God hater loses in court.

No, because Panzade said he was helpless to avoid the mention of a nation under a "Christian" God. It is not. It is a mention of a generic God. It covers Islam, Judaism, Christianity. We are a nation of religion, whether we like it or not.

0 Replies

As a Buddhist you should be agreeing with Frank...no?

0 Replies

I'm hoping you will reply to my last post, McG.

0 Replies

As a Buddhist, I have no fear of anyone elses Gods. If they feel the need to pray to them, then they are welcomed to. It does not effect me in any way. But, to deny them their desire to pray to their God would effect them.

Who am I to tell someone else how they should practice thier religion? We live in a country of freedom. Everyone has the freedom to practice the religion they choose to. The majority (70%) of this country defines itself as Christian. I would expect that to permeate the American lifestyle and I see no harm in it.

When I say the pledge of allegiance, I say it proudly. I teach my son to say it proudly. It is a pledge to our country, not to a God.

0 Replies

Are you ignoring me, McG?

If "YES"...has this been going on long?

If "YES"...why on Earth would you even consider such a childish move?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
If it were "One nation, under Jesus," I could see your point....

Why?

Because it would violate law...or because it would violate your sense of fair play and inclusivenss?

I answered your question above.

Quote:

No, because Panzade said he was helpless to avoid the mention of a nation under a "Christian" God. It is not. It is a mention of a generic God. It covers Islam, Judaism, Christianity. We are a nation of religion, whether we like it or not.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
If it were "One nation, under Jesus," I could see your point....

Why?

Because it would violate law...or because it would violate your sense of fair play and inclusivenss?

I answered your question above.

Quote:
No, because Panzade said he was helpless to avoid the mention of a nation under a "Christian" God. It is not. It is a mention of a generic God. It covers Islam, Judaism, Christianity. We are a nation of religion, whether we like it or not.

My question was...is your "I could see your point if it were "...one nation, under Jesus Christ..."...

....a result of it being against the law...

...or because it would violate your sense of fair play and inclusiveness.

I cannot divine an answer to that question in your comment to Panzade.

Would you mind answering?

0 Replies

Panzade said it was a reference to a "Christian God". I said it wasn't. Had it been "Jesus" instead of "God", then I could understand him saying it was "Christian" but since "God" is the same guy in Islam, Judaism and Christianity, he has no bearing saying it is strictly a "Christian God".

It has nothing to do with the law or my sense of fair play and inclusiveness. It has to do with what Panzade said.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Panzade said it was a reference to a "Christian God". I said it wasn't. Had it been "Jesus" instead of "God", then I could understand him saying it was "Christian" but since "God" is the same guy in Islam, Judaism and Christianity, he has no bearing saying it is strictly a "Christian God".

It has nothing to do with the law or my sense of fair play and inclusiveness. It has to do with what Panzade said.

Okay...I understand what you are saying now.

But since I value your opinions, McG, I would like to ask my question as though there had been no comment from Panzade.

If the pledge did say, "...one nation, under Jesus Christ..." would you not consider that to be an affront to the people in our country who do not accept Jesus Christ the way the majority Christians do?

And so that this is not some hidden meaning kind of thing...let me put my point out there for you to consider:

The "...under god..." is not necessary to the pledge...and is gratuitous in that regard. Most Americans, it seems to me, would not think to affront their fellow citizens of different religions...by putting "...under Jesus Christ..." in the pledge (and wouldn't be able to because there are laws to protect from such affrontery). Shouldn't that same considerations be extended to the many citizens of our country who do not share a "belief in gods"?

Essentially, McG...I am asking if your sense of fair play and inclusiveness would cause you to champion having the words removed...since they are unnecessary to the function of the pledge; gratuitous; and affronting to a significant segment of the community?

0 Replies

If the pledge said "One nation, under Jesus Christ", yes, I would have an issue with that. That would be equal to endorsing a religion.

I would have the same problem if said "under Buddha", "Under Muhammed", or "Under no God".

Keeping it generic keeps it secular in my opinion. No one can claim "God" as their own whereas many can claim "Jesus" as their own.

Were it up to me, the words "under God" would be removed from the pledge, but it does not bother me that they are there.

0 Replies

I agree with McG.

If it were up to me.... but then, a lot of things would be different, wouldn't they?

As for the original premise of this thread, I would say this: Baldimo, though I am sure you are smart in Real Life, you sure come off as a moron sometimes.

'God Hater.' Please.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If the pledge said "One nation, under Jesus Christ", yes, I would have an issue with that. That would be equal to endorsing a religion.

I would have the same problem if said "under Buddha", "Under Muhammed", or "Under no God".

Keeping it generic keeps it secular in my opinion. No one can claim "God" as their own whereas many can claim "Jesus" as their own.

Were it up to me, the words "under God" would be removed from the pledge, but it does not bother me that they are there.

That is a very popular opinion, McG.

Most of the people in the United States seem to be concerned, as you are, with not having the government "endorse" a religion.

And, like you, apparently most do not care very much if the government "endorses" the notion of religion...the notion that there is a God...despite the fact that a significant portion of the population does not subscribe to that notion.

Essentially...that line of thinking reduces to: We don't want our government to insult or affront people who are religious by endorsing a particular religion or philosophy...but it is perfectly acceptable to us if the government insults and affronts people who do not have a religion...or who espouse a philosophy that questions if there are any gods.

We will not allow our government to "endorse" (i.e. discriminate against) any particular religion or philosophy...EXCEPT a philosophy that questions the existence of gods.

And of course...that is perfectly legal.

But I must say...it certainly departs from the sense of fair play and interests of equity that I think make up the foundation of our country.

I cannot help but wonder what motivates people like youself, McG...someone who seems fair and who has notions of equality among people...to feel it is okay to "have issues" with the one, but seem so unconcerned with the other.

I think it sucks this way...and I am troubled that more people will not get involved in righting this wrong.

0 Replies

What do you consider a "significant portion" to be when you say "despite the fact that a significant portion of the population does not subscribe to that notion. "?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I agree with McG.

If it were up to me.... but then, a lot of things would be different, wouldn't they?

As for the original premise of this thread, I would say this: Baldimo, though I am sure you are smart in Real Life, you sure come off as a moron sometimes.

'God Hater.' Please.

Cycloptichorn

Wouldn't you call someone who attacks God at every turn a God hater? I would. It doesn't bother me if someone doesn't beleive in God, it only bothers me when God is attacked.

When someone on these boards attacks Islam wouldn't you call them a bigot or a racist? It is in the same theme that I don't like Newdow or what he stands for.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What do you consider a "significant portion" to be when you say "despite the fact that a significant portion of the population does not subscribe to that notion. "?

Oh...a portion at least as great as say...the Jewish population...or the African American population.

Wouldn't you say those groups represent a "significant portion" of our population?

How big would we have to be before desciminating against us would no longer be okay?

0 Replies

I honestly don't think you understand what he stands for.Would it be presumptious of me to ask you to read his letter that I posted. Nowhere does he mention hating God. I mean, how can you hate something you don't believe exists?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
What do you consider a "significant portion" to be when you say "despite the fact that a significant portion of the population does not subscribe to that notion. "?

Oh...a portion at least as great as say...the Jewish population...or the African American population.

Wouldn't you say those groups represent a "significant portion" of our population?

How big would we have to be before desciminating against us would no longer be okay?

desciminating against? By have the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance? I don't think so.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

desciminating against? By have the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance? I don't think so.

Well...when I wrote those words, McG...I started to change them from "descriminate against" to various wording that would more exactly state the proposition in ways that my build up to the question suggested. I suspected you might react to the wording the way you did.

But the alternate wording got cumbersome...and I decided on the short cut

In any case...I think it is descrimination, but...since you raised the point...and there is at least argueable validity to it, let me change the question to include the cumbersome wording:

How big a group would we have to be before you think we should receive the same consideration theists demand that our govenment extend to fellow theists?

How big a group would we have to be before American should demand of its government that it be as considerate of the sensibilities of people who do not subscribe to notions of our country being "under some god"....as it is to people who subscribe to the notion that our country is?

Can you help me with that?

I'm asking you how big YOU think we should be before expecting equality in this particular sensitivity?

0 Replies

Pretty big. Most likely your group would also need lots and lots of money and lobbyists as well.

A good PR campaign and a show of how having the words "under God" actually harms or discriminates against you would be good too.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Pretty big. Most likely your group would also need lots and lots of money and lobbyists as well.

Yeah...too bad that.

Quote:

A good PR campaign and a show of how having the words "under God" actually harms or discriminates against you would be good too.

Aha....just like Jews and Muslims have to show how the words "...under Jesus Christ..." would harm or discriminate against them.

Oh...McG. How unfortunate our country would be if all issues of this sort were treated so cavalierly.

0 Replies

God hater loses in court.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know