• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Red Skelton and the pledge of allegiance

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
darkswordsman17 said:
I take it people are also ignoring the whole bit where we forced the pledge of allegiance because we were trying to combat Nazi shit (when the Nazis got their shit from aping a bunch of American shit). Spare me all that garbage thank you. I don't need to pledge allegiance to a country that I had no choice of being born in. And while I might be able to choose to live in another country (key word being might, there's lots of people that don't get to even though they would want to), there's almost certainly going to be some assholes there raging about me not being a true ____ and that I should be pledging allegiance to their country and their god, etc.



Well shit, let me see if that defense will work in court. "Your honor, I'm god, it says so right in the pledge of allegiance!"

Yes, we're the assholes because we're taking issue that people like you want us to spread your god messages and then you lecture us on "well its about interpretation" when you're clearly just making shit up to try and make your interpretation more valid.
Click to expand...
No one is trying to spread a God message! That's what I don`t understand about those who go off whenever God is mentioned! They believe they have a right to call those of us who might mention God, assholes and other derogatory names as if we don`t respect your right to deny there is a God oe to be all up in arms when God is mentioned!

yet if we flip that you then the same doesn`t work??
Because respect goes both ways nad if we carry this further there are many people who and I am one of them who believes that my beliefs are personal as are your beliefs and I am not going to judge you for your desire to avoid any ,mention of the name of God!


If you have an issue with the phrase - Under God then perhaps you should take it up with your representative or your congressperson….in other words take it up with somebody who can do something about it!!

As for me, I can take it or leave it!
I find it amusing that so many people get all twisted when God is mentioned!
Thety want others to respect their right to not have god throw in their face, yet there is no respect coming the other way...hmmmm
 
Until very recently, I was a member of the BPOE. (Elks lodge) We started every lodge meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Same with our RV group. No one was "forced" to participate, I guess...but I never saw anyone refuse.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
And yet, I haven't attempted to force MY view on anyone.
Click to expand...

And yet that's exactly what you'd rather see the pledge continue to do, force a particular view.

No matter how much you want to argue that it is up for interpretation, it's not. As you stated previously, there are polytheistic religions out there, and they are clearly excluded when you get to speaking about a monotheistic God in any context. And the message puts pressure on those who may question the churches/religions, to reaffirm support because it's viewed as a pressing condition of what it means to be a patriotic American.

It's the best piece of propaganda you can have as a country - a way to help ensure generations of god-fearing citizens will continue to exist. It may not be a crucial element on its own, but when combined with plenty of other small touches where government condones some aspect of a major religion, you get a way to constantly bombard young citizens with a singular message. If you ever studied the sociology involved with marketing, you might see the parallels in how this kind of effort can have extreme success.

That's a reason so many of us have problems with every small little example where governmental appears to favor religion, and that's because there is no big magic trick that instantly crosses the line when it comes to freedom of religion, it's all so much more subtle than that. These subversive methods are coy and subtle, right in front of our eyes most of the time, little things that most have seen, nodded in agreement, then went about their life. Things like the Ten Commandments, memorial statues, psalms and prayers inscribed somewhere, etc. All small things that even I once considered benign, merely cultural artifacts. But that's how subversive it can be, small gains here and there until it's entirely too late to turn back.
 
destrekor said:
And yet that's exactly what you'd rather see the pledge continue to do, force a particular view.

No matter how much you want to argue that it is up for interpretation, it's not. As you stated previously, there are polytheistic religions out there, and they are clearly excluded when you get to speaking about a monotheistic God in any context. And the message puts pressure on those who may question the churches/religions, to reaffirm support because it's viewed as a pressing condition of what it means to be a patriotic American.

It's the best piece of propaganda you can have as a country - a way to help ensure generations of god-fearing citizens will continue to exist. It may not be a crucial element on its own, but when combined with plenty of other small touches where government condones some aspect of a major religion, you get a way to constantly bombard young citizens with a singular message. If you ever studied the sociology involved with marketing, you might see the parallels in how this kind of effort can have extreme success.

That's a reason so many of us have problems with every small little example where governmental appears to favor religion, and that's because there is no big magic trick that instantly crosses the line when it comes to freedom of religion, it's all so much more subtle than that. These subversive methods are coy and subtle, right in front of our eyes most of the time, little things that most have seen, nodded in agreement, then went about their life. Things like the Ten Commandments, memorial statues, psalms and prayers inscribed somewhere, etc. All small things that even I once considered benign, merely cultural artifacts. But that's how subversive it can be, small gains here and there until it's entirely too late to turn back.
Click to expand...
I suggest you re-read what I've said. I'm fact, I've said the opposite of what you claim. Your final point is just plain silly. You really expect people to edit expressions of their culture and belief because it's in a public place? May the PC gods smile upon you.
 
JEDIYoda said:
No one is trying to spread a God message! That's what I don`t understand about those who go off whenever God is mentioned! They believe they have a right to call those of us who might mention God, assholes and other derogatory names as if we don`t respect your right to deny there is a God oe to be all up in arms when God is mentioned!

yet if we flip that you then the same doesn`t work??
Because respect goes both ways nad if we carry this further there are many people who and I am one of them who believes that my beliefs are personal as are your beliefs and I am not going to judge you for your desire to avoid any ,mention of the name of God!


If you have an issue with the phrase - Under God then perhaps you should take it up with your representative or your congressperson….in other words take it up with somebody who can do something about it!!

As for me, I can take it or leave it!
I find it amusing that so many people get all twisted when God is mentioned!
Thety want others to respect their right to not have god throw in their face, yet there is no respect coming the other way...hmmmm
Click to expand...

There's a singular reason why people get upset whenever God is mentioned in these circumstances: these are official or semi-official government-sponsored references to religion. The very thing our founding fathers thought important to shield against. It may seem small and trivial to include a small reference that seems to have benign intent, but it's not trivial whatsoever. We've got to start addressing these things if we are actually going to stand up for our First Amendment in totality.

Some of us may be a bit more confrontational on this topic right now because this country is going through some inane "religious freedom" bullshit - where ignorant bigoted assholes want to have a right to lean on their bigotry and refuse services -- that all other citizens can receive -- to someone with views or behaviors they don't support. Sorry, that kind of disrespect has no place in civil society, and where we already clearly established you can't refuse service because, say, it's a black customer and you don't like black people. Nope, you don't get to discriminate like that. And yet because it's your religion you should have the right to an equal degree of discrimination? I'm convinced the only way to help resolve this confusion is to forever wipe all traces and mentions of God and religion from absolutely everything in government. You can put it on display wherever you want, so long as its not government property, and you can't refuse service for anyone based solely on who they are or what they believe. Now if they are flouting other norms, like being belligerent, a business owner has every right to refuse service - but not because of who they are as a person.

This is the fundamental divide that religion is producing today, and so it should be understandable when we want some course correction here.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
I suggest you re-read what I've said. I'm fact, I've said the opposite of what you claim. Your final point is just plain silly. You really expect people to edit expressions of their culture and belief because it's in a public place? May the PC gods smile upon you.
Click to expand...

When it's the government I sure as hell expect that. People can do, say, believe whatever the hell they want - I just want it out of my government and out of legislation, just like our founding fathers wanted. They had their own beliefs and thought that was perfectly fine - remember that freedom of religion also offers the right to practice whatever religious beliefs you want. The government has been clear at other times that the only qualification is that practicing those beliefs don't interfere with the public and their right to enjoy all the same rights.

As far as re-reading, I'm not convinced you are getting the point across you wish to, because that's all I've understood from your POV thus far. Perhaps it was stretched a bit because you have argued that it shouldn't be about a religious God, but you continue to refuse to address the reason and intention for the inclusion of that phrase, and what it represents. You keep yammering on about symbolism and whatnot, yet refuse to acknowledge the real complaints at hand. So I'm going to ask that you peg just where you stand on its inclusion, because regardless of what you believe the phrase means, it represents more than you appear to acknowledge, and has a very real role in the separation of church and state.
 
JEDIYoda said:
No one is trying to spread a God message! That's what I don`t understand about those who go off whenever God is mentioned! They believe they have a right to call those of us who might mention God, assholes and other derogatory names as if we don`t respect your right to deny there is a God oe to be all up in arms when God is mentioned!

yet if we flip that you then the same doesn`t work??
Because respect goes both ways nad if we carry this further there are many people who and I am one of them who believes that my beliefs are personal as are your beliefs and I am not going to judge you for your desire to avoid any ,mention of the name of God!


If you have an issue with the phrase - Under God then perhaps you should take it up with your representative or your congressperson….in other words take it up with somebody who can do something about it!!

As for me, I can take it or leave it!
I find it amusing that so many people get all twisted when God is mentioned!
Thety want others to respect their right to not have god throw in their face, yet there is no respect coming the other way...hmmmm
Click to expand...

We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant.
 
destrekor said:
There's a singular reason why people get upset whenever God is mentioned in these circumstances: these are official or semi-official government-sponsored references to religion. The very thing our founding fathers thought important to shield against. It may seem small and trivial to include a small reference that seems to have benign intent, but it's not trivial whatsoever. We've got to start addressing these things if we are actually going to stand up for our First Amendment in totality.

Some of us may be a bit more confrontational on this topic right now because this country is going through some inane "religious freedom" bullshit - where ignorant bigoted assholes want to have a right to lean on their bigotry and refuse services -- that all other citizens can receive -- to someone with views or behaviors they don't support. Sorry, that kind of disrespect has no place in civil society, and where we already clearly established you can't refuse service because, say, it's a black customer and you don't like black people. Nope, you don't get to discriminate like that. And yet because it's your religion you should have the right to an equal degree of discrimination? I'm convinced the only way to help resolve this confusion is to forever wipe all traces and mentions of God and religion from absolutely everything in government. You can put it on display wherever you want, so long as its not government property, and you can't refuse service for anyone based solely on who they are or what they believe. Now if they are flouting other norms, like being belligerent, a business owner has every right to refuse service - but not because of who they are as a person.

This is the fundamental divide that religion is producing today, and so it should be understandable when we want some course correction here.
Click to expand...
Again you accuse the mention of God and religion for the actions of "bigoted assholes " or, at least the acceptance of such actions. Did it ever occur to you that those same people would use ANY excuse to justify their actions? It's not God or religion that has caused the divide in this country, it's bigoted assholes. I believe that's the second time I've said that.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Again you accuse the mention of God and religion for the actions of "bigoted assholes " or, at least the acceptance of such actions. Did it ever occur to you that those same people would use ANY excuse to justify their actions? It's not God or religion that has caused the divide in this country, it's bigoted assholes. I believe that's the second time I've said that.
Click to expand...

Why yes, that did occur to me. But they wouldn't be able to get away with it in the court of law if these rights would be truly accepted and codified. We've had a conservative court clearly unwilling to use jurisprudence to settle this right, and a Congress (or Senate at this point) that is hellbent on tacking the other direction. So while these people can get away with their bigotry under cover of religion right now, that card should be removed. And if they then conduct illegal discrimination, they'll get to see the other side of the court.
 
destrekor said:
Why yes, that did occur to me. But they wouldn't be able to get away with it in the court of law if these rights would be truly accepted and codified. We've had a conservative court clearly unwilling to use jurisprudence to settle this right, and a Congress (or Senate at this point) that is hellbent on tacking the other direction. So while these people can get away with their bigotry under cover of religion right now, that card should be removed. And if they then conduct illegal discrimination, they'll get to see the other side of the court.
Click to expand...
So now, you believe the courts can put an end to bigoted assholes? I got a bridge to sell you. 😀
 
soulcougher73 said:
You two. So much disrespect for the founding principles of religious freedom/freedom FROM religion, and separation of church and state. The hypocrisy, privileged, and arrogance you display is truly sad that god itself would be ashamed of you two.
Click to expand...

Actually..."freedom FROM religion" isn't mentioned...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

That's it...in its entirety.
 
BoomerD said:
Actually..."freedom FROM religion" isn't mentioned...



That's it...in its entirety.
Click to expand...

"no law respecting an establishment of religion" is taken to mean freedom from religion, because the government is not supposed to be involved in religion AT all. That doesnt mean the people serving in the government cant be religious, but their should be no mention of any religions when it comes to government, laws, or gov property.

People are free to be any religion they want and on their own property are allowed to display religious things. But the government is supposed to stay neutral regarding religion, otherwise it is playing favorites (like it has with christanity). Religious people have churches/places of worship/private businesses or at home to get all the religion they want.

I follow the Freedom From Religion Foundation on FB and its amazing how often they have to fight legal battles against christanity reaching to far (10 commandments on court houses, things like that). They almost always win.
 
soulcougher73 said:
"no law respecting an establishment of religion" is taken to mean freedom from religion, because the government is not supposed to be involved in religion AT all. That doesnt mean the people serving in the government cant be religious, but their should be no mention of any religions when it comes to government, laws, or gov property.

People are free to be any religion they want and on their own property are allowed to display religious things. But the government is supposed to stay neutral regarding religion, otherwise it is playing favorites (like it has with christanity). Religious people have churches/places of worship/private businesses or at home to get all the religion they want.

I follow the Freedom From Religion Foundation on FB and its amazing how often they have to fight legal battles against christanity reaching to far (10 commandments on court houses, things like that). They almost always win.
Click to expand...

We're basically in agreement about what it means...but people keep throwing around "freedom FROM" religion" like it's actually spelled out. The constitution merely says that the government can't discriminate because of religious beliefs.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Click to expand...

I would definitely prefer a "religion-neutral" government...even if that means no religion what-so-ever if the person chooses.
 
BoomerD said:
We're basically in agreement about what it means...but people keep throwing around "freedom FROM" religion" like it's actually spelled out. The constitution merely says that the government can't discriminate because of religious beliefs.



I would definitely prefer a "religion-neutral" government...even if that means no religion what-so-ever if the person chooses.
Click to expand...

True, its not actually spelled out as such. They cant discriminate or promote any religion is how i always interpreted it. I would also prefer a religion-neutral government.
 
soulcougher73 said:
True, its not actually spelled out as such. They cant discriminate or promote any religion is how i always interpreted it. I would also prefer a religion-neutral government.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck should your preferred Sky Fairy...or his...or hers...be more important than mine..even if mine is the Great Mumbuto who lives in the Baobab tree in the clearing by the river?
Fuck religion as a commercial/political entity.
 
BoomerD said:
Why the fuck should your preferred Sky Fairy...or his...or hers...be more important than mine..even if mine is the Great Mumbuto who lives in the Baobab tree in the clearing by the river?
Fuck religion as a commercial/political entity.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure i can compete with the Great Mumbuto. He is really powerful. But maybe Magnus and Jedi can tell you why their god is better than yours 🙂
 
""freedom FROM religion" isn't mentioned... for good reason."
That is what Nazi, Communists, Liberals and Bigots want to provide. We are free to have religiosity, not freedom from it. That said, if society deems (elects) that the cross in Delaware and New Mexico has to come down and the Pledge has to have the phrase removed, so be it. Our laws are a reflection of who we are.
 
ctbaars said:
""freedom FROM religion" isn't mentioned... for good reason."
That is what Nazi, Communists, Liberals and Bigots want to provide. We are free to have religiosity, not freedom from it. That said, if society deems (elects) that the cross in Delaware and New Mexico has to come down and the Pledge has to have the phrase removed, so be it. Our laws are a reflection of who we are.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand what the phrase "freedom from religion" means. It's not a ban on religions, its the state(aka government) not promoting any given religion. That is all. You can be whatever religion you want.
 
soulcougher73 said:
I'm not sure you understand what the phrase "freedom from religion" means. It's not a ban on religions, its the state(aka government) not promoting any given religion. That is all. You can be whatever religion you want.
Click to expand...

We have the right to worship (or not) as we choose...the government...ANY/ALLcity/county/state/federal government department/office/official is prohibited from pushing/ endorsing a religion or religious agenda beyond their own personal belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top