According To The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals, God Is "Patriotic" And No Longer "Religious"
Oh, I'm sure He will be so pleased to know that He's not really a religious symbol:
The San Francisco Appeals court has ruled that "Under God" is not a prayer when used in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, the court declared that the phrase was unconstitutional. The new 2-1 ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals states it is a "recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights [...] Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect."
In a separate 3-0 ruling, the "In God We Trust" was also found to be non-religious; the motto is patriotic and ceremonial.
The ruling itself is not so much an issue with me; I don't have a problem with saying "under God". But I do have an issue with Judge Carlos Bea's reasoning in his decision:
Bea wrote that the pledge is indeed a patriotic exercise, and the words "under God" must be viewed in that context.
"The pledge reflects many beliefs held by the founding fathers of this country -- the same men who authored the Establishment Clause -- including the belief that it is the people who should and do hold the power, not the government," Bea wrote. "They believed that the people derive their most important rights, not from the government, but from God."
Hold on there. Before one starts invoking "the Founding Fathers" in justifying the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, one might actually to do research into the Pledge. Like the fact that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the Pledge. It was written in 1892 (more than a 100 years after the founding of the country) by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy. It's a little disingenuous to claim the Founding Fathers as the authority on this, since none were alive when the pledge came to be. As it was originally written, it hardly had the patriotic or religious fervor that Bea ascribed:
I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.(ref. Wikipedia)
It has gone through four iterations before coming to its current state. The phrase "under God" wasn't added, as many of you know, until 1954, and only then as some sort of strange pre-emptive move against communism, as if making schoolchildren say those words inoculated them against communist sympathies.
As for the Founding Fathers' endorsement of the rights of Americans are derived from God, well, that's a disputable statement as well.
The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.
The Declaration of Independence is seen as that document that established the new nation of the United States. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It was signed by the Continental Congress and sent to King George III of England. It is a very eloquent document that is celebrated every July 4th, but it is not the law of the land. It is a statement of sentiments directed to King George III in reaction to unfair taxation. The U.S. Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789 -- thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator:"
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.
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a sovereign being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.
I'm sure it's not a surprise that Judge Carlos Bea is a Bush appointee to the 9th Circuit. That he was joined in his decision by Judge Dorothy Nelson was surprising, as she normally tends to rule with Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the lone dissenter (his 133-page dissent [.pdf--dissent begins on page 61] should tell you how strongly he felt about this). However, a former clerk for Judge Reinhardt suggests that she may have been nervous about the ramifications of siding with Reinhardt:
"She's a conciliator. She's not a bomb thrower," Hastings College of the Law professor Rory Little said of Nelson, who was dean of the University of Southern California Law School before she joined the court.
Adds (former Reinhardt clerk and current Stanford Law School professor Michele) Dauber: "It doesn't take a brain surgeon -- or a professor at Stanford -- to think Judge Nelson doesn't want Glenn Beck giving out her home address so people can go picket her house."
God is a higher being, whatever we believe. If someone wants to argue the issue, go to the ocean and watch for five minutes and then tell me how some man created that spectacular view. Something more powerful than man was involved and it has nothing to do with religion.
The ocean? Really? You mean finding beauty in something as natural as the chaotic motion of water molecules when they meet resistance in a rocky shoreline is proof of a higher being?
I'd say it's proof that you WISH for there to be a higher being to explain your need for answers to things you can't explain.
Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, give a man religion and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
Religion is the opiate of the people.
Nicely put.
I see what you are trying to say but this is a huge issue - this is just another step to remove the separation of Church and State and that is very dangerous. Hell, I don't think there is anything more dangerous then religion just look at all the harm it has caused since man created God in his own image and likeness.
I just wish people would stop with the invisible friend and take responsibility for their own lives. I wouldn't even care if religious idiots didn't want to bring their bullshit god into my life! I would be happy to live by the golden rule that if they leave me alone I would leave them alone.
But for religious people they just feel they have to corrupt everyone with thier bullshit and I for one will never fall victum to that crap! - & please keep it out of my government.
If it is truely whatever each person believes then why not say "One national under our higher power" or something like that, it's still nonsense but at least it keeps god out!
Religion is for the weak and scared. They are afraid of what's around the corner and need some comfort from that fear so they made up a god and then murdered people if you did not believe. If you want to really be afraid of something look into the history of religion and all the death it has caused
is intended to be a factual statement
there have been plenty of strong and courageous people who were religious. Dorothy Day comes to mind. What is fair to say, however, is that religion is for those who want it. They should leave people who don't want it alone.
Daniel Barrigan, Martin Luther King, the idea that all religious people are weak and stupid is as ignorant and fundamentalist as the most fundamentalist christian
I agree they are not stupid, delusional, but not stupid.
When you have God on your side, you have the power to move people regardless of merit.
One does not need religion to do good or bad, that's where the free will comes in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
True Christians should not ask if the bible is moral, or if God is moral. If God is the source of morality, then asking if God is moral is like asking if goodness is good. To ask seriously if God or the bible is moral (with a possible negative answer) is to assume that "moral" means something apart from God, and that we already know what it means independently of the bible.
If the word "moral" has meaning by itself, then right and wrong can be understood apart from God, and judging the morality of God puts him under the jurisdiction of a higher level of criticism. This is true even if the judgment is favorable. To the believer, questioning the morality of God is blasphemy. It implies that the "supreme judge" can be judged.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
as a statement that atheists such as myself are somehow un-Patriotic.
You talk about all the harm that religion has brought. It is not religion that has brought this harm but rather people who cannot live with someone else believing something different than they so they rain violence down on those who appose them. Religion had nothing to do with this other than acting as the excuse.
One nation under God... God does not specifically mean the Christian God, the one true God, Allah, Yahweh or any of that. It is all of them because it is all one in the same otherwise it would be the name of any one of the specific names that have been used for the various Gods. i.e. One nation under "some specific gods name here" which it does not say. It is referring to the individuals higher power. If you don't have one or don't wish to say those words in the pledge then there is no law here that says you are required to say the words. Don't say them, it is that simple. If you have issue with it being said though then you have probably awoke on the wrong shores and you should seriously contemplate turning around and heading back to familiar territory because you are sure to be unhappy here.
I always find it amusing when anti-religion types spill their anti-religion bullshit out of their faces trying to infect believers with their lack thereof. If you truly mean what you say and you would be happy to live by that golden rule of leave me alone and I'll leave you alone why do you not live by example and practice what you preach.
On another note, if you have issue with the word God, a few things it could translate to for you are. Giver of days, Grand old dad, Guardian of dimensions, giver of death. whatever. it is just a word that means something different for everyone and for people to flip out over it is like flipping out over the word dog because that spells god backwards.
No, the "God" in the Pledge is SPECIFICALLY the Christian God. Sorry. Ever heard of the Knights of Columbia? They added "under God" to the Pledge, and lobbied Congress to do so. It was the specific work of a CATHOLIC organization to get "God" in the Pledge. And they weren't talking about Allah or Vishnu. Also, "God" was added specifically to fight the "atheistic" communist threat.
I'm sorry you are so flippant about separation of church and state and the rights of the individual NOT to have "God" forced upon them.
There's also the distinction of God being capitalized as if it were a proper name.
That's as distinguished from Allah or G-d.
It also distinguishes a generalized form of belief so it wouldn't necessarily offend sectarians, but possibly those who choose to have no such belief.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
OK, you defend the late inclusion of a viral delusion into a phrase required by schoolchildren, daily, by complaining that others are trying to fulfill an agenda. That is quite comical. We are a secular nation. The Constitution is a unique document, as it was the only document of laws of any nation that gave power to the people, not lords, not gods, not kings, and not masters, but, We the People.
The Founders, with their faults, knew one thing that history has borne out repeatedly: Theocracies don't work. Christianity has 38,000 different sects (http://www.sltrib.com/2001/May/05192001/Satur...). The resultant holy war in this country as each sect fought for supremacy to use their specific version of the "one true word" would be devastating and the death knell of Christianity in this country. The egotism inherent in the dogma, where each adherent creates a god in his own image, a god that curiously agrees with him on everything, is stultifying to the extreme. The only reason Christianity has flourished in this country while it dies slowly everywhere else is the First Amendment, so each sect and schism is free to celebrate their own version of lunacy.
I'd love to be able to leave the religionista alone, but the continual inculcation of their specious, immoral dogma of Substitutionary Atonement, genocide, torture, slavery, infanticide, murder, incest, and mayhem into every aspect of a secular, rational, moral society is alarming, disgusting, and needs to be fought at every turn.
Ironically, those that most declare this a Christian nation, citing the Argumentum ad Populum of sheer numbers don't even consider Catholics as Christians. Remove that 42 percent of the 85 percent that claim Christianity, and Christians no longer enjoy the tyranny of the majority. What's even funnier is that Christians are so ignorant of the origins and canon of their dogma that they are not cognizant that without Catholicism, there would be none of the other schisms. Ultra right wing Born Agains don't know that their schism comes from Chuck Colson and the hippie Jesus Freaks of the 60s. So, we get David Barton manufacturing Founder's quotes, and when caught, claims, well, that's what they would have said. What a revolting development. Flintstones in a Jetson's world.
Maybe there is no creator. Many it is a mass projection by delusional beings, so delusional that they have to kill thousands, millions of each other, to prove their God is better than your Allah. Or vice versa.
Theists make me sick. Simpletons all.
As with a lot of things, the loud and obnoxious members of a group drown out the quiet, peaceful ones. Not every religious person is out to try to kill you or trying to make government nonsecular, or take away rights from others.
It's just sad that they're lumped in with the crazies.
What's sad is that some theists think they're beliefs are less dangerous than the loud assholes, because they're not loud assholes. I don't care if you are loud or diplomatic about your whacked out society crippling beliefs. Either way you're allowing your thoughts and opinions to be guided by 2,000 year old bureaucrats.
Right. I agree. People who privately think that are dangerous also. But like I said, not every person who believes in a God or Gods thinks that people shouldn't have health care, or that gay people should be stoned, or that Obama is the anti-christ, or think that the government should be a Theocracy, or are bible fundamentalists, or any other entry from the grand list of right wing conservative talking points.
I know you're not meaning to say that someone who happens to believe in God as well as believes that people should treat others respectfully and help one another is dangerous, but it sounds it.
Edit: I probably shouldn't argue about this. I never can seem to quite express what I'm trying to say.
Your polite response to my unnecessarily vicious attack is truly Christian, in the best sense of the word. I know that most theists are good people who use their faith to organize and express their highest notions of love, peace and community.
I just wish with all my will that that would not be wasted on an exercise that in the final analysis only empowers the very worst of Christians to have a huge impact on the public dialog, and marginalizes the good ones as insufficiently devout, and therefore not qualified to speak for the faithful.
I'm with you 100%.
I didn't think your response was vicious either, so don't worry. :)
if they as whole wouldn't continue fucking up the human condition we probably would find something good about them.
As for this decision...I rest my case.
If you believe that: snakes talk, corpses rise from the dead, the universe is 6000 years old, humans lived with dinosaurs, a woman can be impregnated by cloud beings, noah collected all living creatures and put them in a boat, humans were created out of thin air and are not descended from other life forms, etc. then you're crazy!
Their homeworld was a place called Earth, located in an uninteresting part of the galaxy. They had an expression: pride goeth before a fall. Their pride was their undoing. I know. I was there....They did not listen, of course. Arrogant men never do.
But then you would be allowing the part to speak for the whole
Thus giving the fundies the authority they crave to define what religion is.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Fundies already speak for the whole. There is no public face of moderate faith.
Who says I have any faith?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
What? Were we talking about you?
..what about the Crusades...or the Inquisition?
Both had the support of the "quiet, peaceful" religious types that you delude yourself into thinking you are.
Religion = insanity. And no amount of deceptions will change that.
That's because religion WAS identified with the State, what we're trying to avoid, and the subject of this thread.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
..but there are still people here who seem to think there's still some "value" in religion when there isn't.
By which I mean this thread and others, not on Faux Noise or Dobson's cult or whereever.
The value is for the individual to decide, not an All-Powerful State.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
..but we live in world where religious belief trumps "individual" thought every day. And the only way to stop that is to stop "religious" worship altogether.
Right now I'm not concerned about the world, but the United States, otherwise you're arguing a tu quoque and false dilemma.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
..is not the only ones who have the "religious" problems, in case you haven't noticed.
But those other countries aren't the subject of the thread.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
There is a very real dilemma. Magical thinking in general, and religion in particular allows otherwise reasonable people to deny the country is in any trouble, or that its someone else's fault. This has led to society paralyzed by competing concepts of reality.
Nobody is advocating that the big bad government should tell people what to think. But it is the responsibility of government to advocate educational standards are driven by science and fact. In the light of fearless education religion would shrivel and die by the weight of its own ludicrousness.
Back in the 60's Time Magazine asked the question "Is God Dead?" now nearly 50 years later we're still awaiting the answer.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And we live in a country where a parent's religious beliefs can actually kill their children when those parents insist on relying on prayer only.
Those children never get a chance to make a choice as to whether or not they want to partake in their parent's delusions. To me, that's a form a child abuse.
What we can do as a society is make childhood indoctrination illegal. Children will believe whatever you tell them. Something as integral to life as what to believe about the world is to important an idea to allow children to be manipulated into a position. Religious instruction and attendance should be for adults only.
Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) is a non-profit national membership organization established in 1983 to protect children from abusive religious and cultural practices
Study the symptoms not the virus...
There is value in Religion? Perhaps some, but I know there is value in the teachings of the masters the religions are based on. This is completely different from what has been described here on this forum as religion. What people have been describing here are Cults.
If you read the great teachers; Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Krishna, and others, Even Muhammad. What you find is that they all were saying the same things. Love each other, don't hold grudges, be kind to people. Live in the now. Don't hold on to the past or worry about the future, etc.
Whether or not there is a universal intelligence which has a master plan so to speak is a completely different subject. These Masters were trying to teach about personal peace and happiness. They were not concerned with a God. They were concerned with the quality of individual’s lives here and now.
Cults like the Jesus death cult which was created by the Roman empire to control their citizenry and which have multiplied into various sects over the years, are still vehicles for control just like the original Roman version
Did I say I was religious or believed in God? Please don't assume.
And I'd say someone who supported the Crusades or Inquisition isn't exactly a peaceful or peace loving person. It sounds more of the type of person we're trying to avoid here.
..that you tried to defend religion as a whole is proof enough.
So does defending something mean you're a member of that group?
..that you subscribe to the basic tenets of religious worship. Which in itself is wrong.
If you defend a witch you get accused of witchcraft...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I guess SavageWinston agrees with lizard chainey about the DOJ 7, regarding who they defend.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
..agree with that idiot on anything.
In fact, I believe in the opposite..there is not God or gods. No one tells me what I can or can't do. And I don't use guns for anything.
However, her argument is that if you defend terrorists, you are a terrorist; which we could reword to reflect your view, that if you defend religion, than you are religious.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It's kind of like on the Dallas Morning News blog when the thread is religion, and I go into the history of church councils, heresies, slaughters, or comparative religion, mythology, or explainthat there is no basis for believing our brains are "hardwired" for religion (beyond a basic desire for causality), I'm accused of atheism.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Additionally what he's trying to do is impose a belief system on a subject not of belief (rationality and experential), making him little different from the fundies, and actually aiding them.
If the government can impose one belief, they can impose another, just because of elections won or lost. We don't want that to be a political football.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
..on anyone. I'm trying to say that religion is a crutch and that anyone who says otherwise is dangerous.
Sun, 03/14/2010 - 10:13 — Savagewinston
..but we live in world where religious belief trumps "individual" thought every day. And the only way to stop that is to stop "religious" worship altogether.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
?
I agree. I don't think government should be able to blur the lines of secularism.
That's why I am a secularist.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Until the quiet ones rise up against those that are, they will continually be lumped together. The true indictment of your dogma is that, not matter how revolting Fred Phelps is, he is the most honest of what the immoral Bible actually contains. That should send your alleged silent majority screaming into the 21st Century.
The problem is, some groups have co-opted God, so God is entirely theirs. They invented God, so all references to God are to their God, and thus affirm the supremacy of their One True Faith.
Personally, I'm also a theist and believe that there is a "nudging" higher power. I've also been told by "those people" (I dislike that phrase, but it fits) that I'm an atheist because I don't worship the "real" God (theirs), and therefore don't really believe in God because I'm not Christian. I was actually last told this by a co-worker at work.
Hey Mike.K. it's OK with me if people want to believe and the only real issue I have is that they project it outward when it should be an enterly internal process. If your belief helps you that would be fine but the people you are speaking of don't want help in their own personal lives as much as they just want a reason to bitch about everyone elses.
So my message to religious people is this - believe! believe with all your heart! believe in the flying speghetti monster or that Elvis lives in your toaster or whatever. - Just please leave the rest of us out of it.
*sorry Mike, this wasn't all directed at you, but once I got going I couldn't stop myself.
I think religion should be taken with a bit of intelligence and maturity, and viewed like art or philosophy. I believe its importance is in how it helps a person to grow. Personally, I also believe that people gravitate to the religious / spiritual ideas most appropriate to them (including atheism), and feel trying to interfere is wrong.
I also think that is sadly far beyond the grasp of many of the fundamentalists trying to turn us into Jesusland (TM) of One True Christiands (TM)(R)(C)(PP).
"I believe its importance is in how it helps a person to grow."
It does the absolute opposite. It keeps you a child emotionally, holding over your head a big daddy, always judging and castigating you. True growth as a human being requires that you grow up and take responsibility for yourself and your society. Believing in God makes if far to easy to deflect responsibility for the society WE have created.
Atheism is NOT a religious/spiritual idea. It is the absence of one.
Actually, I'm Wiccan. The "judging and castigating" thing I find to be utter bullsh*t. That's not my belief. My belief does not have redemption, salvation, or anything else I see as a carrot to dangle in front of sheep, so please don't say I'm developmentally stunted because those fundamentalists will not grow up. Their behavior disgusts me for the same reasons as you, even more so because they are abusing something I respect.
Second, take the comment about atheism in context. I think that's the path some people take. That's their path in terms of spiritual belief: that there is none. What that means is that *for me*, someone's atheism is their path, and not mine to judge or change, or even care about. The meaning of the statement was, "It's not my place to judge your non-/beliefs." I don't see how that's a bad thing for you, or makes me immature.
The best part of your belief Mike is that I have never heard of anything that people would say "hold it, you can't do that because it is disrespectful of the Wiccans" - and I have never had anyone who believes in Wicca to try to medal in my life.
So I would say for all the bat-shit crazy beliefs out there at least your's is not a burdon to anyone else.
Meddle.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Frankly I'm a little put off if someone tries to set me on fire...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
these same people also own the flag, don't you know. I live in the south and work with evangelicals, who are quite nice in most ways except for their incredible disdain for gay waiters and their refusal to recycle a simple plastic water bottle. I can see why Jesus likes them better.
He's absolutely right. If you don't believe every word of the bible as written than you are not a christian. You are some other thing of your own manufacture, which makes you equally insane.
Yeah, good thing we’re not pledging allegiance to GOD, just a colorful piece of cloth.
At least the colorful piece of cloth is something tangible...that actually exists! This God nonsense - I guess if we as a country wanted to be honest we would have our children say "One nation...under nothing"
But honesty is the kryptonite of religion.
At the risk of ignoring the warnings about applying religion to logic, the whole god/pledge thing is pretty funny when you think about it:
These folks want to invoke "god" in pledging allegiance to a flag. Wouldn't the flag be considered an "idol"? Didn't "god" have a commandment prohibiting them from worshipping such things? So, they are invoking his name to perform an act that he has specifically prohibited? (The same could be said for money with god's name on it, but I'm not aware of a Pledge of Allegiance to the dollar...yet)
Ow, my head hurts!
to protect him from the wet grass. Of course, I have in mind the Crash Test Dummies' wonderfully human song 'God Shuffled His Feet'
is to One Nation, Under Dog...
and I'm comfortable that God understands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw70E71G8Z8&fe...
http://www.bibleprophecyupdate.com/wp-content...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
You want to believe that there is a god, so you make things up to justify your beliefs.
God might be an alien. Think about that. Aliens have the same ranking as "god" does. OK so you believe in a big sky fairy. That is your business, but not mine.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
...insect aliens.
What if men (or women for that matter) traveled back in time with technology we don't know about yet and made the ocean? As long as we're just speculating about the unknown how do you know I didn't come back from the future millions of years ago and make the ocean. Maybe an alien race of insect people made the ocean. Why not say Gods? How do you know there is only one? Maybe god is not a higher being but dumb as a brick but just happens to have a knack for creating things. I asked the ocean but it didn't say anything I could perceive as language so I didn't think it made a very good argument. You are right that it is currently a non-Issue. It's like trying to guess what is in my hand right now without any other information. It is the unknown at the moment so why bother except to trick yourself into not being so scared of reality and the inherent ignorance that comes with being at this point in time.
It is an issue, because the framers intent was to keep the government from supporting any one single belief. I for one do not believe the beautiful oceans, the earth, and the rest of the wonders of the universe were "created" by anything other than random chance. I'm sure you wouldn't want my beliefs to be the law of the land - even though it makes more sense than believing in a mythical being. One's religion is a personal belief and should not be imposed on the anyone else. Ruling that "god" is a "patriotic exercise," says that the State supports and has preference for one belief - going against the framers wisdom.
Here I thought is was the whole Ice Age thingy.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
There is no God. There is no Zeus, Aphrodite, Thor, Mithra, Apollo and a host of other gods worshiped and feared virtually since man couldn't explain his world around him and/or could be scared. No gods. None. Harry Potter and Peter Pan are made-up characters, with wonderful powers and attributes. They're not real either...
Yes, Virginia, there is a GOD. And like Santa, he only lives within the hearts of men. It is up to man to give meaning and ascribe intent to Him. Look closer at the heart of man, and you will see his God.
Yes, sorry, I left out Santa. Harry Potter, Peter Pan AND Santa are made-up characters, with wonderful powers and attributes. They're not real either. And we will all survive ...
No Virginia, there is no magical being directing the universe, he only lives in the imaginations of desperately lonely men (and women). There is nothing in the hearts of men (and women) but blood, valves and muscle. Look closer at the hearts of man (and woman) and you'll see red and white blood cells, plasma and tissue.
What you are talking about is character. And that is a wholly man-made product.
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about, a wholly man-made product. A mirror. Funny thing about mirrors - they reveal something different for everyone that looks into them.
Truth is a mirror image of reflecting mirrors.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
..and Beer=Windex. (*hic)
That is a defense of insanity. We all see the same thing in the mirror. This nonsense that perception is subjective has no foundation in fact. If it were true there would be no common ground from which we developed language and art and all the other things that depend on our communal reality.
This is so if you define truth with a small t, and within limitations such as our inability to see atoms with the nekkid eyes, but with a capital T it's Truth as a theistic concept, not experiential.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
A defense of insanity? I don’t think so. Not all that is abstract is insane. Some people are more comfortable with very linear thinking as opposed to the abstract. That isn’t wrong (or insane) either, just a perspective.
He's not thinking rationally nor abstractly but lashing out like a fundie.
He's also blurring the distinction between the objective and the perceptive, which can also involve the subjective.
Like when an anorexic girl looks in the mirror and still thinks she's fat.
Or the fat man looks in the mirror and sees muscle.
But that's not to say all is delusion.
When someone is in love roses appear brighter and sweeter in scent, but when they have a broken relationship all they see is the thorns.
But it's still the same rose.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...and jump in!
....Don't worry about the rip tide...Jeebus will save you!
Religion = Keeping people stupid and ignorant for thousands of years.
Cue the Kabuki....
In my neck of the woods we call that creator physics.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
you have no evidence of such foolishness.
If that is your system, go to Haiti and pull out the mutilated corpse of a child crushed by 7 tons of concrete...the culmination of decades of political football tossing of a people and willful neglect for them as human beings.
Then tell me that some thing called god is spectacular.
god is a fraud.
there is still an issue with what you're saying because it assumes creation? No, a man did not create the ocean, but why is it that somebody had to create it? Perhaps it "created" itself. At any rate, whether or not one believes in God, the issue here is whether or not we want "God" to be synonymous with "country." If the country decides to attack a sovereign nation without warrant, then the country is wrong. But if the country "under God" attacks an innocent nation, then it must be God's will in some peoples' minds. In fact, you may remember that George Bush did say that God told him to attack Iraq. The implications are endless. Even people who believe in God should be able to see that the separation of church and state is necessary.
"Looking around" which is essentially what you're saying ("Want proof of God? just look around!") proves only that you can look around.
Nothing we know of requires the existence of any "god" to be explained. Nothing.
Time to grow up.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
Paulist-Christianity is not the sum total of the religious experience.
You're letting your provincialism show.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I haven't uttered those words while pledging to our flag in years. I am loyal to my nation and I don't believe in one god. For me, there are many gods and goddesses and they have absolutely nothing to do with politics or government.
because there is no way to go and cross examine the "inspired authors" of any ancient religion. Much empirical evidence is missing so you have to take it on faith that whatever official text about the God(s) you believe in is truth.
Personally I believe all faiths are wrong, assuming for moment we do pass on into an afterlife, there are going to be a whole lot of astonished people that learn just how wrong they were. But that is my belief. Most people (save those born into it) who find religion do so because they are afraid of the one moment in life they have no control over, death.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
The ocean proves nothing. It was formed by Nature, and nothing else.
That has nothing to do with a pledge. You say it if you want to. I reserve my right as an American, whose ancestors were here and helped found this country, to not ever say it again.
The real meat of this story is in the very last paragraph, a quote which says one of the three judges may have been intimidated by Glenn Beck style reprisals.
Is our judicial system really that compromised by the likes of Beck an Malkin who do not hesitate crossing that line? When are we going to start arresting people for incitement and disturbing the peace when they target people for doing their jobs?
Will someone do an expose on this?
kasinca said:
God is a higher being, whatever we believe.
********
I guess you don't realize how nonlinear your comment is. If I believe there is no god, then how is he a "...higher being, whatever we believe?"
Kinda circuitous.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Federal Judges that actually knew the history of this country. It's not a big secret that "under god" was added in the 1950's. The judge should be remove just for that. This is the second time in a week that the separation of church and state has been violated (Texas School Board). Law means nothing anymore when it comes to religion in this country?
is intended to be a factual statement
in this country?"
It won't after the schoolchildern around the country are indoctrinated by the new "TEX-books."
There's hope that many states will continue to use real textbooks, not "Tex-books," so that at least parts of the country will learn that, at least at one time, we were a nation of laws.
I'll be paying attention to what books are used in my school district. They use one of those "TEX-books", they leave the school and they'll have a fight against my taxes used to deliver this shit.
is intended to be a factual statement
Which is two strikes against them, after being ignorant extremist Rethug ideologues.
And the revisionist history has now risen to the appeals circuit court. This is both sad and frightening.
Admitting fear of Glen Beck and his masses is what really churns my stomach in this, though.
Oh, the phrase "under God" was supposed to inoculate against homosexuality as well as communism, another favorite of McCarthy. I've also heard it was supposed to keep the Jews at bay, as it invoked the Christian God, not theirs. Apparently the McCarthy hunts had a swirl of anti-Semitism mixed in.
I guess garlic doesn't work like it used to.
McCarthy was just one in a long string of nativists, if you define nativists as those who believe in the superiority of Protestant, Anglo-Saxon traditions. You can trace this mindset back to Henry VIII, and maybe earlier, but in this sovereign nation, you can start with the anti-Papism that found support in Article I Section IX of the Constitution (...no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.) and continue along to the anti-(Irish and German Catholic)immigrant sentiments of the Know Nothings.
The anti-Catholic sentiment died out eventually, but the Gilded Age Anglo-Saxon Americans shifted their suspicions towards the southern, central and eastern European immigrants (many Jews amongst them), some of whom brought with them the political ideologies of the Russian anarcho-syndicalist Bakunin, others the political philosophies of German Jews Marx and Engels. You start seeing things like the Haymarket Square riots, and later the Red Scares of the immediate post-WWI era, the late 1930's, and again in the post WWII 1940s and '50s.
And, you know, the anti-foreign sentiments still run deep in this country, deepest in areas such as the American South, where the Protestant Scots-Irish inheritors of the Anglo-Saxon tradition still dominate the landscape. Not that modern Know Nothing-ism is limited to regions, but it does seem to be weaker in regions where there was more immigration from southern, central and eastern Europe.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
but for some who claim God speaks to them and that they speak for God, how far a walk is it from this point to:
"I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath."
It is like the most uneducated people are in power! All reason is gone only emotions are guiding their judgement, Idiots!
Intelligent people don't want the job.
It's not that the most uneducated people are in power; it's that the people in power are afraid of upsetting the most uneducated people.
Francis Bellamy was the brother of Edward Bellamy, the author of _Looking Backward_, the great Socialist Utopian novel. Francis was probably a dedicated social justice minister who would make Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers run in terror.
The history of the Pledge of Allegiance is another shining example of the cooptation and evisceration of all radical tendencies by the powers that be over time. I wonder if Malcolm X has been used to sell malt liquor yet.
it just gets worser and worser.
History is lost on those who will repeatedly recite meaningless phrases. Thought and group-think are not the same thing. “I pledge allegiance to the Flag”? You might as well be saying “Four legs good, two legs better”. It’s only recited for purposes of indoctrination, for those who know what they want you to think.
You mean to say that Napoleon isn't always right? Blasphemy!!!
You must be Snowball in disguise! Please everyone, ignore Taarak... he's SNOWBALL!!!!!!!!! and wants to bring Jones back!!!!!!
After all, all animals are equal... but some animals are more equal than others...
"After all, all animals are equal... but some animals are more equal than others..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A student of mine who went into the Peace Corps to avoid serving in the Vietnam War later told me about his efforts on behalf of a tribe living deep in the Brazilian forest. I asked him if he had been required to tell them about the conflict between the USA and the USSR. Not at all, he replied. There would have been no point in it. They had never heard of either America or the Soviet Union.
In fact, they had never even heard of Brazil! It was still possible in the 1960s for a human being to live in a nation, and be subject to its laws, without the slightest knowledge of that fact. If we find this astonishing, it is because we human beings, unlike all other species on the planet, are knowers. We are the only ones who have figured out what we are, and where we are, in this great universe. And we're even beginning to figure out how we got here.
These quite recent discoveries about who we are and how we got here are unnerving, to say the least. What you are is an assemblage of roughly a hundred trillion cells, of thousands of different sorts. The bulk of these cells are "daughters" of the egg cell and sperm cell whose union started you, but they are actually outnumbered by the trillions of bacterial hitchhikers from thousands of different lineages stowed away in your body (Hooper et al. 1998). Each of your host cells is a mindless mechanism, a largely autonomous micro-robot. It is no more conscious than your bacterial guests are. Not a single one of the cells that compose you knows who you are, or cares. --Daniel C. Dennett
Study the symptoms not the virus...
between "Under" and "God" (upper or lower case).
My god's prettier than your god.....
You only say that because you haven't seen mine when she's heading out Friday night.
of church and state was there exactly so some court somewhere couldn't say that "God" was no longer a religious term but a patriotic one? Because that would sully the name of God?
Apparently the fundamentalists decided the ability to do an end-zone dance on the rest of us was way cooler than keeping that separation.
Teddy Roosevelt thought putting in God We Trust on American money smacked of sacrilege.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
DESPITE what the right-wingers think. For almost 1800 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, men lived under Kings and Queens who were supposedly the ordained leaders of God. MAN made the United States of America and if God thought to give us such a gift, He sure took his sweet time.
Man created the United States of America to get away from the religious persecution brought on by governments being controlled by the church.
The trouble is that the key to being religious is to wall off your mind to keep facts like that out. "bad thought, bad!!!"
The reason America has been called the Greatest Country in the World is excatly for that reason, people can come here and believe what they want and live in peace (in theory) but time and time again it has been religion that has tried to stop this - the KKK, the GOP and the Church itself have done quite a bit to stop people from living free and they all did it under the name of their bullshit god.
I'd tell him to substitute Flying Spaghetti Monster where appropriate.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
substitute 'under the deity known variously as God, Dieu, Zeus, the FSM, Allah, Bog, Ormuzd, the Big Sky Fairy, teh Ceiling Cat, and others too numerous to mention.'
http://www.subgenius.com/images3/300x250sublo...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hHB8ERf77jE/SRb_fIc...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The government has no right to decide for me about anything on religion period - see 1st amendment. Allowing the God phrase in the pledge is making a decision for me on the religious question.
Religion, next to politics, is the most divisive topic amongst humans today and should remain a private personal concern and the government should stay out of it.
When ALL get past that point then these kinds of things like the pledge will be silly.
Also note that a person is not compelled to recite the pledge in any format and if you have children and this matter is a concern let them know they can remain silent during the performance.
...he uses big words like 'particularly' and 'delicatessen.' -- Jack
removing "under God" perhaps the words "or not" should be added.
Hey democrats/progressives/liberals. The christian right are taking over our country. If you aren't on board as a secularist then you are no better than Scalia and Pat Robertson. Really. You accomodationists make me sick.
needs to be sent back to the 8th grade.
At a minimum, he is attempting to establish patriotism as a psuedo religion... something that seems exceedingly dangerous, to me. I don't want any religion, including patriotism, shoved down my throat. I consider it an duty as a human being to resist any form of imposed indoctrination.
People should be free to practice, or not, whatever religious or aetheistic beliefs they want, but because the government says so or imposes the practice.
For that matter, when I was of the age that subjected me to the control of the state, I always refused to say the pledge of allegiance, because I thought it was assinine to make a pledge of anything to a piece of clothe. Too much like a superstitious idol, in whose name, every kind of atrocity could be justified. Got me in a lot of trouble, back in the day.
The State as something holy seemed to liken Presidents to apostles and reached its apogee, or nadir, under Hitler.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Mom was a school kid in NYC when the pledge was changed. I asked her about her thoughts and observations back then. She said her objection was purely poetic; that the addition totally threw off the rhythm of the the poem. I know this is not the point of the discussion, but artistic integrity is an important issue. What would the person or persons who originated the poem think if they knew that child after child was memorizing an altered version of their work?
Indoctrination again?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
francis bellamy was a baptist minister and christian socialist, both of which are still around today. the original wording was;
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to* the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
(* 'to' added in October 1892).
socialists in 1892? communist manifesto was published in 1848, point 10 called for universal public education.
so, now we see, the pledge of allegiance is actually a part of the international communist conspiracy! and the public schools too!
those reds sure are devious.
... that, given that the Pledge was written by a presumed "socialist", the right-wing loonies would be the first to denounce the Pledge as being anti-American brainwashing.
If "consistency is the hallmark of excellence", the consistency of the right-wingers can certainly be called into question.
... is symbolic of America and the beliefs of its founding fathers (total horseshit, since none of them were raving evangelical loons), doesn't that suggest we should be far more cautious and mindful about taking away freedoms, even from our enemies?
I mean, it's so nice to know a gift from God is subject to terms and conditions of an asshole lighting his underpants on fire. That's superior design, no doubt.
Isn't it ironic that the inclusion of "under god" and the injection of god into politics and government is one of the biggest issues dividing our country?
Maybe we should change it to reflect the truth - One nation, under god, totally divided, with no liberty or justice for anyone that isn't a Christian.
Real Americans and the Loony Tune brigade known as Hate and Fear Mongering christians.
Yes the pedophiles of society are now crawling out from under their rocks to celebrate a phony Hate Fear and Angry child pedophile known as god.
Were was their god to cure Polio, oh yeah he was striking down the innocent as punishment to keep his cowardly flock in line.
Were was their god when the Pope with his child pedophilia ring was running rampant oops thats catholics their god is different some how that makes their jesus different, ah christian HATE Logic.
Here is my challenge to every wacked out Hate and Fear Mongering christian, your sick DO NOT go to a DOCTOR that is MAN made pray it away. If you are critically injured DO NOT go to the DOCTOR or HOSPITAL pray it away. Me I am going to laugh at your dumb silly ass because I know that you will show up because your are a phony just like your make believe god.
since the pledge is rather outdated, this whole controversy could simply be sidestepped by our new pledge
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the corporate states of America.
And to the conglomeration,
for which it stands,
one nation, under many CEOs,
always divisible,
with liberty and privileges for some.
http://politicalirony.com/2010/01/24/new-flag...
The Constitution did not refer to a creator, although the Declaration did to nature's God, Jesus was never mentioned in either.
But the clause in question wasn't added until 1954
It made more sense as, "One nation indivisible," anyway.
However, when are the xians gonna argue they need to put God back into God?
http://elbauldejosete.files.wordpress.com/200...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So many in this nation do not bother to educate themselves as to the nature of how or WHY they believe the way they do. They swallow schoolyard gossip and assumptions and take it with them into adulthood.
Why not One Nation Under:
http://aluiramancio.files.wordpress.com/2008/...
?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It really creeps me out to see a bunch of kids, stand up, put there hands over their hearts, and recite some dumb poem.
It's the same kind of creepy shit that the little pioneer kids would do back in the DDR or maybe little Hitler youth kids before that.
It's not normal for kids to do something like that. It's like some kind of Orwellian thing.
?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
The ruling sort of places said philosophy under glass, to be looked at and acknowledged. That doesn't mean that the court is stating that the current government is necessarily telling anyone that the United States or anyone of its citizens shares that philosophy.
BUT - The reality is that your average person isn't going to view the ruling that way, nor will they view the continued use of "under god" in such an objective fashion. They will believe that the government of the United States of America believes unequivocally (and endorses said belief) that the christian god gives everyone their rights - period.
And therein lies the problem.
Not to mention the fact that we don't know for sure that ALL the founders believed what the court states they believed about the christian god - or any god, for that matter.
"The ruling sort of places said philosophy under glass, to be looked at and acknowledged. "
The pledge of allegiance is an exercise in devotion, like a prayer. It's purpose is as a statement of submission to an authoritative power. The anti-communists of the fifties feared that if secular government were viewed as the ultimate authority it would lead to communism. So, in their ignorance and fear they sought to make God the ultimate authoritative power. This had the dual purpose of making the embrace of communistic ideas punishable as un-American; and permits exceeding legal authority in the pursuit of religious belief.
I would say this clause makes the pledge less of a pledge of loyalty but more like an Established Prayer
Which Constitutionalists and Theologians should both abhor
I prefer hor.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Comments are closed on this entry