linaloki
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:17:46 +0000
Awright! Loki, local god of the ED, is posting another topic! So listen up! (And, quite possibly for the first time evah, it doesn't even mention homosexuality.)
This issue was once quite hot on the plate, and probably will be again. Michael Newdow bringing "Under God" back to the Supreme Court is one reason. Happy Holidays replacing Merry Christmas is another reason.
So: Is this a nation Under God? Nope. Was it ever? Nope. For goodness sake, Jefferson was a diest, and Washington cut out every section where Jesus performed miracles from his Bible. So why was it ever put in? Well, in 1954, the Eisenhower administration, freshly into the Cold War, thought it would be a good idea to use scare tactics against the Communists. It was "common knowledge" that the Commies were godless, and what would scare them more than having a nation united under that same God? So, Under God became part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
As part of my government competition, my group had to write an essay about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After reading the four-minute essay, fellow students asked us questions for six minutes. One of the questions brought up, after I stated my personal indifference to the presence of the words being there or not, was: "If the pledge said "under Satan", would you still be indifferent?
Answer? Yes. Why? Because it isn't true. Just as under God isn't true. We are even less under God now than ever. So it isn't true, and I can ignore it as unfactual. Same thing goes for Satan. As for Mr. Newdow's attempt to get rid of it based off of St. Thomas Aquinas's theory on the existance of God, he's being stupid. Basically, Thommy boy said: If one denies the existence of a god, then one must create an image or thought of a god to deny, therefore creating a god and bringing it into existence. If Newdow were right, and merely hearing the words in the Pledge, or seeing the words on money and such, we'd have a bitof trouble. Because, if that theory succeeds, we have a slight problem. Every reference to God would have to be gotten rid of. Including churches. People could not say the name of God. People could not write it down anywhere. The freedoms of religion, speech, and press would collapse, and the nation would fall to anarchy.
Which is why that'll never work well in the long run.
But Mr. Newdow's... enthusiasm? for his cause has brought other non-Christians to speak out! And the target? Christmas.
One thing I don't understand is why everyone of the non-Christian persuasion waited until now to be offended. I mean, seriously. Christmas no longer means what people are trying to say it means. If you say Christmas to a random person, is their first thought gonna be birth of Jesus? Doubtful. More than likely, they are going to think of three things: Getting presents, a fat man, and day-after shopping. Christmas has become a commercial tradition. No one really bought for Hannukah en mas, and they get more days for gifts. If we changed the name to Muhhammedmas, you know what people would think of? Getting presents, a fat man, and day-after shopping. We used to have X-mas for offended people, which I always found funny considering the X stood for Xristos, the Greek word for Christ... But back on topic.
There's no real reason to get offended over all of this. I'm Christian, and even I don't think of Christmas as Nativity scenes and Happy McJesus. For goodness sake, the Catholics stole a pagan sun holiday and said Jesus was born then. He was actually born sometime around Easter. And a lot of the traditions we have for Christmas are paganistic too. Mistletoe was a Druidic symbol of love, and kissing under it was a sign of respect. The tree? Not a Christian thing, let me tell you.
Speaking of Easter, who's betting Easter goes next? I mean, we do get school off for it. Poor bunny... he isn't even a Saint, like Nicky boy is. I always liked the chocolate eggs, but the way things are going, it seems like Cadbury will be going out of business in the near future. That is, if people keep getting offended.
So. What's your stance? Is all this Christian reference making you nervous? Should we tie up Santa and burn him at the stake? Or switch the letters of his name around and piss EVERYONE off?
(Me, I'm indifferent to the Under God thing, as I said. I think whining about Christmas is retarded, though.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People might be curious, they might not, but here is how I say the pledge. People seem to be wondering (or maybe I'm misreading) what I do since I don't believe in certain parts. So, when I feel like saying it, here it is:
There you have it, the Loki pledge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra! Extra! Evidence conclusive to the "founded on Christianity" argument!
There you have it. The treaty, by the by, was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Quite early in our history.
This issue was once quite hot on the plate, and probably will be again. Michael Newdow bringing "Under God" back to the Supreme Court is one reason. Happy Holidays replacing Merry Christmas is another reason.
So: Is this a nation Under God? Nope. Was it ever? Nope. For goodness sake, Jefferson was a diest, and Washington cut out every section where Jesus performed miracles from his Bible. So why was it ever put in? Well, in 1954, the Eisenhower administration, freshly into the Cold War, thought it would be a good idea to use scare tactics against the Communists. It was "common knowledge" that the Commies were godless, and what would scare them more than having a nation united under that same God? So, Under God became part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
As part of my government competition, my group had to write an essay about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After reading the four-minute essay, fellow students asked us questions for six minutes. One of the questions brought up, after I stated my personal indifference to the presence of the words being there or not, was: "If the pledge said "under Satan", would you still be indifferent?
Answer? Yes. Why? Because it isn't true. Just as under God isn't true. We are even less under God now than ever. So it isn't true, and I can ignore it as unfactual. Same thing goes for Satan. As for Mr. Newdow's attempt to get rid of it based off of St. Thomas Aquinas's theory on the existance of God, he's being stupid. Basically, Thommy boy said: If one denies the existence of a god, then one must create an image or thought of a god to deny, therefore creating a god and bringing it into existence. If Newdow were right, and merely hearing the words in the Pledge, or seeing the words on money and such, we'd have a bitof trouble. Because, if that theory succeeds, we have a slight problem. Every reference to God would have to be gotten rid of. Including churches. People could not say the name of God. People could not write it down anywhere. The freedoms of religion, speech, and press would collapse, and the nation would fall to anarchy.
Which is why that'll never work well in the long run.
But Mr. Newdow's... enthusiasm? for his cause has brought other non-Christians to speak out! And the target? Christmas.
One thing I don't understand is why everyone of the non-Christian persuasion waited until now to be offended. I mean, seriously. Christmas no longer means what people are trying to say it means. If you say Christmas to a random person, is their first thought gonna be birth of Jesus? Doubtful. More than likely, they are going to think of three things: Getting presents, a fat man, and day-after shopping. Christmas has become a commercial tradition. No one really bought for Hannukah en mas, and they get more days for gifts. If we changed the name to Muhhammedmas, you know what people would think of? Getting presents, a fat man, and day-after shopping. We used to have X-mas for offended people, which I always found funny considering the X stood for Xristos, the Greek word for Christ... But back on topic.
There's no real reason to get offended over all of this. I'm Christian, and even I don't think of Christmas as Nativity scenes and Happy McJesus. For goodness sake, the Catholics stole a pagan sun holiday and said Jesus was born then. He was actually born sometime around Easter. And a lot of the traditions we have for Christmas are paganistic too. Mistletoe was a Druidic symbol of love, and kissing under it was a sign of respect. The tree? Not a Christian thing, let me tell you.
Speaking of Easter, who's betting Easter goes next? I mean, we do get school off for it. Poor bunny... he isn't even a Saint, like Nicky boy is. I always liked the chocolate eggs, but the way things are going, it seems like Cadbury will be going out of business in the near future. That is, if people keep getting offended.
So. What's your stance? Is all this Christian reference making you nervous? Should we tie up Santa and burn him at the stake? Or switch the letters of his name around and piss EVERYONE off?
(Me, I'm indifferent to the Under God thing, as I said. I think whining about Christmas is retarded, though.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People might be curious, they might not, but here is how I say the pledge. People seem to be wondering (or maybe I'm misreading) what I do since I don't believe in certain parts. So, when I feel like saying it, here it is:
I
I pledge alliegance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible.
There you have it, the Loki pledge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra! Extra! Evidence conclusive to the "founded on Christianity" argument!
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...
There you have it. The treaty, by the by, was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Quite early in our history.
