What are your views on people who want to take the words "Under God" and similar phrases out of things? Do you feel as if these words violate those people who practice other religions or no religion at all?
I think it definitely crosses the line on technical grounds, but I also think some people blow it a little out of proportion in the interest of picking a fight. I wouldn't mind seeing it taken out though, but I am not willing to fight that hard for it so long as no one is forced to say it against their will.
Pretty much what I believe. It's symbolic. Let them have the small, meaningless victories. Fight the ones that actually matter.
Well first What does 'under god' mean.? Means nothing to to occam. Technically occam is 'under' nothing. Unless you speak of some religious mythos where we thinking beings are LESS than other thinking beings, or THING. Does omnipotence classify one thinking being as greater than another? Are you GREATER than one in a wheelchair? No, you may be able to walk, but the guy in the chair is far more likely to be able to reason. Occam
in the case of the u.s. pledge, they were specificly placed there to further the cause of an idiological prejudice, and as such are an insult to whatever god or gods there might otherwise be. it is not a mater of removing something intrinsic to something but of restoring, to an earlier and more logical form, something to which something impertinent was gratuitously added. as for being under, yah, i'm "under" whatever earth's gravity well stacks "above" me. i.e. this oxygen rich atmosphere life such as our own depends upon. if there is a god it is nontangable and therefore everyplace and no place, possessing its true home outside of time and space. so the concept of "under" is still meaningless. the holier then thou presumptions is that america's government is somehow guided and protected by some infallable diety. this is nothing other then an extension of the concept of devine right of kings, to encompass, 'devine right' of 'representative' government(s). whether or not such a diety might be infallable, the idea that it might somehow extend this infallability to governments, be they monarchic or representative, is highly questionable, bordering on moronic. =^^= .../\...
"under god" was added in the 50s(60s?) by Eisenhower because the communists were seen as being ungodly.....so now it actually has virtually no purpose in the pledge. I say the original pledge which is: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" I think that was the original but I might be off somewhere.
Monotheistic religions define hierarchal bureaucracy and our government is one. The idea that there is a separation between religion and government is a cruel joke. Jews, Moslems, Christians…all from the same mold. Monotheism is NOT passive! The ultimate sin of monotheism is the denial of our intuition and the manipulation of our perceptual lenses (beliefs). The human spirit truly reflects the profound cosmic resonance that gives the beat to our heart and the rhythm to our breath. Our nature is to be honest and trusting but our karma (cultural institutions) betrays us. We are taught to search for enlightenment in our intellect when in fact it is our intellect that deceives us. The cruel veil of monotheism blinds our minds “I” to our innate spirituality. Monotheism is imperialistic. There is no escape. To be enlightened is to have the sense and the will to hold back the veil.
How about: "One Nation Under CANADA" This way we'll at least be geographically correct, as long as we stick to the terminology that north means up. As for the pledge, I don't give a fuck about the entire pledge, so there's no reason why I would give a fuck about 'under god'.
Sticking to the terminology... I assume that when you're fucking that it doesn't matter if you're on top or on bottom???
I think it is offensive and unconstitutional. Definitely a violation of the first amendment. It is clearly establishing, in a sense, that a monotheistic god is the religion of the nation. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - 1st amendment U.S. Constitution
It's unconstitutional. I think we should propose adding another part to it- "One nation, under god, who does not exist, indivisable...", or something like that. That way, the people who want it in there will choose, without a doubt, no mention of god, rather than a compromise.
I think it is just another form of prohibition, like creating laws against alcohol or drugs because someone decided they're bad for you.
