BF2S Forums Separation of Church and State

HornyToady wrote:

. . . my question for you is what do you have to fear with all this PC BS revolution? Does it jeopardize your faith? I'm not being a smartass...just wondering...

To answer your question, there's nothing to fear right now and it does not jeopardize the expression of my faith at this point.  It is an annoyance and has had a very negative effect on free speech.  In our PC world, everyone now has this right to be offended for no good reason and it's led to so many of us being extremely thin-skinned.  Good people are painted as racists that are not, simply because they criticize the actions of a person of another race.  Even Bill Cosby who is black/African-American (see it even effects me, I'm not a racist, but I'm putting in several terms) and he was labeled as racist for criticizing his own race!!  Ridiculous.  If the PC movement progresses further and some of these things find their way into our laws, then people of faith could have something to worry about.  Those "offended" by someone's expression of religious values having the right to sue, etc.  It's already happening in the US when students express their faith and the school cracks down on them.  Fortunately there are legal teams that set the overzealous schools straight.

edit: two letters swapped, I need more coffee

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-12-29 05:44:58)

sergeriver wrote:

|=-sL-.Cujucuyo. wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

The Pledge of Allegiance is a promise or oath of allegiance to the United States as represented by its national flag.  It says these words: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.

I'm asking this about the US Pledge of Allegiance just because this is an American forum, but f.i. the same happens in my country, where the majority is Christian and they force you to say similar crap.  If you happen to be from another country please tell us if this also happens in your country.

Isn't this a violation to the First Amendment?
Is it right to mix a patriotic thing and religion?
Where is the separation of Church and State? 
What about the atheists or those who aren't monotheistic, aren't those Americans?

Yes, it happens also in my native country (El Salvador), and it should stay that way, if some people don't like it then they should get the hell out of the U.S. since they came here to live not to change the way people think, thats why I voted "Yes" on the poll. I hate it when people get 'offended' by something thats on their home country that isn't theirs, take Christmas for example, some idiots found it offensive and now stores and other places must say "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", so screw them, if they don't like it then get the hell out!

Wake up.  I don't live in America, I just use the pledge as an example.  I live in Argentina and the same BS is in our "Jura a la Bandera" (something like the pledge) which says "our beloved God".  Should I leave Argentina?

Only if you're making a mess about it and you're trying to change it.

|=-sL-.Cujucuyo. wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

|=-sL-.Cujucuyo. wrote:

Yes, it happens also in my native country (El Salvador), and it should stay that way, if some people don't like it then they should get the hell out of the U.S. since they came here to live not to change the way people think, thats why I voted "Yes" on the poll. I hate it when people get 'offended' by something thats on their home country that isn't theirs, take Christmas for example, some idiots found it offensive and now stores and other places must say "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", so screw them, if they don't like it then get the hell out!

Wake up.  I don't live in America, I just use the pledge as an example.  I live in Argentina and the same BS is in our "Jura a la Bandera" (something like the pledge) which says "our beloved God".  Should I leave Argentina?

Only if you're making a mess about it and you're trying to change it.

Why shouldn't we try to change what is wrong?

For that matter, what about swearing to tell the truth "so help you God" in court? Doesn't that mean if you don't believe in a god you can lie your ass off?

Also, who is forcing you to actually speak those words that for some reason, are offensive? Simple solution- close your mouth.

Last edited by DesertFox423 (2006-12-29 09:35:11)

Pug wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

For that matter, what about swearing to tell the truth "so help you God" in court? Doesn't that mean if you don't believe in a god you can lie your ass off?

Actually not true - you can elect to make an oath to something else in court.  In fact, I think that if you don't believe in God, than you are required to make a different oath.  Plus there's the "Do you understand that you can be charged with purgery (spelling, or should it be spelled purgatory?) for lying?" which concurs the fact the oath was made and understood.

Like "do you understand the rights I have just read you?"

What consequences would "lying" have if it weren't originally believed to be a sin or affront to God? What universal moral Code exists for people who acknowledge no higher power than themselves?

Swearing an oath with no consequences is a tiny bit dubious don't you agree?

Nations/civilizations who cast away morals /fail. All have so far anyway. The backbone of a nation is in its morality not its armies or its deeds.

OpsChief wrote:

What consequences would "lying" have if it weren't originally believed to be a sin or affront to God? What universal moral Code exists for people who acknowledge no higher power than themselves?

Swearing an oath with no consequences is a tiny bit dubious don't you agree?

Nations/civilizations who cast away morals /fail. All have so far anyway. The backbone of a nation is in its morality not its armies or its deeds.

The oath represents you are attempting to do something without your own bias affecting the quality and character of the outcome.

As far as moral Code goes - there isn't too many instances of pure anarchy around.  I actually believe anarchy doesn't exist even in a temporary sense (aka a riot).  In a riot type situation, the individual has made a concious decision based on what they think is right at the particular moment.  So although it's not the "norm" of what society wants them to do, they have justified their actions prior to taking them.

So applying that thought within a society, individuals who participate within a society have adopted the morals within the society, whether it be sinful or pious, although they reserve the right to bend their oath to participate within the society on occasion, accepting the consequences of their actions - aka crime.

And in addition, swearing an oath has consequences, even if you don't break it after it is made.

Pug wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

What consequences would "lying" have if it weren't originally believed to be a sin or affront to God? What universal moral Code exists for people who acknowledge no higher power than themselves?

Swearing an oath with no consequences is a tiny bit dubious don't you agree?

Nations/civilizations who cast away morals /fail. All have so far anyway. The backbone of a nation is in its morality not its armies or its deeds.

The oath represents you are attempting to do something without your own bias affecting the quality and character of the outcome.

As far as moral Code goes - there isn't too many instances of pure anarchy around.  I actually believe anarchy doesn't exist even in a temporary sense (aka a riot).  In a riot type situation, the individual has made a concious decision based on what they think is right at the particular moment.  So although it's not the "norm" of what society wants them to do, they have justified their actions prior to taking them.

So applying that thought within a society, individuals who participate within a society have adopted the morals within the society, whether it be sinful or pious, although they reserve the right to bend their oath to participate within the society on occasion, accepting the consequences of their actions - aka crime.

And in addition, swearing an oath has consequences, even if you don't break it after it is made.

There is a moral code then there is amoral or immoral behavior - generally we wouldn't say an "immoral code". Morality suggests conformance and virtue.  As such it is hard to conceive of "sinful morals" in practice but I get your point. By using the word moral that way you take the moral values/standards out of it.

Temporary failure in following moral behavior (as opposed to a/immoral) is not the same as a society being immoral so the riot thing I don't get.

The root of laws is found in the belief of God (gods throughout the world not just in the west). It is the root that creates the "fear" of eternal consequence or a Golden Rule "do unto others" divine retribution that drives men to honesty. Morality is not human nature. It seems that the only thing setting us apart from animals is Law and morality (and opposed thumbs) - everything else falls under instinctive or opportunistic behavior.

It is problematic to allow everyone to believe anything they want but I think it is the best way to go - Free Will. Couple that to the requirements of living in a community and you need rules, and rules to be followed need consequences. If someone swears an oath to tell the truth about something they believe only they know about, and they lie because nobody will find out - there is the dubious nature of a Godless Oath.

The pledge should stand as is as a reminder that without a moral compass the US is short-lived.

Anarchy is life without fear of consequences enforced by a higher authority whether by governments or God.

sergeriver wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

Pug wrote:

Actually not true - you can elect to make an oath to something else in court.  In fact, I think that if you don't believe in God, than you are required to make a different oath.  Plus there's the "Do you understand that you can be charged with purgery (spelling, or should it be spelled purgatory?) for lying?" which concurs the fact the oath was made and understood.

Like "do you understand the rights I have just read you?"

What consequences would "lying" have if it weren't originally believed to be a sin or affront to God? What universal moral Code exists for people who acknowledge no higher power than themselves?

Swearing an oath with no consequences is a tiny bit dubious don't you agree?

Nations/civilizations who cast away morals /fail. All have so far anyway. The backbone of a nation is in its morality not its armies or its deeds.

Honesty?

did you mean honesty or honestly?

OpsChief wrote:

If anyone wants to know the REAL PROBLEM with the Pledge of Allegiance is the first phrase. "I pledge allegiance to the flag"  who cares about the 3 colored piece of cloth really?

The symbology is not lost on me but it creates a strange focus, like that of an Idol, that seems innappropriate. In fact using the Christian origin of the added "under God" as Christian serving fails here because a true Christian would not place allegiance to an Idol before God.

Why not just say "I Pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, the Replubic and Nation, Indivisible, which it forms, under Rule of Law and Divine Providence, with Liberty and Justice for all."

How about it, can any atheists get behind that?  The term "divine providence" is generic enough in definition to allow it to refer to God or just a surpassing excellence. The perfect "freedom of religion/non-religion" solution while retaining the essential impact of an expression of loyalty to one's nation.

I attended and filmed a panel discussion with Dr. Michael Newdow, a few top members of local faiths (two rabbis, 3 leaders from 3 separate christian sects, and a muslim), and Dave Kong from the FFRF foundation.  One of the christians felt the same way as you do, rejecting the pledge altogether as a form of nationalistic idolatry.

I'd settle for:

"I Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the Republic for which it Stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Perfectly secular and acceptable.  Though this would just cause the Constitution itself to become the idol of allegiance as opposed to our flag.

Marconius wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

If anyone wants to know the REAL PROBLEM with the Pledge of Allegiance is the first phrase. "I pledge allegiance to the flag"  who cares about the 3 colored piece of cloth really?

The symbology is not lost on me but it creates a strange focus, like that of an Idol, that seems innappropriate. In fact using the Christian origin of the added "under God" as Christian serving fails here because a true Christian would not place allegiance to an Idol before God.

Why not just say "I Pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, the Replubic and Nation, Indivisible, which it forms, under Rule of Law and Divine Providence, with Liberty and Justice for all."

How about it, can any atheists get behind that?  The term "divine providence" is generic enough in definition to allow it to refer to God or just a surpassing excellence. The perfect "freedom of religion/non-religion" solution while retaining the essential impact of an expression of loyalty to one's nation.

I attended and filmed a panel discussion with Dr. Michael Newdow, a few top members of local faiths (two rabbis, 3 leaders from 3 separate christian sects, and a muslim), and Dave Kong from the FFRF foundation.  One of the christians felt the same way as you do, rejecting the pledge altogether as a form of nationalistic idolatry.

I'd settle for:

"I Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the Republic for which it Stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Perfectly secular and acceptable.  Though this would just cause the Constitution itself to become the idol of allegiance as opposed to our flag.

The conference sounds interesting. I am not totally against the Flag part of the pledge as it stands now - as long as I keep my head about me and remember its not the flag but the body of freedom then I'm OK. Some people have placed the flag itself on a pedestal, that is idolitry but that's OK secularly speaking.

The Constitution is more an idea than a document. It had to be written down but the parchment is not the point of value

I think adding Divine Providence as a way to remind everyone high and low (civilian/gov't rank wise) is subject to a higher authority and should act accordingly. Div Prov should remain to help eveyone regardless of belieifs that sometimes God or just dumb luck step in (depending on how you see things).

It should say "One nation under an intangible philosophical concept" or even better: "One nation under Zeus".

Pug wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

There is a moral code then there is amoral or immoral behavior - generally we wouldn't say an "immoral code". Morality suggests conformance and virtue.  As such it is hard to conceive of "sinful morals" in practice but I get your point. By using the word moral that way you take the moral values/standards out of it.

Temporary failure in following moral behavior (as opposed to a/immoral) is not the same as a society being immoral so the riot thing I don't get.

The root of laws is found in the belief of God (gods throughout the world not just in the west). It is the root that creates the "fear" of eternal consequence or a Golden Rule "do unto others" divine retribution that drives men to honesty. Morality is not human nature. It seems that the only thing setting us apart from animals is Law and morality (and opposed thumbs) - everything else falls under instinctive or opportunistic behavior.

It is problematic to allow everyone to believe anything they want but I think it is the best way to go - Free Will. Couple that to the requirements of living in a community and you need rules, and rules to be followed need consequences. If someone swears an oath to tell the truth about something they believe only they know about, and they lie because nobody will find out - there is the dubious nature of a Godless Oath.

The pledge should stand as is as a reminder that without a moral compass the US is short-lived.

Anarchy is life without fear of consequences enforced by a higher authority whether by governments or God.

Ahh, but morality is a point of view....

Take this to the "riot" example - you are starving so you participate in a food riot, thereby stealing more than your fair share of food.  By doing so you are able to keep your family alive, but some else's family pays for your actions.  From your point of view it was a necessity, but for those that are now without food, its a crime.

Or let's take the riot thing out the equation - how many times have you traveled faster than the speed limit, because you were late?  You have then made a conscious choice to avoid the price of being late, and therefore accept the consequence of breaking the law.  And breaking the law = anarchy?  Not from your point of view...

I'm not saying that everyone is prone to the free will trap.  If you are a member of a society, you have elected to participate by its rules.  But when you decide that you want to break the rules of a society, you haven't become an anarchist, you have used your own moral compass on the situation at hand.  So it's tied up within your point of view - your decisions of what is right and that of society.

And I do not think you are understanding my point about oaths.  A "God-filled" oath or a "God-less" oath are the same, if you have made the effort to participate within a society.  Backing up your oath by the bible doesn't mean you can't lie, nor does one based on "I swear on my Mother's grave" mean you can't tell the truth.  On the stand, its representative of your willingness to participate in the societal enforcement of law.  The consequence of taking the oath is that you have agreed to provide bias-free information for representatives of your society to form an opinion and recommend retribution - without you influencing them at all, as you are required to abide by thier decision.  On the other hand, you have agreed to be punished if you break your oath.

No sir morality is not a point of view - it is a set of prefered behaviors generally agreed or adhered to by a group of people. What is a point of view is what behaviors are emphasized or considered intollerable by an individual.

Moral, Amoral, Immoral all find there existense as concepts and words because of the values of a group of people who buy into the idea of good and evil. Moral/Ethical Codes cannot be situational by definition. There can be a prevailing moral climate but at some point when the virtues (i.e. civilized behaviors over instinctive human nature) are removed then they are no longer "moral". Morality has a set of conditions to give it form or it is something else. If you wake up tomorrow and divorce 5 of your 6 wives because you suddenly decided polygamy is wrong doesn't make you immoral either way if you live in polygamyland. But if divorce is immoral in p-land then guess what?


The lawlwessness of a group of rioters is not political anarchy - anarchy is a governmentless system of social behavior. Laws constitute a higher authority even if there is no single agent or body to enforce or impose those laws. Choosing to break a law or motor vehicle code is not an act of anarchy in itself. Anarchy does not = lawlessness without other conditions being involved. Unfortunately the word anarchy is also used to characterize a chaotic group of people so it can get confusing.

I strongly disagree that a God or Godless oath have the same effect on the individual mostly however your point is well made because an atheist taking an oath on the bible is useless, and some example vice versa. As to lying after an oath is taken I am focussing on consequences not definitions. Words have definitions, have meaning but they also have purpose. It is on the purpose of the pledge, or an oath that we should determine its need. Sure anyone can lie, that's free will. It is the fear of consequences or respect of the values that makes one be honest and the other lie. I don't have a simple solution to hypocracy lol

Everyone has a set of 'morals' taught by family, friends, schools, churches, gangs, etc., - whether theirs is something that is useful and acceptable or of value to the community-at-large is THE question and THE debate as well.

CameronPoe wrote:

It should say "One nation under an intangible philosophical concept" or even better: "One nation under Zeus".

"intangible philosophical concept"??? no we are not a nation under CameronPoe