This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

One nation "under God"?

#31JonWood007Posted 9/16/2013 7:51:03 PM
So you would take issue with those values being instilled into your children, correct? Are you incapable of seeing the ****ing irony? Or is it that your values are fine to use to subvert the wishes and rights of parents, but not other views?


I'm for school being about EDUCATION, not INDOCTRINATION. I'm for it teaching the facts in an objective manner and letting students reach their own conclusions. What I'm not for is teaching blatant falsehoods as fact and misleading them.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#32Hustle KongPosted 9/16/2013 7:59:48 PM
I'm for school being about EDUCATION, not INDOCTRINATION.


"Semantics"! You are for the instillation of a very specific worldview. You view this worldview as important enough that it trumps the rights of parents. You are the most sickening sort of hypocrite.

At least be honest about your desires to indoctrinate.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#33IamvegitoPosted 9/16/2013 8:07:49 PM
America thinks it is God, not "under" it.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#34FlashOfLightPosted 9/16/2013 8:53:57 PM
hunter_gohan posted...

You act like the founding fathers put it there. It was put there in the 50s by Christians. The biggest group that did the most work to get it in there was the Knights of Columbus which is the largest Catholic fraternal service organization.


This is why I mentioned the dollar bill as well, in addition to what is being first referred to in the topic about the Pledge of Allegiance, because those who did seek to include those words in the pledge, did so first out of the establishment of similar wording used in the Declaration of Independence when it states in the 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."

That phrase "endowed by their Creator" is where the christians thought it to be a fair extension of reference to their Creator to pursue the phrase "One nation under God" as following that same importance in relation to the nation.

However, as I pointed out, that same Declaration of Independence is void of any specific reference to the christian God, and instead mentions the deistic one, when it states "...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."

To those deists, that's who God was to them, an impersonal God of naturalistic laws, acting in nature. So that collectively answers your statement immediately below, again, not as to the words contained in the pledge, but rather the justification which those who sought those words to be included in there used in their reasoning.

It's frankly nothing but being willfully ignorant to pretend this doesn't refer to the Christian God and wasn't meant to refer to the Christian God by a Christian group opposed to deism and by the Christian ministers who pushed for it.

---
"Ep-pe, pep-pe, kak-ke! Hil-lo, hol-lo, hel-lo! Ziz-zy, zuz-zy, zik!"
#35FlashOfLightPosted 9/16/2013 9:51:47 PM
DarkContractor posted...
Flash where are you getting that modernists oppose 'under God' because of Jesus specifically?


To those to whom it applies of course, via their own commentaries, such as the simple insinuation of such included in their videos when talking about the topic, where they themselves show a picture of christian symbology, to denote their specific rejection of the term being used.

This is just one example from an atheist blogger - http://www.flamewarrior.com/pledge_allegiance.htm

"Occasionally, I find myself in a situation - ball game, political event, graduation - where someone is saying the Pledge of Allegiance. As an American, a Veteran, and an Atheist, I cannot and will not say the religious oath which has supplanted the original secular pledge.

When it gets to the part about the christian deity, I say loudly and clearly:

"One nation, under the Constitution!"
----

A Huffington Post article about a girl student who refused to say the pledge, according to her -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/pledge-allegiance-atheism_n_1581568.html

"“That’s the beauty of America — that you don’t have to follow the same religion the majority does,

----

In this short 2 minute video, about Democrat Babette Josephs, about her refusing to say the pledge because it includes the words "under God" because to her that is seen as a prayer, she says about it at 1:23-1:29 "Especially, if you're in elective office, and invoking the name of God all the time - to me, that is the height of hypocrisy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nih6LLaCbm8

So she, likewise, is misinformed, the deistic god has no name, but in her own mind the god being invoked is that of the christians alone, and yet, no where is it heard in the pledge "one nation under Jesus Christ".

As I said, the deists that are all over positions of power would never have allowed the name of a specific god to be named or mentioned in anything that would have to get a national declaration where a definite god is recognized.

Ethan Allen, who was an early American Revolutionary, and closet deist, wrote a book titled "Reason: the Only Oracle of Man" In it says, about HIS God -

"From this theological way of arguing on the creation and providence of God, it appears that the whole, which we denominate by the term nature, which is the same as creation perfectly regulated, was eternally connected together by the creator to answer the same all glorious purpose, to wit: the display of the divine nature,

the consequences of which are existence and happiness to beings in general, so that creation, with all its productions operates according to the laws of nature, and is sustained by the self-existent eternal cause, in perfect older and decorum, agreeable to the eternal wisdom, unalterable rectitude, impartial justice, and immense goodness of the divine nature, which is a summary of God's providence."

<- Which is the same thing I am mentioning that the Declaration of Independence cites, the deistic God, having nothing to do with christianity. What did Allen think of christians? -

Continuing...
---
"Ep-pe, pep-pe, kak-ke! Hil-lo, hol-lo, hel-lo! Ziz-zy, zuz-zy, zik!"
#36FlashOfLightPosted 9/16/2013 9:52:54 PM
Allen...

"The Christians call the Mahometans by the odious name of infidels, but the Musslemen, in their opinion, cannot call the Christians by a worse name than that which they have given themselves, they therefore call them Christians.

What has been already observed upon tradition, is sufficient to admonish us of its errors and superstitions, and the prejudices to which a bigoted attachment thereto exposes us, which is abundantly sufficient to excite us to a careful examination of our respective traditions, and not to rest satisfied until we have regulated our faith by reason."

And of himself, Allen said (and why I used the term "closet deist") -

"In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings;

mine will therefore determine the matter; for I have not in the least disguised my sentiments, but have written freely without any conscious knowledge of prejudice for, or against any man, sectary or party whatever; but wish that good sense, truth and virtue may be promoted and flourish in the world, to the detection of delusion, superstition, and false religion; and therefore my errors in the succeeding treatise, which may be rationally pointed out, will be readily rescinded."

So, in short sum, this is the deist mentality prevalent in early America, and without knowing otherwise, one might assume in their ignorance, as Babette Josephs has, that the mere word "God" automatically = the christian God, and therefore the christian religion, but it is nothing more than a fallacy to think so, since deists had no such intention of including a christian depiction of God in their "God of Nature".
---
"Ep-pe, pep-pe, kak-ke! Hil-lo, hol-lo, hel-lo! Ziz-zy, zuz-zy, zik!"
#37Moorish_IdolPosted 9/17/2013 2:51:52 AM(edited)
I want to respond to Flash's last point. This may not be entirely related but… that's a lot to read. I skipped to the end.

The reason people don't see "God" as meaning a deistic god is because the Abrahamic religions, in all their creative genius, decided to name their god "God", with a capital G (modern or otherwise). So it's hard to know whether "God" means god or that God.

That's generally speaking, of course. In regards to the early founders of America, they were undoubtedly deist, but sadly a lot of Christian Americans argue otherwise -- which is really where this whole issue stems from.

Easier to just get rid of it altogether. Also most deists I know aren't in support of having "God" in there, even if it is technically our god, so that should count for something.
#38DarkContractorPosted 9/17/2013 5:38:16 AM
Why did i ask?

tl;dr
#39FlashOfLightPosted 9/17/2013 7:01:48 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
The reason people don't see "God" as meaning a deistic god is because the Abrahamic religions, in all their creative genius, decided to name their god "God", with a capital G (modern or otherwise). So it's hard to know whether "God" means god or that God.


This can be a topic in itself, and has a lot of points to cover, but nevertheless, with all due respect to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, this takes place because certain liberties have been taken over the centuries, and principles of the doctrine of the faith forgotten and abandoned willingly and ignorantly.

Usually, when Christians refer to "God" they take it to mean and include the same one who dealt with Moses all the way up to Jesus Christ.

Jews, of course, hardly recognize Jesus Christ, and Muslims likewise don't hold Jesus Christ to be the promised saviour sent by God.

That being said, the Biblical God warns against this limitation, and instead makes a bold declaration from early on concerning this subject, when asked about the same thing by Moses, he says -

Exod 3:14-15

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

So, Christians and Jews may call him by "The LORD" or "Lord" (and that is a condensed English version of the name "I AM" which some prefer to render as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yah, YHWH, or Jah, as the Rastafarians do) but this in itself is not a universal thing, because Hare Krishnas also call Brahma, the Lord.

Instead, the name that solely and exclusively contains the name of the Biblical God, distinguishing it from any confusion, is that which he expressed right there - I AM, The God of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or in short, the God of Israel.

Now it is evident, of course, that Brahma cannot be called by that name, nor Vishnu, nor Shiva.

So, please forgive me once again if this already got too long, but just to show that from the Bible, to those who may pursue it further:

Isaiah 48:1

"Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness."

Luke 1:68

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,"

Acts 3:13

"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go."

Finally, keeping with the matter at hand, the deistic God has no such address by which he or it is called, except in that it's often accompanied by being the God of the Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God, which is what the Declaration of Independence does not blush about mentioning, but would, if the God worshipped throughout christianity were.
---
"Ep-pe, pep-pe, kak-ke! Hil-lo, hol-lo, hel-lo! Ziz-zy, zuz-zy, zik!"
#40hunter_gohanPosted 9/18/2013 12:41:45 PM
FlashOfLight posted...
This is why I mentioned the dollar bill as well, in addition to what is being first referred to in the topic about the Pledge of Allegiance, because those who did seek to include those words in the pledge, did so first out of the establishment of similar wording used in the Declaration of Independence when it states in the preamble -


The DoI is not a legal document at all pertaining to US law. It's basically a fancy "**** you King George we're gunna rule ourselves" letter. Why do you think they leave any such wording out of the actual legal documents? And why exactly do you think a group opposed to Deism would ever want to honor the Deist god? Nothing but being willfully ignorant at best.

That phrase "endowed by their Creator" is where the christians thought it to be a fair extension of reference to their Creator to pursue the phrase "One nation under God" as following that same importance in relation to the nation.


If it had importance to the nation, and wasn't just one or a few of their opinions, then it would have been included in actual legal documents.

So that collectively answers your statement immediately below, again, not as to the words contained in the pledge, but rather the justification which those who sought those words to be included in there used in their reasoning.


Yes the Deism opposed group sought to incorporate and honor the Deist god some of the founders believed in. Makes perfect sense and is not being willfully ignorant at all.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.