They're at it again, trying to remove God from the pledge.... (generation, lawyer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this were the case, Christians would only use Jehovah and Muslims would only use Allah.
I understand that Muslims only do use "Allah." Although that can be translated into English as "God," they certainly would not attempt any argument that their use of "Allah" is ever a generic "god."
Christians are told something more explicit:
Whatever you ask in My name, I will do it so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. -- John 14
Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. -- John 16
No, it sounds like you are only rejecting it because it doesn't fit your narrative.
If this were the case, Christians would only use Jehovah and Muslims would only use Allah.
While as a Muslim I do occasionally use names other than Allah but I qualify it with (swt) "Subhannan Wa Ta'lah" (TRANSLATION: All Glory be to the one God Who is without equals, partners or progeny)
If God is not intended to be a specific name, why is it capitalized and not written as "one Nation, under god"
God capitalized and with no qualifying phrase is the English Name of the triune god of the English language Bible.
While I do believe God(swt) is Allaah(swt) I find many Christians do not believe they are the same.
God is also an alternate Spelling for The pre Christian Germanic god "Godt" and a name for a third person of the Trimurti (Hindu Trinity)
I am still having difficulty in understanding why Christians are not offended by the line "One Nation, under God" I guess some do not see it as demeaning.
I see it is impossible to cause you to THINK that there are moral, kind, and generous agnostics and atheists. You might be surprised to find that people with those qualities that you know are closet atheists. As an atheist, I don't need to be threatened by eternal damnation in order to "behave" myself. I've also repeatedly seen so-called religious people lie, steal, assault, etc. Religion doesn't create morality anymore than lack of it prevents morality.
No not impossible for me to think that and presumptious on your part to come to that conclusion. You are being close minded.
No basis for your assertion and plenty counter to it. Our own decaying society and the withdrawl from religion is the perfect example.
I remember all the hoopala conspiracy theories fighting it on the basis it was a Catholic idea and was the first step of the Pope taking over the country.
And I remember when it came into practice in our school, the single public school in a town of 5,000 in western NYS. It was not received with anything like wholehearted enthusiasm...and it was Catholics and the two Jewish families with kids in school who were most chary of it as a move bring a kind of homogenized, one-size-fits-all Protestantism into the public school....and some felt it was the opening wedge for more of the same.
There were kids from religious families who simply refused to say the newly mandated phrase.
And I remember when it came into practice in our school, the single public school in a town of 5,000 in western NYS. It was not received with anything like wholehearted enthusiasm...and it was Catholics and the two Jewish families with kids in school who were most chary of it as a move bring a kind of homogenized, one-size-fits-all Protestantism into the public school....and some felt it was the opening wedge for more of the same.
There were kids from religious families who simply refused to say the newly mandated phrase.
What town, out of curiosity? I'm from near Buffalo.
So, would you have been just as much up in arms in 1954 when the words "under God" were ADDED to the pledge after being without it for almost a hundred years?
How about if the pledge read "under Allah" or "under Goddess"? Would you be just as happy with your children being required to say it or have to make themselves stand out by not saying it? Try that on for size and then maybe you will understand where others (and it's not necessarily all the "radical left" that have problems with this) are coming from.
By the way, you also need to consider that one reason for separation of church and state is that the moment you insert religion into government, you've invited government into religion, and that never works well - prime example before us today is the Taliban. Do you REALLY want to emulate them?
Yeah, yeah!
I want "under Bacchus" added to the pledge! I believe in the religion of wine, women and song and it simply isn't fair for Allah/Jehovah to get a plug if *my* god doesn't. It's just not right for the government to promote one religion at the expense of mine.
Public schooling is a government mandate. Requiring the words "under god" as an element of a pledge [typically] recited by young children (in a fashion reminiscent of 'brainwashing'/propaganda) who are incapable of making an informed choice in religious matters has, in essence, the effect of a law regarding the establishment of religion- one religion in particular (at the expense of all others), and is prohibited.
The government has no business promoting one religion/god at the expense of all others, or those who do not believe in *any* religion/god, making it a de facto 'state religion'. This is precisely what was intended to be avoided by the 1st Amendment.
This is a country of people with many different (and sometimes competing) beliefs regarding god(s)religion, as well as many people who lack such beliefs. The only way to be FAIR to all citizens is to scrupulously and completely avoid *any* behavior that could be interpreted as promoting any religion, regardless of how generalized it may be.
The United States is not a Christian nation. That is why "under God" should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance at all. I hope I cleared that up for you.
So I guess next you will want "In God We Trust" removed from all U.S. Monies correct? I mean, it doesn't end with just the pledge of allegiance for the faction that wants to remove all vestiges of God and Christianity from the public sector, am I right?
Ah, the old "Straw Man" technique -- an attempt to divert the debate from one topic onto another topic.
Dauntless Dan, you are the Original Poster, which means you posed the Original Question. Logic, reason and the commonly-accepted rules of debate all agree that we should remain focused on said Original Question.
... those few words really have that much power over religious zealots so they must actually have some kind of backing by a real entity, kinda how money is backed by gold or valuable natural resources, eh?
Hairy Guy,
I nearly sprayed coffee thru my nose on my keyboard! Give a fellow some kind of warning, wouldya?
Yep, the current United States currency is backed by good ol' boy assurances, delivered with a wink and a nod and a slap on the back...
Caveat: Should those good ol' boys shake your hand, be sure to count your fingers afterwards...
Our own decaying society and the withdrawl from religion is the perfect example.
You're assuming that those two conditions are directly related.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
