Pledge Protection Act

[Ravenstorm]

Discuss (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/hamilton.pledge/)

Raven

I don't think that article could be any less objective. I hope the Act goes forward with no problems, by the way.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

They should just take away the right to complain about it so they don't have to deal with this.

[Ravenstorm]

That's because it's not a news article. It's a column. The author is giving her analysis and opinion of the act and the motivations behind it. It's probably no surprise that I agree fully with her (else why would I have posted that instead of the reuters bare bones report of the facts).

It's yet another political and divisive attempt to impose a Christian dogma on the US as a whole and keep the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of Constitutionality and the last refuge of the minority, from having a say in the matter.

Raven

One nation under god, allah, jesus, moses, buddha, shiva..

..shit, just get rid of the stupid deity part and move on.

[Bobmuhthol]

Christian dogma? What happened to Jews and Muslims? Did they suddenly stop worshiping the same God?

[Artha]

You're not forced to say (all of) the pledge. Ever.

No, but imagine how happy the wasps would be about one nation under allah, since it *is* the same god after all.

Originally posted by Artha
You're not forced to say (all of) the pledge. Ever.

In a classroom setting with feeble-minded children reciting the pledge they are having god forced down their throats. Poor children.

[Artha]

As a WAS, that wouldn't really bother me that much. Same entity, different name.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Artha
You're not forced to say (all of) the pledge. Ever. Very true. In fact, when we would have to say the pledge at the beginning of the day in elementary school, some kids would not participate at all.

No doubt Artha, it's good to have straight-forward thinking people like you, this country needs a change of pace as is, if only more "WAS"s could ascend to your reasoning :smug:

[Bobmuhthol]

<<In a classroom setting with feeble-minded children reciting the pledge they are having god forced down their throats. Poor children.>>

I was never forced to say the pledge. A lot of times I didn't, and I don't at all now. Don't speak for people if you're not them.

<<No, but imagine how happy the wasps would be about one nation under allah, since it *is* the same god after all.>>

Christianity, being the PRIMARY RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES, is practiced most commonly. Fuck you and your stupid equality bullshit. In a Christian country, we're allowed to say Christian things. They are the same God, and Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in that same God. To change the Pledge of Allegiance because God is "Christian-specific" makes you a dumbass.

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<In a classroom setting with feeble-minded children reciting the pledge they are having god forced down their throats. Poor children.>>

I was never forced to say the pledge. A lot of times I didn't, and I don't at all now. Don't speak for people if you're not them.

<<No, but imagine how happy the wasps would be about one nation under allah, since it *is* the same god after all.>>

Christianity, being the PRIMARY RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES, is practiced most commonly. Fuck you and your stupid equality bullshit. In a Christian country, we're allowed to say Christian things. They are the same God, and Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in that same God. To change the Pledge of Allegiance because God is "Christian-specific" makes you a dumbass.

This isn't a Christian country, we have a president, not prime-minister (although Bush does kind of remind me as a theistically sworn in PM.)

The whole point Bob, is that while there is a christian majority, there is an Atheist majority, prepped, assembled and ready to go to war on this stupid patronizing doctrine.

[Artha]

There can't be a christian majority and an atheist majority. In fact, atheists make up only like 10% of the population. Catholics alone are around 25-30.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm ashamed to call myself an atheist after reading that.

And we don't have a prime minister because the United States seceded from Parliament hundreds of years ago. Parliamentary democracy != all democracy.

Parliament... No seperation of church and state.

B.O.R. = Seperation of church and state. Figure it out man.

[Bobmuhthol]

Parliament... United Kingdom, Prime Minister is appointed by a ruler
Democracy... United States, there's a vote

And there's no antidisestablishmentterianism (sp)

Which again, I reiterate, :wtf: is god doing in our pledge?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
They are the same God, and Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in that same God.Eh. Sort of, but not really. The Christian version of God can't coexist with the Jewish or Muslim version, because the Christian God is a three-in-one deal, and the other two aren't that high on the Jesus. I'm less sure about the Jewish and Muslim conflict (or if there is one), but I've read things that claim the Old Testament makes reference to two divine beings (Elohim and Shekinah, or the Lord and the Lord of my Lord). I wasn't very impressed with them at the time, but it's possible they're right.

edit:
We would therefore have a 50-state collection of views as to what the Free Exercise Clause, and the Establishment Clause, mean in this context. And that would be constitutional lunacy. is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. States rule on things individually all the time. That's why I can do 65 (legally) in New York and not so much in CT.

[Edited on 9-23-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Bobmuhthol]

Antidisestablishmentarianism is typically the popular opinion in a country that was founded on the belief of freedom of religion. What are you trying to prove?

No, antidisestablishmentterianism is for those who support a mixture of church and state.

You are thinking, if possible, of DISestablishmentterrianism

[Bobmuhthol]

<<The Christian version of God can't coexist with the Jewish or Muslim version, because the Christian God is a three-in-one deal, and the other two aren't that high on the Jesus.>>

The Christian version of God can and does coexist with both the Jewish and Muslim versions, as Christianity is merely Judaism with a little bit of Christ sprinkled in as the son of God. As Christ believed in the Jewish god Yahweh, I can't imagine how it's a different God. It was also written that Muslims were to practice tolerance in regards to Christians because of their common beliefs.

Here's something taken from what I'm currently studying:
To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism. However, Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the Son of God. The Qur'an is regarded as the word of God as revealed to Muhammad, in the same way that Jews and Christians believe the Torah and the Gospels were revealed to Moses and the New Testament writers. Muslims believe that the Qur'an perfects the earlier revelations from God. To them, it is the final book, and Muhammad was the final prophet. All three religions believe in heaven and hell and a day of judgement. The Muslims trace their ancestry back to Abraham, as do the Jews and Christians.
The bonds among the three monotheistic religions were reflected in the way the Muslims treated Christians and Jews. Both Christians and Jews were known as "people of the book,: because each religion had a holy book with teachings similar to those of the Qur'an. Shari'a law required Muslim leaders to extend religious tolerance to Christians and Jews.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<No, antidisestablishmentterianism is for those who support a mixture of church and state.>>

No, antidisestablishmentarianism opposes the belief that there should no longer be an official church.

Disestablishmentarianism opposes an official church.

That's a nice fluffy piece of fiction you're reading there Bob. I bet the Crusades and the rise of the Intifada are also ways of respecting the people of god since they all share the same beliefs.

Since you ellaborated on the ancient parliament, here's how things used to be in the old days (not now.)

Main Entry: antidisestablishmentarianism
Function: noun
Definition: originally, opposition to the disestablishment of the Church of England.

[Bobmuhthol]

Great, we don't live in the time that it was originally used.

And you're a fucking idiot for mentioning the Crusades, because I'm beginning to doubt that you even know what or when the Crusades were.

Also, doing some further dictionary.com and reading, it appears that somewhere along the mangled definitions of long words, antidisestablishmentarianism and disestablishmentarianism have come to mean basically the same thing. So points for Bob.

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Great, we don't live in the time that it was originally used.

And you're a fucking idiot for mentioning the Crusades, because I'm beginning to doubt that you even know what or when the Crusades were.

I don't know the relative time-frame of the crusades, but do know that a lot of xtians slaughtered a shitload of muslims and jews in their quest to regain jerusalem, if you'd care to pwn me with some old-fashioned Crusade knowledge, go right ahead. And fuck you :bleh:

[Artha]

There was only one really successful crusade. There was another where the Catholics of Europe stopped at Constantinople and decided that instead of regaining Jerusalem, they'd just pillage Constantinople. This is why Eastern Orthodox christians sort of have a grudge against Catholics. There was also a Children's Crusade from a bunch of kids in France. A bunch died and the rest ended up as Turkish slaves. There were a few others, but a lot of the crusaders died and the rest ended up as Turkish slaves. It was, however, good for Europe because it opened up trade with the Middle and Far East.

[Bobmuhthol]

Disregard my last sentence, because I am going to go into how stupid what you said is.

The Crusade began in the 11th century. It was a war over the ownership of the Holy Land between European Christians and Muslims. When Islam originated in the 7th or 8th century, there was no Crusade because the Holy Land did not have to be recovered. As well as this, all three religions were Middle Eastern. Last time I checked, the Middle East is not Europe. The year 650 is not the year 1000, and in the year 650 there was religious tolerance practiced by Christianity and Islam. The Jews kind of wrecked everything by causing Jesus' crucifixion, though, so they don't count.

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Great, we don't live in the time that it was originally used.

And you're a fucking idiot for mentioning the Crusades, because I'm beginning to doubt that you even know what or when the Crusades were.

Yeah, but in today's time, in the English political system, the head of sttate, AKA MONARCH, is also head of the Church of England.

In U.S. head of state does not = head of the "Church of the United States" :lol:

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Disregard my last sentence, because I am going to go into how stupid what you said is.

The Crusade began in the 11th century. It was a war over the ownership of the Holy Land between European Christians and Muslims. When Islam originated in the 7th or 8th century, there was no Crusade because the Holy Land did not have to be recovered. As well as this, all three religions were Middle Eastern. Last time I checked, the Middle East is not Europe. The year 650 is not the year 1000, and in the year 650 there was religious tolerance practiced by Christianity and Islam. The Jews kind of wrecked everything by causing Jesus' crucifixion, though, so they don't count.

Who said anything about the Middle East being Europe, I said JERUSALEM (See: not located in Europe, dumbass)

Otherwise, nice Googlin' :up:

P.S. whether or not jews cruficified the so-called jesus pales in significance when you look at 6000 slaves nailed on a cross.

Yeshua Ben Yoseph (Son of Joseph? Hmmm...) = 0, nails = 3

[Bobmuhthol]

European Christians lived in Europe. Christians were Middle Eastern, as Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and Jews were Middle Eastern.

When they coexisted in the Middle East, there was generally harmony among them. 300-400 years later, there was no longer a good relationship between them and they killed each other. I fail to see how Christians and Muslims were intolerable 400 years before they fought. Going by that logic, it's impossible that racism was rampant before because it isn't now.

[Artha]

Otherwise, nice Googlin'

I like to call it '9th grade education'

Rachel Pwnz (6:59:11 PM): It's funny because I didn't know anything before August 31.
Rachel Pwnz (6:59:32 PM): For the last 3 weeks we've only studied Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
European Christians lived in Europe. Christians were Middle Eastern, as Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and Jews were Middle Eastern.

When they coexisted in the Middle East, there was generally harmony among them. 300-400 years later, there was no longer a good relationship between them and they killed each other. I fail to see how Christians and Muslims were intolerable 400 years before they fought. Going by that logic, it's impossible that racism was rampant before because it isn't now.

Thank you master of the obvious.

[Edited on 9-23-2004 by Stanley Burrell]

[Bobmuhthol]

You agree that what I said is obvious, but you have not yet agreed that what you said before that COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS IT.

[Artha]

Any time.

I call bullshit on Bob.

How have I contradicted myself.

For an Atheist you sure know a lot of Theism bobby.

[Edited on 9-23-2004 by Stanley Burrell]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<How have I contradicted myself.>>

You've contradicted what I said prior to dubbing it obvious.

Therefore, you're wrong, or the obvious is untrue.

[Artha]

He's a closet christian.

Bob, seriously, you did a second google that I did wholeheartedly aggree with (except for the fact that jesuus ever existed,) But your original posts are crap. 50-50 man.

Bob, seriously, quote when I said that Jerusalem was ever part of Europe. Oops I forgot, you can't (at least without editing your log.)

And I'm beginning to like Axhinde's sig a lot more.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Bob, seriously, you did a second google that I did wholeheartedly aggree with (except for the fact that jesuus ever existed,) But your original posts are crap.>>

I didn't google anything. In my hand is the material I've been studying for 23 days, and it's my argument exactly.

<<Bob, seriously, quote when I said that Jerusalem was ever part of Europe. Oops I forgot, you can't (at least without editing your log.)>>

I just said you contradicted what I said, I never said you said Jerusalem was part of Europe. You do lose a lot of credibility for not understanding that the Christians fighting for Jerusalem came from Europe, though.

You disagreed with me, then you agreed with me. My argument never changed, so yours had to have. Deductive reasoning.

Listen to me motherfucker, I was talking about the arguement of seperation of church and state.

Then I agreed with your google search.

Two seperate things, use your ub3r l33t deductive reasoning skillz and try and understand that if it isn't too complicated for you.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Then I agreed with your google search.>>

Would you shut the fuck up and acknowledge that I know this stuff from studying it?

Will you take the tampons out of your ass and let my last post sink into your ego inflated emaciated head..?

[Bobmuhthol]

Will you have a valid point when you challenge my disregard of your posts?

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Will you have a valid point when you challenge my disregard of your posts?

See above.

[Blazing247]

I ate fiberglass insulation. It wasn't cotton candy like the guy said. My tummy itches.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

It's yet another political and divisive attempt to impose a Christian dogma on the US as a whole

I didn't realize God was only for Christians.

I hope it passes.

[Pallon]

Setting a precedent for allowing Congress to pass legislation that selectively blocks the federal courts from hearing complaints on certain issues? What could possibly go wrong?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism. However, Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the Son of God.Bob, a fundamental facet of (Catholic, at least) Christianity is that God and Jesus are the same person (while being different people, it's complicated). Any faith that says Jesus isn't God, therefore, doesn't follow the same God as Christians. What your book is probably referring to is that the fella Christians call God the Father is the same guy as the Jewish "YHWH", the guy who said "I am who am", who is also Allah.
All three religions believe in heaven and hell and a day of judgement.Also, you should talk to some Jewish people.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Also, you should talk to some Jewish people.>>

Not my fault if they don't follow their own religion.

[Back]

Sounds like we’re all about due for another unified God movement.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I didn't realize God was only for Christians.

The God that the 99% Christian House of Representatives refers to is, indeed, Christian. Though there are similarities between the supreme divinities of the "big three" monotheistic, paternalistic religions, they do not worship the same God. The most obvious difference is that Jesus is not God in two of the three.

In an effort to promote harmony, many religious leaders overlook the differences to concentrate on the similarities. That does not make them the same. Tell a Catholic to pray to Allah and see what happens.

Nor is Krishna, another deity of a monotheistic, paternal religion come under that heading. Or the Goddess (of whichever variety people believe in). Nor the pantheistic ones. Or none at all.

That is also irrelevant, as such a law violates one of the most basic tenets of our country.

Raven

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Also, you should talk to some Jewish people.>>

Not my fault if they don't follow their own religion.

What the fuck does bobby know about Judaism, other than the fact that they apparently have the Christian hell now.

And bobby, please review Latrinsorm's pwning you involving jesus BEING god in the trinity.

[TheEschaton]

Nor is Krishna, another deity of a monotheistic, paternal religion come under that heading.

Hinduism is a monotheistic religion? They have 30,000 plus gods, and while they can be reduced to three because most are different avatars or aspects of a "larger" god, I've never heard of Brahma, Vishnu (of whom Krishna is an avatar of), and Shiva being considered to be one God total.

Regardless though, as a devout Catholic, there are two troubling aspects I find here: A) Pallon's concern about blocking judicial review, on any issue, and B) the idea that "God" is a a multi-denominational term. While the word "god", lower-case "g" is a general reference, the capitalized patronym God has always specifically referred to the Christian God. Jews, who might called YHWH God, nevertheless have YHWH as their first, primary name for God. The same applies for Allah. And the argument holds, if you're not willing to say "one nation, under Allah", thinking they're the same God is a lie purported to get this bill to pass.

Furthermore, this country was founded on the principle that it should never, ever, become a "tyranny of the majority", even though democracy calls for a majority rule. That's why freedom of speech, religion, assembly, all that, is mandated by our Constitution. Just because the majority of a people believe it, doesn't mean they can force a minority to believe it.

"But TheE, no one is forced to say the Pledge!" This is, of course, true. However, by saying a pledge in class which forces a person to choose between her/his faith and her/his country, you're going to have losers either way. If (s)he chooses her/his faith, then you have ostracization from folks who would deem her unpatriotic/immoral/what-have-you. We weren't forced to say the pledge in my school - but those who didn't were made fun of to the point that many kids said it simply to blend in. As I'm sure Bob can tell you, kids are cruel. If (s)he chooses her/his country, whether by the aforementioned pressure, or out of a wish to not be seen as trouble-making, and says the pledge, then they have been forced to give up their religion for their country - a 1st amendment violation. Bring atheists in it, and it's even a more clear cut case.

Lastly, one cannot argue that it is tradition. Quite a few of our Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians, which is why the Declaration allows for a generic deity "our Creator", as opposed to the more specific name of "God". Furthermore, this part of the pledge was only put in, what, 40-50 years ago?

-TheE-

Thanks The E.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<The Christian version of God can't coexist with the Jewish or Muslim version, because the Christian God is a three-in-one deal, and the other two aren't that high on the Jesus.>>

The Christian version of God can and does coexist with both the Jewish and Muslim versions, as Christianity is merely Judaism with a little bit of Christ sprinkled in as the son of God.

Absolutely incorrect. Big surprise there. Don't attempt to use whatever text you're using to justify this BS statement. The Christian God does not coexist with either the Jewish or Muslim version AT ALL.

And don't insult either Christian or Jew in drawing any similarities to either. Christianity is not Judaism, Judaism is not Christianity. Christians do not practice Judaism at all. Where is the sprinkling?


Here's something taken from what I'm currently studying:
To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism. However, Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the Son of God. The Qur'an is regarded as the word of God as revealed to Muhammad, in the same way that Jews and Christians believe the Torah and the Gospels were revealed to Moses and the New Testament writers.

Except Jews don't believe in the Gospels or the Old Testament. Nor do Christian believe in the Torah. You keep losing points.

[/quote]All three religions believe in heaven and hell and a day of judgement.[/quote]

Incorrect. I think you just dipped into a point deficit.

Jews, most, don't believe in a heaven or hell. This is a Greek belief adopted by Christianity.


The Muslims trace their ancestry back to Abraham, as do the Jews and Christians.

Attempt, and Christians do not.


The bonds among the three monotheistic religions were reflected in the way the Muslims treated Christians and Jews. Both Christians and Jews were known as "people of the book,: because each religion had a holy book with teachings similar to those of the Qur'an. Shari'a law required Muslim leaders to extend religious tolerance to Christians and Jews.

This is also known as the right of hospitality in Judaism and it is extended to all. Not the point however.

I think you need to go back to class or actually talk to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. You obviously have no clue.

To Lat: Shekhinah. I doubt Madonna understands the concept, but it means "devine presense". It's part of the Khabbal.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Artha

Otherwise, nice Googlin'

I like to call it '9th grade education'

Rachel Pwnz (6:59:11 PM): It's funny because I didn't know anything before August 31.
Rachel Pwnz (6:59:32 PM): For the last 3 weeks we've only studied Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

I wouldn't say you studied X, y and z, I would say you studied a convoluted point of view about x, y, and z.

Here's a tip for you Bob, science, math, english, languages, CS, shop, and everything else, with the exceptions of history and religion, are the only things you can count on not to be too heavily swayed by opinion and beliefs.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Then I agreed with your google search.>>

Would you shut the fuck up and acknowledge that I know this stuff from studying it?

No, you have zero comprehension ability and apparently lack the initiative to reasearch how credible your sources are.

F

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Except Jews don't believe in the Gospels or the Old Testament. Nor do Christian believe in the Torah. You keep losing points.>>

Have you forgotten how to read? It very clearly states that Jews believe the Torah was revealed to Moses and Christians believe the Gospels were revealed to the New Testament writers.

You keep being illiterate.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And don't insult either Christian or Jew in drawing any similarities to either. Christianity is not Judaism, Judaism is not Christianity. Christians do not practice Judaism at all. Where is the sprinkling?>>

I'd say the sprinkling comes from Jesus Christ being a Jew and Christianity being based on Judaism, with the ultimate dividing factor being the belief that he is the Savior.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Pallon
Setting a precedent for allowing Congress to pass legislation that selectively blocks the federal courts from hearing complaints on certain issues? What could possibly go wrong?

My thoughts exactly.

Sounds like this is more unconstitutional than a vague and otherwise unnecessary refrence to a diety in a pledge which no one is forced to recite.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Have you forgotten how to read? It very clearly states that Jews believe the Torah was revealed to Moses and Christians believe the Gospels were revealed to the New Testament writers.

You keep being illiterate.

Bob, you did say, I quoted you directly.


Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I'd say the sprinkling comes from Jesus Christ being a Jew and Christianity being based on Judaism, with the ultimate dividing factor being the belief that he is the Savior.

Except that Christians don't practice Judaism at all. There isn't any sprinkling.

[Back]

I wasn’t really sure what to make of all this. It never bothered me to say, “under God” or hear someone else say it. It wouldn’t bother me if someone didn’t either. Is this some sign of more shrinking civil rights or is it just more political manuvering in an election year?

So I start googling for more info and I find RestoreThePledge.com (http://www.restorethepledge.com/). Looks like this argument has been going on since the pledge was changed to include the divine reference.

If Congress and the President really do have this means to restrict the Supreme Court, they should. But hopefully to solve more important issues rather than driving a wedge between the American people. Especially in this century of fear.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Except that Christians don't practice Judaism at all.>>

Yes, the first two ethical monotheistic religions are worlds apart. Nothing similar there.

[Jazuela]

The inclusion of "under God" was recommended by the Knights of Columbus, and adopted into the Pledge after the powers that be decided it would be a good idea. At the time, the variety of religions present in the States were pretty limited; and not enough people who didn't like the idea stepped up to protest.

You can recite the Pledge and just skip over that part, if it offends you - it's only 2 words, no one will notice that you're silent during them, unless they're looking directly at you for some odd reason.

There are also christian religions such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who will not recite the pledge at all, because their religion forbids them from pledging fealty to anyone or anything other than God - and pledging allegience to a country contradicts this pledge of fealty to God.

Not all Christians will recite the pledge, not all religions will recite the pledge - with or without the inclusion of "under God" in it.

Personally I think it detracts from the intent of the Pledge itself, but it isn't worth it to make a fuss over it, to me.

IF they did exclude that phrase, I'd like to see them ALSO remove "In God We Trust" from money. Because - I'd rather trust my cat to defend me from a burglar than God. At least my cat has a sharp set of teeth. For all I know, God wears cheap-ass dentures :)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
by saying a pledge in class which forces a person to choose between her/his faith and her/his countryActually, Backlash, Harmnone, and I had a chat about that awhile ago. It turns out most faiths (that I practice, anyway) require you to choose between your faith and your country, on account of that "morality" thing. I'm pretty sure Backlash didn't report me, but maybe he's just waiting for a less Christian President.
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
To Lat: Shekhinah. I doubt Madonna understands the concept, but it means "devine presense". It's part of the Khabbal. Yeah. Some Christians use it to describe the Holy Spirit (when they're feeling particularly Jewish, I guess). And hey, nice dig on Madonna out of nowhere, lol.
Attempt, and Christians do not. We don't trace our biological ancestry to Abraham (too many Gentiles for that) but we do trace our faith ancestry. That's why you'll hear Christian leaders refer to Hebrews and Muslims as "our brothers [and sisters] in faith" from time to time.

At the public high school of my town, they had a student lead the pledge every morning over the intercom. My senior year, one of the kids there left out the "under God" for some reason, so they made him leave it out every day the rest of the year. I guess my point is, that school was pretty crappy.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Hinduism is a monotheistic religion? They have 30,000 plus gods, and while they can be reduced to three because most are different avatars or aspects of a "larger" god, I've never heard of Brahma, Vishnu (of whom Krishna is an avatar of), and Shiva being considered to be one God total.

With the caveat that I am nowhere near an expert on the subject... You've read the Gita, I assume? Krishna clearly states that he is God and that all others are merely faces of his. He is the one and only.

Raven

[Edited on 9-24-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[GSTamral]

If people wish to not recite that part of the pledge, by all means, go ahead and don't say under god. But to complain about other people saying it is just another example of a leftist fuck taking away the freedom of others to serve their own wanton desires. If other people saiying under god offends this person, or if the inclusion of under god offends someone, don't say it.

Don't however, take away the rights of others to do so. Secondly, it's simply astonishing that legislature is spending time on something so insignificant and trivial, with all the stupid shit being brought in front of them, maybe if the leftist asswipes stopped bringing stupid legislation in front of them, useful things might actually get done in government.

[Back]

Originally posted by GSTamral
If people wish to not recite that part of the pledge, by all means, go ahead and don't say under god. But to complain about other people saying it is just another example of a leftist fuck taking away the freedom of others to serve their own wanton desires. If other people saiying under god offends this person, or if the inclusion of under god offends someone, don't say it.

Don't however, take away the rights of others to do so. Secondly, it's simply astonishing that legislature is spending time on something so insignificant and trivial, with all the stupid shit being brought in front of them, maybe if the leftist asswipes stopped bringing stupid legislation in front of them, useful things might actually get done in government.

Heheh. Psst. Tam... its the rightist fucks (conservative republicans) who are pushing this through Congess. Yep. Your very own party.

[GSTamral]

I know this backlash. And I'm pissed that the measure is going through congress because its a waste of time. It was an absolute waste of time when the leftist fucks brought the matter to the courts to begin with, and now we have rightist fucks wasting valuable time in legislature