|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:25 pm
Just because christianity represents some people doesn't mean a pledge which is supposed to speak for everyone should invoke God's name. If anything, the people put God in the pledge are following the tradition of injecting christianity into things. Stuff like naming their god "god", prayer into schools, christianity being harmful to vampires, that sort of thing.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:45 am
Omnileech Just because christianity represents some people doesn't mean a pledge which is supposed to speak for everyone should invoke God's name. If anything, the people put God in the pledge are following the tradition of injecting christianity into things. Stuff like naming their god "god", prayer into schools, christianity being harmful to vampires, that sort of thing. just because the pledge has the word “god” in it does not mean it is attempting to invoke a deity. The pledge in many respects has become a symbolic emblem of America. And the phrase ”under god” is another example of that. It was not a religious symbol when it was put in, but others are trying to turn it into such. the people who put “under god” in the pledge were not following any religious tradition, period. There is no religious tradition for this. They used new reasons of logic and history to place in the pledge a phrase that they believed would remind the American people of the previous separation of the country, and unite them once again. So you can keep your religion and your Christianity speak out of the pledge because in truth it doesn’t have a place there. You are trying to force it unto the pledge, and many gullible people, or those who are ignorant to all the facts agree with you. (and are you saying that kids shouldn’t be able to read Dracula in school?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:59 am
Vampiric legends once weren't harmed by holy crosses until the church decided that they should be and altered the legends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:35 pm
Omnileech Vampiric legends once weren't harmed by holy crosses until the church decided that they should be and altered the legends. yes, basically before catholic perversion they were the beast like creatures of the film nosfuratu who were pale, died in the sun, hated garlic and running water, (depending upon which legend is their particular strengths and weaknesses) and they feed upon the blood of others. Not all the legends even had them as immortal. Some had them able to live full lives in the sun, and take on a new husband or bride and then die again. Some had them only as foxes others as unearthly creations. Some were detected by missing or even animal like appendages from birth. However, more of the eastern vampires were literally inhuman creatures who were either created by deities and spirits, or were inhumane creatures cursed to earth for failing to observe burial rights, or keeping the possessions of the recently deceased. And they usually only lived for a short time. Unless of course they were a god like incarnation which would suck on the entrails of the living, or raise the dead into ghouls who attacked the living. The book that really canonized vampiric lore and legend for the Westerners was Dracula by Bram Stoker, which is why I asked should teachers not be allowed to assign this book, or have it in their libraries. Does that offend your anti-religious sensibilities too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:12 pm
No, it doesn't. There's a difference between pledging loyalty under the name of a diety and reading a signifigant book in the literary world. Like when I took a class about the history of christianity I had to read some sections of the bible for the class to make more sense. Nothing wrong with that if you're approaching it the right way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:28 pm
Omnileech No, it doesn't. There's a difference between pledging loyalty under the name of a diety and reading a signifigant book in the literary world. Like when I took a class about the history of christianity I had to read some sections of the bible for the class to make more sense. Nothing wrong with that if you're approaching it the right way. You are not pledging loyalty under the name of a diety. You are pledging your alligience to the flag of the United States and the republic for which that flag stands. And there is nothing wrong with the actual pledge. You just try and approach it from a stance that it is wrong. Much like you understood that those things were not supporting a religion, neither does the pledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:53 am
dartalian Omnileech No, it doesn't. There's a difference between pledging loyalty under the name of a diety and reading a signifigant book in the literary world. Like when I took a class about the history of christianity I had to read some sections of the bible for the class to make more sense. Nothing wrong with that if you're approaching it the right way. You are not pledging loyalty under the name of a diety. You are pledging your alligience to the flag of the United States and the republic for which that flag stands. And there is nothing wrong with the actual pledge. You just try and approach it from a stance that it is wrong. Much like you understood that those things were not supporting a religion, neither does the pledge. The American Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which The United States of America stands. The United States of America is one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
And, now, (drumroll please), is a direct quote from President Eisenhower on the issue:
"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 and war."
How in the hell can anyone in their right mind say that "under God" isn't about religion? There's a quote by the President who approved the change, clearly stating its religious connotation!
Source on the quote: http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:59 am
Son of Axeman dartalian Omnileech No, it doesn't. There's a difference between pledging loyalty under the name of a diety and reading a signifigant book in the literary world. Like when I took a class about the history of christianity I had to read some sections of the bible for the class to make more sense. Nothing wrong with that if you're approaching it the right way. You are not pledging loyalty under the name of a diety. You are pledging your alligience to the flag of the United States and the republic for which that flag stands. And there is nothing wrong with the actual pledge. You just try and approach it from a stance that it is wrong. Much like you understood that those things were not supporting a religion, neither does the pledge. The American Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which The United States of America stands. The United States of America is one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
And, now, (drumroll please), is a direct quote from President Eisenhower on the issue:
"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 and war."
How in the hell can anyone in their right mind say that "under God" isn't about religion? There's a quote by the President who approved the change, clearly stating its religious connotation!
Source on the quote: http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.htmlYet again, there is nothing wrong the pledge in that manner... the issue is where it is... at school, no... otherwise, it is ok to be in that manner as it is not official in any manner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:09 am
Son of Axeman dartalian Omnileech No, it doesn't. There's a difference between pledging loyalty under the name of a diety and reading a signifigant book in the literary world. Like when I took a class about the history of christianity I had to read some sections of the bible for the class to make more sense. Nothing wrong with that if you're approaching it the right way. You are not pledging loyalty under the name of a diety. You are pledging your alligience to the flag of the United States and the republic for which that flag stands. And there is nothing wrong with the actual pledge. You just try and approach it from a stance that it is wrong. Much like you understood that those things were not supporting a religion, neither does the pledge. The American Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which The United States of America stands. The United States of America is one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
And, now, (drumroll please), is a direct quote from President Eisenhower on the issue:
"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 and war."
How in the hell can anyone in their right mind say that "under God" isn't about religion? There's a quote by the President who approved the change, clearly stating its religious connotation!
Source on the quote: http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.htmlOk, first, presidents don’t make law, or maybe you need to go back to government classes and learn that. (on second thought you probably took an American education so that might not be all that good. Try reading a American government book to learn about separation of powers in the American governmental system.) As I stated before, and posted from the supreme court decisions on the topic, the people who put the phrase in did not put that as a reason for it being there. Just because a politician wishes to use it for political spin and make himself look better, does not change the reason it was put there. Credit has been given to the knights of Columbus, who failed actually in getting theirs passed, and to Eisenhower who signed it into law. Just because he used it in a political speech does not change its meaning. (he is a politician and trying to win votes after all). One could just as easily take out of context the in the year of our lord in the constitution to prove that we are a monotheistic, or even Christian nation. As for your remaking of the pledge, it doesn’t change anything. In fact the second half attempts to describe the republic of the United States. And I already tried to go into what the under God in the pledge actually represents. Given the time the original pledge of allegiance was written, and when the renewed need to reunite the country, it is not unreasonable the phrase they choose, considering where it came from, and the significance it had then, and has now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:07 pm
Heres a point of a view for yeah.....
The founding fathers where christian,so they would put that in there.....
Idk,I just thought of that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:49 am
dartalian Son of Axeman dartalian Omnileech No, it doesn't. There's a difference between pledging loyalty under the name of a diety and reading a signifigant book in the literary world. Like when I took a class about the history of christianity I had to read some sections of the bible for the class to make more sense. Nothing wrong with that if you're approaching it the right way. You are not pledging loyalty under the name of a diety. You are pledging your alligience to the flag of the United States and the republic for which that flag stands. And there is nothing wrong with the actual pledge. You just try and approach it from a stance that it is wrong. Much like you understood that those things were not supporting a religion, neither does the pledge. The American Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which The United States of America stands. The United States of America is one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
And, now, (drumroll please), is a direct quote from President Eisenhower on the issue:
"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 and war."
How in the hell can anyone in their right mind say that "under God" isn't about religion? There's a quote by the President who approved the change, clearly stating its religious connotation!
Source on the quote: http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.htmlOk, first, presidents don’t make law, or maybe you need to go back to government classes and learn that. (on second thought you probably took an American education so that might not be all that good. Try reading a American government book to learn about separation of powers in the American governmental system.) As I stated before, and posted from the supreme court decisions on the topic, the people who put the phrase in did not put that as a reason for it being there. Just because a politician wishes to use it for political spin and make himself look better, does not change the reason it was put there. Credit has been given to the knights of Columbus, who failed actually in getting theirs passed, and to Eisenhower who signed it into law. Just because he used it in a political speech does not change its meaning. (he is a politician and trying to win votes after all). One could just as easily take out of context the in the year of our lord in the constitution to prove that we are a monotheistic, or even Christian nation. As for your remaking of the pledge, it doesn’t change anything. In fact the second half attempts to describe the republic of the United States. And I already tried to go into what the under God in the pledge actually represents. Given the time the original pledge of allegiance was written, and when the renewed need to reunite the country, it is not unreasonable the phrase they choose, considering where it came from, and the significance it had then, and has now. Presidents don't make law eh? Explain to me Executive Order 9066 then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:53 am
Omnileech dartalian Son of Axeman dartalian Omnileech No, it doesn't. There's a difference between pledging loyalty under the name of a diety and reading a signifigant book in the literary world. Like when I took a class about the history of christianity I had to read some sections of the bible for the class to make more sense. Nothing wrong with that if you're approaching it the right way. You are not pledging loyalty under the name of a diety. You are pledging your alligience to the flag of the United States and the republic for which that flag stands. And there is nothing wrong with the actual pledge. You just try and approach it from a stance that it is wrong. Much like you understood that those things were not supporting a religion, neither does the pledge. The American Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which The United States of America stands. The United States of America is one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
And, now, (drumroll please), is a direct quote from President Eisenhower on the issue:
"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 and war."
How in the hell can anyone in their right mind say that "under God" isn't about religion? There's a quote by the President who approved the change, clearly stating its religious connotation!
Source on the quote: http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.htmlOk, first, presidents don’t make law, or maybe you need to go back to government classes and learn that. (on second thought you probably took an American education so that might not be all that good. Try reading a American government book to learn about separation of powers in the American governmental system.) As I stated before, and posted from the supreme court decisions on the topic, the people who put the phrase in did not put that as a reason for it being there. Just because a politician wishes to use it for political spin and make himself look better, does not change the reason it was put there. Credit has been given to the knights of Columbus, who failed actually in getting theirs passed, and to Eisenhower who signed it into law. Just because he used it in a political speech does not change its meaning. (he is a politician and trying to win votes after all). One could just as easily take out of context the in the year of our lord in the constitution to prove that we are a monotheistic, or even Christian nation. As for your remaking of the pledge, it doesn’t change anything. In fact the second half attempts to describe the republic of the United States. And I already tried to go into what the under God in the pledge actually represents. Given the time the original pledge of allegiance was written, and when the renewed need to reunite the country, it is not unreasonable the phrase they choose, considering where it came from, and the significance it had then, and has now. Presidents don't make law eh? Explain to me Executive Order 9066 then. an order deals ONLY WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCh laws are universal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:52 am
*cough cough* Without Presidential approval, it's damningly hard to make a law. And when a President specifically lobbies for a certain law, we often say it's his law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:04 pm
linaloki *cough cough* Without Presidential approval, it's damningly hard to make a law. And when a President specifically lobbies for a certain law, we often say it's his law. true topas a law withou presidetal approval is dfficlt, if he vetos, but not impossibe, and has been done. And when he lobbies for a law, and drafts the legeslation, many give him credt, although he still has to have the congress pass it, and sometimes, they don'.And when they do, It is still congress passing the law, and making decisions on that law(put this in here, that there, etc). Special intrests do the same thing that the presedent does, does that mean that banks create laws(recent revision of bankruptcy statutes)? But this question is mute to the current discussion since the president in question neither helped create nor really lobbied for the law that was made, he just signed it into being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:26 pm
I haven't read through all 13 pages of this thread, so I don't know if anyone has posted this already. I found it interesting, so I'm posting it here. It's a little bit about the history of the Pledge and how the phrase "under God" ended up in it. http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
