personally. If you took what I said personally, that was not my intention, and I do apologize for the misunderstanding. It is worthy of note, however, that the Jehovah's Witnesses use the New World Translation of the Bible, and they teach that not only is Jesus NOT God, but he is in fact Satan's brother. This is completely contrary to the word of God. You will not find a single verse. In fact, the NW Translation takes out the scripture that verifies the existence of the Trinity. I could go on and on. I spent a long time studying JWs. Catholics believe very differently than JWs. It is also worthy of note that after all that study, you obviously have not found what you were looking for. For whatever it's worth, keep looking. The answers are out there. I found mine in the KJV Bible.

Having said that, I still contend (Vitas' comment notwithstanding) that the differences b/t God and Allah don't have to be restricted to what is shown in the different variances of religion. The Bible describes an altogether different God than the Allah described in the Koran (Quran, whatever). The Quran, for example, rejects the Trinity described in the Bible, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's just one example of many. So from a textual standpoint we can see these differences. We don't have to get into sects and offshoots.

 

[raVeneyes]

The fact is, you brought up your personal history, not anyone else on this board. As such, it's fair game.

I've never brought up my personal history...I've only responded with it to arguments that I'm either unintelligent or unexperienced in an area...

However, I do not desire to tread on anyone personally. If you took what I said personally, that was not my intention, and I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

No big deal...apology accepted.

It is worthy of note, however, that the Jehovah's Witnesses use the New World Translation of the Bible, and they teach that not only is Jesus NOT God, but he is in fact Satan's brother. This is completely contrary to the word of God. You will not find a single verse. In fact, the NW Translation takes out the scripture that verifies the existence of the Trinity.

Interestingly enough I've never heard this teaching that Jesus is Satan's brother...which I would suppose sometime in three years I would have...in fact...Satan by all the JW teachings I've ever been part of is no more than a rogue angel...so I've no idea what you're talking about.

As far as the New World Translation goes, I've studied and read both the NWT, and the King James versions...

I could go on and on. I spent a long time studying JWs. Catholics believe very differently than JWs. It is also worthy of note that after all that study, you obviously have not found what you were looking for. For whatever it's worth, keep looking. The answers are out there. I found mine in the KJV Bible.

As I said previously I wasn't and am not *looking* for anything. I was studying under the tutelage of people who love and care for me in an effort to educate me that I might find my own path and set of beliefs. I don't think any human or bible or religion has all the answers and I don't think we ever will.

Having said that, I still contend (Vitas' comment notwithstanding) that the differences b/t God and Allah don't have to be restricted to what is shown in the different variances of religion. The Bible describes an altogether different God than the Allah described in the Koran (Quran, whatever). The Quran, for example, rejects the Trinity described in the Bible, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's just one example of many. So from a textual standpoint we can see these differences. We don't have to get into sects and offshoots.

Many versions of christianity also reject the concept of the trinity.

There are many similarities and differences in a lot of different religions and my suggestion would be that if you're going to classify a religion as heretical you need to study it or talk to someone who has first.

 

[fossten]

Many versions of christianity also reject the concept of the trinity.

There are many similarities and differences in a lot of different religions and my suggestion would be that if you're going to classify a religion as heretical you need to study it or talk to someone who has first.

That's good advice. You should take it. You need it more than I do. I don't run around criticizing things I know nothing about. You do.

 

[raVeneyes]

That's good advice. You should take it. You need it more than I do. I don't run around criticizing things I know nothing about. You do.

Au contrair mon frair

I try not to speak on any topic that I don't know anything about.

 

[fossten]

Au contrair mon frair

I try not to speak on any topic that I don't know anything about.

:bowrofl: Now if that were really true, you wouldn't post here at all! :bowrofl:

 

[raVeneyes]

:bowrofl: Now if that were really true, you wouldn't post here at all! :bowrofl:

you have some how telepathically linked to my brain and know everything I know? because short of that you're just a mean spirited :q:q:q:qe of a man who knows even less than the person you're accusing of knowing nothing at all...

 

[fossten]

you have some how telepathically linked to my brain and know everything I know? because short of that you're just a mean spirited :q:q:q:qe of a man who knows even less than the person you're accusing of knowing nothing at all...

I don't have to link to your brain. It's obvious by your posts that you don't know what you're talking about.

Mean spirited? Oh, there, there. [pat pat] If you can't take a little heat, take your toys and go home like you did last time. Oh, and post a whole thread attacking me, too.

This topic is supposed to be about you proving that Allah and the God of the Bible are the same person. All you've done is get defensive and lash out at people, notably me. I see no evidence that you're even addressing the topic at hand.

What a hypocrite.

 

[raVeneyes]

I don't have to link to your brain. It's obvious by your posts that you don't know what you're talking about.

Mean spirited? Oh, there, there. [pat pat] If you can't take a little heat, take your toys and go home like you did last time. Oh, and post a whole thread attacking me, too.

This topic is supposed to be about you proving that Allah and the God of the Bible are the same person. All you've done is get defensive and lash out at people, notably me. I see no evidence that you're even addressing the topic at hand.

What a hypocrite.

Um...no...this thread is about the Pledge of Allegiance and whether or not it should contain 'under God'. Which by the way I've presented arguments for it not remaining in the pledge, and I've yet to see an argument refuting that deduction after supporting it with the idea that we are all different peoples in this country and we shouldn't force a christian belief system on anyone.

Most everyone seems to agree that at least re-writing the pledge to include the option of saying something other than 'under God' is a good idea, at least no one has denied that idea and several conservative members of this message board have even suggested it in their own way.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I think the only re-wording of the pledge that would keep some of the RWWs happy is "........ one nation, under the thumb of George W. Bush.........."

:bowrofl:

I've stayed out of this discussion because it was gettin' pretty deep in here. But IMO, this country is not truly FREE unless we are allowed to say either "under God", or "under Allah", or "under Santa Claus" at our OWN discretion. For a FREE country to expect citizens to "pledge their allegence" to the country is by all means reasonable. But to expect it's people, who are supposedly FREE to chose their own religion, God and belief systems, to pledge their allegence to one particular God, is NOT reasonable. And insinuating that this country was founded and laws based on the teachings of one particular God is preposterous.

HOW can anyone take issue with the phrase "under liberty"?? If it keeps everyone happy and allows a uniform script for all to read from, what is wrong with it??

 

[fossten]

Um...no...moron...this thread is about the Pledge of Allegiance and whether or not it should contain 'under God'. Which by the way I've presented arguments for it not remaining in the pledge, and I've yet to see an argument refuting that deduction after supporting it with the idea that we are all different peoples in this country and we shouldn't force a christian belief system on anyone.

Most everyone seems to agree that at least re-writing the pledge to include the option of saying something other than 'under God' is a good idea, at least no one has denied that idea and several conservative members of this message board have even suggested it in their own way.

Raveneyes, I know you're new here, but we have rules in this forum. One of them is not to call people names.

I understand that having to read my posts makes you angry, but you have no business resorting to such low-level tactics that you are used to hearing from your Fiberal friends.

If you can't operate with any modicum of decorum here, you should leave.

There isn't anyone here who thinks that name-calling should be permitted here, and many people have been smacked down by moderators for it. Just the fact that you resort to it shows that you are angry and losing control of your emotions.

If you can't debate on the merits of an issue, you lose even more credibility when you attack the person with whom you are arguing. If anything, it makes you look bad.

 

[fossten]

Um...no...moron...this thread is about the Pledge of Allegiance and whether or not it should contain 'under God'. Which by the way I've presented arguments for it not remaining in the pledge, and I've yet to see an argument refuting that deduction after supporting it with the idea that we are all different peoples in this country and we shouldn't force a christian belief system on anyone.

Most everyone seems to agree that at least re-writing the pledge to include the option of saying something other than 'under God' is a good idea, at least no one has denied that idea and several conservative members of this message board have even suggested it in their own way.

"DEE DEE DEE"

Wrong again. The article you cited is about the recent ruling RESTRICTING public schools from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance AS A WHOLE. The question I raised is whether or not this is restriction of freedom of speech.

Go back and read it again.

 

[raVeneyes]

Raveneyes, I know you're new here, but we have rules in this forum. One of them is not to call people names.

I understand that having to read my posts makes you angry, but you have no business resorting to such low-level tactics that you are used to hearing from your Fiberal friends.

If you can't operate with any modicum of decorum here, you should leave.

There isn't anyone here who thinks that name-calling should be permitted here, and many people have been smacked down by moderators for it. Just the fact that you resort to it shows that you are angry and losing control of your emotions.

If you can't debate on the merits of an issue, you lose even more credibility when you attack the person with whom you are arguing. If anything, it makes you look bad.

I'm sorry...when did you become a moderator? Did I miss something? I mean I know MonsterMark is, but I thought that he was the only moderator participating in this forum.

Also, and again, moron isn't a name calling...it's simply my estimation of your intellegence level by the level of reading comprehension and attention span you've displayed. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

moron

n : a person of subnormal intelligence

 

[Fla02LS]

Um...no...moron...this thread is about the Pledge of Allegiance and whether or not it should contain 'under God'. Which by the way I've presented arguments for it not remaining in the pledge, and I've yet to see an argument refuting that deduction after supporting it with the idea that we are all different peoples in this country and we shouldn't force a christian belief system on anyone.

Most everyone seems to agree that at least re-writing the pledge to include the option of saying something other than 'under God' is a good idea, at least no one has denied that idea and several conservative members of this message board have even suggested it in their own way.

Since when does the words "under god" specifically mean christian.People who argue against it are lame and just jumping on a bandwagon to be pissed about something. I supposed if the pledge mentioned the color blue, people who like red would be pissed. Lets not stop there, lets change the Eagle from our national symbol. Lets have the Army where i nice taupe color. What else can we change just for the sake of change. Its all lame and John Roberts will be confirmed and he will never allow it to be removed. So start your letters and rallies now.

 

[raVeneyes]

Since when does the words "under god" specifically mean christian.

As it is written in the law, "under God" with the capital G, it implies a christian god because christianity is the only religion that uses God as a name and not just as a title.

In English, no other god is referred to with a capital G

The reasons for arguing for change of the pledge now is the same for the reasons the 1950's congress argued to change it to it's current form. Unity. In a time like the current political climate, we need unity, and why have a divisive exclusive pledge of allegiance? What does that accomplish?

 

[Vitas]

Raveneyes, I know you're new here, but we have rules in this forum. One of them is not to call people names.

I understand that having to read my posts makes you angry, but you have no business resorting to such low-level tactics that you are used to hearing from your Fiberal friends.

If you can't operate with any modicum of decorum here, you should leave.

There isn't anyone here who thinks that name-calling should be permitted here, and many people have been smacked down by moderators for it. Just the fact that you resort to it shows that you are angry and losing control of your emotions.

If you can't debate on the merits of an issue, you lose even more credibility when you attack the person with whom you are arguing. If anything, it makes you look bad.

Bingo. 100% agreed.

As it is written in the law, "under God" with the capital G, it implies a christian god because christianity is the only religion that uses God as a name and not just as a title.

God (MAKER)

noun {S not after the}

(in especially Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) the being which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to have an effect on all things:
- Do you believe in God?

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/god+(maker)

God

Deity or Supreme Being.

Each of the major monotheistic world religions worships a Supreme Being, who is the sole god of the universe, the maker of all things, omniscient and all-powerful. God is also good. In ancient Israel God was named Yahweh. The God of the Hebrew Bible also became the God of Christianity, but generic words, such as theos in Greek or Deus in Latin, were often used to refer to him. In Islam the term is Allah. See also monotheism.

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9365740?query=god&ct=

 

[LSE02]

It works like this those who don't want to say it don't those who do then do. Any other way and your steping on the other persons rights. And if we don't stop all this petty whining "that offends me bull s--t" We are going to slowly loose our rights one by one. I serve this country proudly and all these whining people make me sick!

 

[2001LS8Sport]

I'm sorry...when did you become a moderator? Did I miss something? I mean I know MonsterMark is, but I thought that he was the only moderator participating in this forum.

Also, and again, moron isn't a name calling...it's simply my estimation of your intellegence level by the level of reading comprehension and attention span you've displayed. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

moron

n : a person of subnormal intelligence

Just because one man's idea is different than yours doesn't make him a moron...or even wrong. It just makes him different than you.

Hmmm....I would hate to print what noun comes to mind when I think of your posts. Just like you say...I guess it's not name calling or profane if it accurately depicts your state of intelligence. But I flat guarantee your ass it would get me banned.....

 

[MsM8tress]

can ya handle it?

220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Church and state should be seperate, but our forefathers clearly intended keeping God in it all......read this and tell me what our forefathers were thinking.....there are several pictures of our historic monuments, buildings, documents..etc that they were too big to post (hummm imagine that!) if you want PM me and I will email them to you.....if no that go visit DC, it's obvious people....here are some facts if you can handle it.....

The Most Recent DID YOU KNOW: WHO WAS THE FIRST TO COME HELP THE VICTIMS OF KATRINA - BAPTIST CHURCHES!!!!!!!!

DID YOU KNOW?
As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law . an oligarchy . the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Chamber, US House of Representatives proudly displays a large leafed medallion of MOSES

Statistics say 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Just a little somehting to believe in.....if you can handle it.

MsM8

 

[pepperman]

Well Said Debi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[2001LS8Sport]

Well Said Debi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+2

 

[raVeneyes]

220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

...

Because we haven't been saying "under God" in the pledge of allegiance for 220 years. The phrase "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950s

 

[barry2952]

I really don't have a problem with leaving it in the pledge. I believe it isn't harmful.

Would a good compromise be to simply make it a lower case "g" thereby removing the objection for all except athiests. If 86% believe in some "god", what's the problem?