Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Rolan7]

As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?

[Loud Whispers]

Presumably every monotheist would be able to get under that, assuming liberty stems from the big deity 'god given rights' and all that

[Calidovi]

As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?

The phrase "Under God" wasn't in the original pledge. It was added later by a few people, motivated by their own denominations or something. I suppose it just caught on and government didn't want to intervene, being that a majority Christian population may have an issue with it.

EDIT:

Presumably every monotheist would be able to get under that, assuming liberty stems from the big deity 'god given rights' and all that

Even then I'm pretty sure the notion of "God-given rights" is kind of an abstract concept. Locke (if he was even the one that started it, I forgot) probably worded it as such to drive the point home that these rights cannot be taken away. I mean, who wants to go against God?

[Helgoland]

Is the pledge of allegiance determined by law or something, or is it just a bit of folklore around the US as a nation, like the anthem or the flag? If it's the latter, it containing the phrase 'under God' is no more a violation of religious freedom than the Scandinavian flags containing crosses.

[Rolan7]

It's legal.  Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?  I think it eventually became legal to dissent from speaking it (and be that kid who refused to say the pledge with everyone else) but I don't really know.
In 1954 the "Under God" was added (by law) specifically as a response to "atheist" powers like communist Russia.  From Wikipedia:

Eisenhower stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

So, it really is a bit of a kick in the face.  Specifically to atheists, but honestly to any non-Christians.

[wierd]

[snip]

Seen One-O-These before?  What's that, your company you were working for and have invested much of your life in to get the retirement savings plan just got bought out by a multinational corporation, and now they want to make sure you never leave, just before putting the screws to you using a non-compete agreement? I guess you are free to leave! (Just, you cant work for any competitor! (shitler laugh))

Or maybe an intellectual property agreement that lasts in purpetuity? What, you WANT TO QUIT!? Foolish worker drone! WE OWN YOUR MIND, AND ALL IDEAS YOU HAVE, FOREVER. See right here, where you agreed to "This agreement survives termination." without any sunset provision whatsoever? Did you really think you could just LEAVE?

Perhaps you should ask Truean about how corporations behave when it comes to such things.

[TripJack]

Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?

not in most states, no

[Calidovi]

It's legal.  Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?  I think it eventually became legal to dissent from speaking it (and be that kid who refused to say the pledge with everyone else) but I don't really know.
In 1954 the "Under God" was added (by law) specifically as a response to "atheist" powers like communist Russia.  From Wikipedia:

Eisenhower stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

So, it really is a bit of a kick in the face.  Specifically to atheists, but honestly to any non-Christians.

Any monotheist would be fine with that, though I'm fairly sure that Eisenhower included something about Christianity specifically.

[wierd]

Mine did.

Still, somewhat relevant.

[Rolan7]

Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?

not in most states, no

The supreme court ruled in 1943 that students can't be required to recite the pledge, which is cool.
This came 3 years after they ruled that students *did* have to recite it, in response to Jehovah's Witnesses refusing on religious grounds.  Apparently that resulted in a "rash of mob violence and intimidation" against the Jehovah's Witnesses.

This was all before they added the "Under God".  So yeah, students are allowed to dissent - just like they were allowed to stand aside as teachers led Christian prayers.

[wierd]

Yup.  The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.

"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!"  the religiouisity types squeal.  Same old story. Same old song and dance.

[scrdest]

[snip]

Seen One-O-These before?  What's that, your company you were working for and have invested much of your life in to get the retirement savings plan just got bought out by a multinational corporation, and now they want to make sure you never leave, just before putting the screws to you using a non-compete agreement? I guess you are free to leave! (Just, you cant work for any competitor! (shitler laugh))

Or maybe an intellectual property agreement that lasts in purpetuity? What, you WANT TO QUIT!? Foolish worker drone! WE OWN YOUR MIND, AND ALL IDEAS YOU HAVE, FOREVER. See right here, where you agreed to "This agreement survives termination." without any sunset provision whatsoever? Did you really think you could just LEAVE?

Perhaps you should ask Truean about how corporations behave when it comes to such things.

That is a beautiful example of a well-crafted entirely irrelevant argument. At no point I claim corporations or US law as-is are good. But don't call a case of Cholera 'Ebola' because you don't like it and it sounds scarier.

[TD1]

Yup.  The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.

"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!"  the religiouisity types squeal.  Same old story. Same old song and dance.

It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.

[Persus13]

As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?

I don't think anyone would argue that the under God phrase in the pledge violates the separation of church and state. And today I'd say it violates our ideal of religious freedom too. Why it violates the ideal of liberty I'm not completely sure your reasoning for that, although as a monotheist, Loud Whispers point probably applies to me. The thing is that no one seems toseriously care enough about the pledge outside of schools enough to change it.

As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?

The phrase "Under God" wasn't in the original pledge. It was added later by a few people, motivated by their own denominations or something. I suppose it just caught on and government didn't want to intervene, being that a majority Christian population may have an issue with it.

Well, according to Wikipedia the person who came up with argued that it was part of American cultural heritage and pointed to Lincoln using it in the Gettysburg Address. It eventually made it in in the 1950s, most likely as a way to distinguish from the Communists. I'm hoping you knew all this though.

Is the pledge of allegiance determined by law or something, or is it just a bit of folklore around the US as a nation, like the anthem or the flag? If it's the latter, it containing the phrase 'under God' is no more a violation of religious freedom than the Scandinavian flags containing crosses.

I wouldn't exactly consider national anthems and flags as folklore. They usually are adopted by governments and so have laws concerning their use. Especially considering how prevalent the two symbols are. The pledge is something I've only seen in public education, never really outside of that sphere. I'd consider the flag and anthem far more important than the pledge since both are used far more often.

This was all before they added the "Under God".  So yeah, students are allowed to dissent - just like they were allowed to stand aside as teachers led Christian prayers.

I would disagree with this comparison. The pledge has two words that are controversial. You rarely hear complaints about the rest of the pledge which is what effectively West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (the 1943 case) ruled on, whereas school led monotheist prayers are a completely different case that Engel v. Vitale rightly stopped despite being allowed dissent. Would you object to teacher led prayers being said in a private Christian school?

Yup.  The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.

"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!"  the religiouisity types squeal.  Same old story. Same old song and dance.

Is there any point to this post aside from holier than thou grandstanding? I'd like to think there is something in here actually constructive.

Yup.  The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.

"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!"  the religiouisity types squeal.  Same old story. Same old song and dance.

It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.

How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.

[Frumple]

Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?

not in most states, no

Unless things have changed, though, it's still recited in school with regularity, it's just not mandatory and a kid can't get in (legal, anyway) trouble if they don't join in, or leave parts out. And they are required to sit through it while everyone else doles it out -- you can't really leave the classroom in protest or somethin'. Recitation of the pledge is also very much common to a lot of group events in the US. The pledge is still really damn pervasive, especially around pre-adults.