|
Post by general313 on May 2, 2017 0:40:06 GMT
Government is not supposed to support religion with money it has collected in taxes. That's all the "separation of church and state" means. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Not just about money.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 2, 2017 0:47:09 GMT
tpfkar Sure, on Planet Arlon where if you pretend it it is just as good as so. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 2, 2017 0:49:12 GMT
tpfkar Sure, on Planet Arlon where if you pretend it it is just as good as so. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed.Don't underestimate him. He's been known to win arguments with dictionaries and encyclopedias. He might even be able to beat the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 2, 2017 8:36:29 GMT
tpfkar Sure, on Planet Arlon where if you pretend it it is just as good as so. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed.I didn't know you were on the Supreme Court. I'll have to rethink everything now.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on May 2, 2017 8:49:23 GMT
If people still swear on bibles in court rooms before they testify... Aren't there alternatives for non-Christians? I do not know to what extent the Bible is still referenced in European court rooms in general, but in Norway at least, there are no Bibles. We simply say, "I so swear on my honour and conscience."
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on May 2, 2017 9:31:04 GMT
Strange use of the word fact there arlon. I only meant that the words in the pledge of allegiance don't bring any god into existence and don't place the nation under that god. They are not intended to do either of those. Leaving them out will have no effect. They are merely the observation of the limitations of power, that the United States is not the supreme one in the universe. Atheists who have a problem with that prove themselves to be mentally retarded, but of course many of us knew that already. Why wouldn't you have a problem with limiting the powers of your countries to less than that of a being you consider fictional? Try replacing "under God" with "under Kali", "under Cthulhu", "under Allah" or "under Superman", and tell me honestly that you would have zero problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 2, 2017 10:20:46 GMT
For the record, "Under God" wasn't actually added until 1954 to stick it to those Godless commies. Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair tried this years ago and failed. I don't know the reason but suspect that it is even less likely now with the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on May 2, 2017 11:23:27 GMT
lowtacks86
WOW!!! a literalist. WOW!!! Another completely nonsensical Molar post.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 2, 2017 11:39:36 GMT
I only meant that the words in the pledge of allegiance don't bring any god into existence and don't place the nation under that god. They are not intended to do either of those. Leaving them out will have no effect. They are merely the observation of the limitations of power, that the United States is not the supreme one in the universe. Atheists who have a problem with that prove themselves to be mentally retarded, but of course many of us knew that already. Why wouldn't you have a problem with limiting the powers of your countries to less than that of a being you consider fictional? Try replacing "under God" with "under Kali", "under Cthulhu", "under Allah" or "under Superman", and tell me honestly that you would have zero problem with that. The big problem I have with you is your childish concept of a god. It isn't at all the abstract ethical system at the heart of monotheism at all. You have the dull witted, artless, pedestrian view of gods that the ancient Romans had and many Christians even today have. Your opinion on the actual issues is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 2, 2017 11:53:39 GMT
childish concept of a god. It isn't at all the abstract ethical system at the heart of monotheism at all. You have the dull witted, artless, pedestrian view of gods that the ancient Romans had and many Christians even today have. Your opinion on the actual issues is irrelevant. Tell us why believing in one deliberate supernatural entity over several such hosts is necessarily more grown up, Arlon. Have you told this to the Hindus?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 2, 2017 12:50:44 GMT
tpfkar Your make the silly random assertions that a (not trivially) below-average intelligence elderly juvenile who happily shares personal fantasy would. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on May 2, 2017 14:35:12 GMT
Why wouldn't you have a problem with limiting the powers of your countries to less than that of a being you consider fictional? Try replacing "under God" with "under Kali", "under Cthulhu", "under Allah" or "under Superman", and tell me honestly that you would have zero problem with that. The big problem I have with you is your childish concept of a god. It isn't at all the abstract ethical system at the heart of monotheism at all. You have the dull witted, artless, pedestrian view of gods that the ancient Romans had and many Christians even today have. Your opinion on the actual issues is irrelevant. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you are really the one who is lost here. You have no capacity for placing yourself in the shoes of others, and so you automatically think that what's fine with you must be fine with others as well, or there must be something wrong with them. If you cannot wrap your mind around the fact that non-Christians view the Christian God as being as trivial as Cthulhu, Superman, or for that matter Kali and the Islamic concept of Allah, then yours is the opinion which can rightfully be ignored - if you are unable to even approach a common middle ground, but insist on childish insults like accusing people of mental retardation if they don't see things your way, you really have nothing to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on May 2, 2017 16:10:20 GMT
The pledge overall (not just the God part) is kind of pointless. I bet if you ask kids what they're actually pledging to (or what the pledge means), they won't be able to give you a reasonable answer. After awhile, it becomes the memorization of words without any meaning behind them. It would be better to improve History and Civics lessons in our schools.
Sometimes, I have to go to meetings where the adults start the proceedings by reciting the pledge. I roll my eyes every time. Luckily, I don't have to attend these meetings very often.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on May 2, 2017 18:16:02 GMT
To be perfectly frank, as a European, the pledge of allegiance is eerily reminiscent of this: So the Americans might as well still be reciting the oath in this manner without hurting the image significantly more than it already does:
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 2, 2017 19:44:02 GMT
Just a question about The Preamble of the United States:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Does this word "blessing" have any godly connotation?
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on May 2, 2017 20:40:30 GMT
What do you suppose these terms mean: "Nature's God" & "their Creator" Found in the United States Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)! Introduction: " ... to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ..." Preamble: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_IndependenceHmm... did I read that right? " all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator" Sounds to me like our founding fathers were trying to say: "all men are created by God and are equal... and have been given..." Maybe our founding fathers did in fact believe that the United States was to be a nation... "Under God"...
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 2, 2017 20:47:18 GMT
tpfkar Theist hoo-doo. And a lot of disingenuous conflation of people saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" or whatever they feel like doing with government set procedures. It looks like people trying to pollute the government with religious promotion to me. If you don't care, why don't we just go ahead and put back the original motto and leave it to religious people to pursue religion how they choose? I will be the greatest jobs producer that God ever created
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 2, 2017 20:53:13 GMT
What do you suppose these terms mean: "Nature's God" & "their Creator" Found in the United States Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)! Introduction: " ... to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ..." Preamble: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_IndependenceHmm... did I read that right? " all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator" Sounds to me like our founding fathers were trying to say: "all men are created by God and are equal... and have been given..." Maybe our founding fathers did in fact believe that the United States was to be a nation... "Under God"... I already responded to Islandmur on why that's not a good argument. I'm really not too concerned with the founding fathers believed in since they were also slave owners, didn't allow women to vote, pushed the Natives off their land, and other outdated ideas. Don't get me wrong, they had some good ideas and for the most part I do think the Constitution is a good document, but their time has passed, I'm more concerned with what's best for the nation now, not really so much what slave owners from 250 years ago thought was best. I believe one of them (Jefferson?) even said the Constitution should be revised every 20 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 2, 2017 20:55:08 GMT
tpfkar You'd think that if they were so hive-minded about it, they might have gotten it into the only founding document that counted in the end, those 11 years later. I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 2, 2017 21:02:18 GMT
Just a question about The Preamble of the United States: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Does this word "blessing" have any godly connotation? I don't really think of blessing as a religious word even when used in a religious context.
I tend to look at it as being a gift or benefit of some sort
|
|