[Cabwi Desco] One Nation, Under Your Belief System

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-25 12:01am

Castor Troy wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
Castor Troy wrote:So wait, why change the pledge any more?

How is having "Under God" showing religious favoritism? How does it show the country promoting religion?
It states the existance of God as a fact, a being which not everyone beleives in. It states that the nation is under this "God".
It can be interpreted many ways. It doesn't have to mean that we, as a nation, serve a certain God.

As for stating the existance of God as fact, how is it stating it as fact? It's not intended it to be a factual statement, more like a thought to think on.

Utter and complete drivel. You are claiming alleigance to a "nation under God". This implies the existence of a God. There are people who find this to be cramming God down their throats as they DO NOT BELEIVE IN GOD. Then why should they be required to pledge alleigance to a nation under one?

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-04-25 12:01am

WOW. 'Under your belief system'? That sounds downright retarded. Why not the original "One nation, indivisable'?

Cabwi Desco · Post by **Cabwi Desco** » 2005-04-25 12:09am

Lord Zentei wrote:
Cabwi Desco wrote:And it still does.

On the $1 bill, on the reverse where the big word ONE is in nice big boldface to the right of it is a eagle. Clutched in the easgles beak is a ribbon. On the ribbon is written E PLURIBUS UNUM.
Yes? Are you attempting to make a point here? Your claim that it would be prohibitive to phase out the "In God We Trust" currency for "E Pluribus Unum" currency is nonsense.

The Fed would simply start printing the "E Pluribus Unum" phrase instead of the "In God We Trust" phrase and banks would be required to issue the new currency. The old currency would retain it's value, but would gradually be phased out. No biggie.

Pennies, man, Pennies. They NEVER get phased out, or at least untill they get so beat up you cant recognize 'em. They will always have both.

Also then the E Pluribus Unum phrase would become redundant being in two places and have to be eliminated in one spot, probably replaced by 'In God We Trust'.

Also all coinage has both the 'Pluribus' line and the 'God' line on them. Coinage stays in circulation ALOT longer than bills do.

Face it, its not gonna happen.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-25 12:13am

Lord Zentei wrote: Utter and complete drivel. You are claiming alleigance to a "nation under God". This implies the existence of a God. There are people who find this to be cramming God down their throats as they DO NOT BELEIVE IN GOD. Then why should they be required to pledge alleigance to a nation under one?

Wait...who's requiring them to believe in and recite those lines in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Forcing religion down their throats is torturing them to convert to a religion. Having TWO WORDS in a song that they do not have to say is not "forcing religion down their throats".

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-04-25 12:13am

I'd be satisfied if the government simply ceased production of the religious currency. Let the old stuff circulate forever, for all I care. As long as it's no longer being produced, the course has been corrected.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-25 12:15am

Castor Troy wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote: Utter and complete drivel. You are claiming alleigance to a "nation under God". This implies the existence of a God. There are people who find this to be cramming God down their throats as they DO NOT BELEIVE IN GOD. Then why should they be required to pledge alleigance to a nation under one?
Wait...who's requiring them to believe in and recite those lines in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Forcing religion down their throats is torturing them to convert to a religion. Having TWO WORDS in a song that they do not have to say is not "forcing religion down their throats".

Yes it is. You are requiring them to pledge alleigance to a nation under God, thus requiring them to acnowledge the existance of God.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-25 12:16am

Lord Zentei wrote:
Yes it is. You are requiring them to pledge alleigance to a nation under God, thus requiring them to acnowledge the existance of God.

If they are forced to recite those two words. Are they forced to? No.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-04-25 12:19am

By having those words in the pledge they have created an exclussion situation. You are excluded from reciting the pledge because you disagree with their religion. People see you not reciting that part of the pledge and they start to treat you differently.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-25 12:19am

Cabwi Desco wrote:Pennies, man, Pennies. They NEVER get phased out, or at least untill they get so beat up you cant recognize 'em. They will always have both.

Not so. Banks issue pennies. And they accept them also, when people collect the penny jars and convert them to bills. Have you never gone to the bank with a jug full of pennies and dimes and put them all into one of those counting machines?

Cabwi Desco wrote:Also then the E Pluribus Unum phrase would become redundant being in two places and have to be eliminated in one spot, probably replaced by 'In God We Trust'.

So what if "E Pluribus Unum" is in two places? And why the hell is the only alternative "In God We Trust" anyhow?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-25 12:29am

Castor Troy wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote: Utter and complete drivel. You are claiming alleigance to a "nation under God". This implies the existence of a God. There are people who find this to be cramming God down their throats as they DO NOT BELEIVE IN GOD. Then why should they be required to pledge alleigance to a nation under one?
Wait...who's requiring them to believe in and recite those lines in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Forcing religion down their throats is torturing them to convert to a religion. Having TWO WORDS in a song that they do not have to say is not "forcing religion down their throats".

\
For a government that is not supposed to have any involvement with faith whatsoever, it is an inexcusable intrustion. It is showing favortism to religion in general which the government according to the SCOTUS and the one who WROTE THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT is not allowed to do.

Cabwi Desco · Post by **Cabwi Desco** » 2005-04-25 12:41am

ITS TWO FUCKING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who honestly cares if its two words that somehow have a religous connotation are said in a pledge to a (for the most part) christian nation founded by a couple of stuck up christians! Christians (for the most part) founded this country goddamnit and they have just as much of a right to say what they believe in it as anyone else.

Bah I'm tired and I'm going to bed, I'll argue more with you in the morning, when I'm livid, rested and caffinated.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-04-25 12:45am

Castor Troy wrote:Not really. How does it show religious favoritism? I'd say it'd show religious favoritism if it said "We believe in the Christian God", but a simple "God" can have many meanings, including non-religious ones.

Do you honestly believe this bullshit? First of all, as others have pointed out, this is showing favoritism towards religious people over atheists. I'd like to see you provide a non-religiou meaning for "God," since I've never seen such a thing in my life.

Second of all, if it wasn't biased towards Christianity, then why the hell is it "God" instead of "a god" or "gods?" Why is it the word capitalized, singular, and used in a specific way?

Face it, the Pledge is currently biased towards the Judeo-Christian God.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-04-25 12:47am

Cabwi Desco wrote:ITS TWO FUCKING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So are FUCK and YOU! Would you want them in the Pledge?

Cabwi Desco wrote:Who honestly cares if its two words that somehow have a religous connotation are said in a pledge to a (for the most part) christian nation founded by a couple of stuck up christians! Christians (for the most part) founded this country goddamnit and they have just as much of a right to say what they believe in it as anyone else.

Well that clinches it. You're just another "we live in a Christian nation" asshat.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-25 12:47am

Cabwi Desco wrote:ITS TWO FUCKING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So?

Cabwi Desco wrote:Who honestly cares if its two words that somehow have a religous connotation are said in a pledge to a (for the most part) christian nation founded by a couple of stuck up christians! Christians (for the most part) founded this country goddamnit

Atheists care, and they are also citizens.

Cabwi Desco wrote: and they have just as much of a right to say what they believe in it as anyone else.

They can say it in church then. The "indivisible" bit does not require them to DENY God, does it?

Cabwi Desco wrote:Bah I'm tired and I'm going to bed, I'll argue more with you in the morning, when I'm livid, rested and caffinated.

Take it easy, bub.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-04-25 12:52am

Cabwi Desco wrote:ITS TWO FUCKING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who honestly cares if its two words that somehow have a religous connotation are said in a pledge to a (for the most part) christian nation founded by a couple of stuck up christians! Christians (for the most part) founded this country goddamnit and they have just as much of a right to say what they believe in it as anyone else.

Bah I'm tired and I'm going to bed, I'll argue more with you in the morning, when I'm livid, rested and caffinated.

If it's just two little words, then what's the problem with taking them out? It goes BOTH ways, you know.

Further more, it doesn't matter what the Founding Fathers believed in, they wrote the Constitution saying that this government would not have any endorsement of religion. Hell, even if it wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, leaving religion out of the government is the right thing to do. Your argument that the words "under God" in the Pledge is a Christian "right" to express their beliefs is a load of bullshit. You want to tell people what you believe in? Well then go ahead, no one's going to stop you! Don't force that shit into a Pledge endorsed by a government which represents ALL people in the nation, religious and non-religious, Christian or non-Christian.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-25 01:03am

Good points, Jim Raynor.

I might as well leave this debate, seeing that I don't want to dig myself into a hole that I can't get out of.

Anyways...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-25 01:15am

TS TWO FUCKING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who honestly cares if its two words that somehow have a religous connotation are said in a pledge

I do bercause I face ostracism when I dont say them asshat.

to a (for the most part) christian nation

CHeck the treaty of tripoli you pus covered Bukkake pole. It specifically states that we are not a christians nation and our CONSTITUTION specifies the same. The demographics dont matter when it comes to religious freedom you sack of rat vomit, only the constitution does you facktard. The population may be christian(77%) but the government is not and it has no business pushing religion on the 14% who dont subscribe to it in its poublic pronouncements.

founded by a couple of stuck up christians! Christians (for the most part)

The head honchos(Madison, Jefferson and debatably Washington) were deists fuckstick, and the first two wrote out founding documents.

founded this country goddamnit and they have just as much of a right to say what they believe in it as anyone else.

That they do, but whet they dont have the right to do is force everyone else to worthip their God, or use the government to prop up said God. The government is secular for a reason and that is so theocratic little fucks like you dont take power. A christian can say under God, a muslim can say "under ALLAAAAAH!!!" but the government has no place saying either. I am sick of little fucks like you. because when I was in high school it was little bastards like you that made me uncomfortable reciting the pledge and showing my loyalty to my country. It was little fucks like you that put extra emphasis on "Under God" just to make me uncomfortable. SO sit down, shut up, and get ANd get it through your thick skull that religious freedom doesnt mean "religious freedom but only if you are a christian" you malignant tomor on society.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-25 01:21am

You all right, man?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-25 01:33am

Why do we have to replace it? If you people would look at all the old bill designs, you'd notice that it looks like all the "In God We Trust" labels... were tacked on. Because they were. Now, the new $100s and such would need a slight re-design, but that's no more of a hassle then when they first added the phrase. Coins likewise, all you have to do is fill in the mold parts to elimnate the phrase.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-25 01:49am

Castor Troy wrote:You all right, man?

I hate people like him with almost the same passion with which I hate creationists. People who believe the opinions and desires of the majority should be able to overrule the inalientable rights of the minority make me sick to my stomach.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-04-25 02:07am

Cabwi Desco wrote:ITS TWO FUCKING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So why would it be such a huge deal to strike them and return the pledge of allegiance to its original form? Do you have any idea of the context under which the phrase "under God" was added?

Cabwi Desco · Post by **Cabwi Desco** » 2005-04-25 08:07am

Because I dont resond to petty insults I think I'll respond to Durandal instead.

Yeah I do know the context. After WWI people were flocking back to religion and the government had passed laws against evolution etc. etc.

Now I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier to strike them from the pledge, my whole point was that if youre going to say the current pledge of allegiance, wherever you may be, then say it right, not use some PC bullshit.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-04-25 08:28am

Oh leave him alone. He honestly thinks people who don't recite the pledge are traitors: he's got bigger problems to worry about.

For my money, I'd just use the original words. Not being a complete moron, I'd like to know whats wrong with using an older version: it's still pledging mindless loyalty to whoever the mass of idiots elected, and it was good enough for the Founding Fathers.

But we all know that the REAL point is 'say UNDER GOD, dammit', and that sickens me. Ain't no honkey motherfucker forcing me to give lip service to his laughable mysticism.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-04-25 08:29am

Cabwi Desco wrote:Now I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier to strike them from the pledge, my whole point was that if youre going to say the current pledge of allegiance, wherever you may be, then say it right, not use some PC bullshit.

I don't see why the principal's earlier decision should be defended. Like I said previously, I prefer to omit "under God" from the Pledge because it negates the word "indivisible", since it is an inherently divisive connotation.

The goal of the Pledge of Allegiance is to unite the population of a country, not marginalize a minority of it.

If they are forced to recite those two words. Are they forced to? No.

Some states have attempted to pass legislation requiring recitation of the Pledge, and the constant Sword of Damocles that is peer pressure is a considerable influence. Are they forced? You betcha.

Spacebeard · Post by **Spacebeard** » 2005-04-25 08:44am

Cabwi Desco wrote:
Yeah I do know the context. After WWI people were flocking back to religion and the government had passed laws against evolution etc. etc.

The phrase "under God" was added in 1954 by an act of Congress under political pressure from a special interest group who lumped in atheism, agnosticism, and deism along with communism as ideas which must be opposed by all Americans.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

(source)

And the explicit reason for this campaign was that the Knights of Columbus believed all "patriotic Americans" must oppose secularism and deism: in other words, they must oppose the principles of many of the Founding Fathers. Right.

In the 1950's the Fourth Degree believed that a patriotic American should be a person of religious faith and one who opposed communism, socialism, secularism, deism, agnosticism and atheism. In the 1950's the Knights opposed communism in eastern Europe, Latin America, and Vietnam. It suported Senator Joseph McCarthy is his early campaign against communist subversion in the United States.

In April 1951 its Board of Directors adopted a resolution mandating that "under God" be added in the recitation of the Pledge by each of the 750 Fourth Degre assemblies. In 1952 its Supreme Council passed a resoution urging Congress to add the words, "under God," to the Pledge.

(source)