I still disagree with the divine providence addition, as it is still assuming there is such a thing and it breaks the secularity. Accepting the notion of divine providence automatically means that you believe in a higher power, and not everyone believes that (plus, it defeats the idea of Free Will, a direct interference with the Liberty part of the pledge).OpsChief wrote:
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).
Poll
Should the Pledge of Allegiance Say "One Nation Under God"?
| Yes | 58% | 58% - 72 | ||||
| No | 41% | 41% - 52 | ||||
| Total: 124 | ||||||
OpsChief - I focused on the application of the terms not the literal translation - so just a few more thoughts:
I contend that morality is a point of view because what is moral or amoral depends on who sets the standard. For instance in your example - preferred behaviors generally agreed or adhered to by a group - okay, that makes sense...but what about another group which conflicting values? It can't be moral in one group but then amoral in another. For instance - drinking is amoral in one group but not the other. Wouldn't the determination of morality depend on which group you are in? And isn't that a point of view?
But lets take another example - you have developed a barometer that predicts rain in Salem, Mass. The townsfolk accuse you of being a witch and want to burn you. Your society has labeled you amoral, but you don't see a problem with it because you have proven it works. If you truly believed it was amoral (aka absolutely wrong) wouldn't you desist immediately? If you persist, then haven't you decided its not witchcraft and therefore not amoral? Therefore, its a point of view - the society condemns you, but you think its ok. And further - from our current point of view burning people is misunderstood is absolutely wrong - but it was perfectly fine back then...so isn't that perspective as well?
As far as anarchy goes - I'm defining it as a tear in society's fabric - not in the political sense of the word. Breaking the law means you have committed a punishable offense within society. Since laws are the mores of the region, used to enforce the local morality/ideals/preferred societal organization. Therefore, committing a crime has labeled you as an amoral individual who needs to be punished.
Here's the twist though - if you are a member of that society, whenever your laws have been broken, it's a sign that the society as a whole has failed in establishing the mores within that individual. From the societal standpoint, as more laws are broken, the less in control the society is. So I define (from the societal point of view) any infraction of the law as temporal anarchy. (Unless you expand the definition to include the justice system to "reign in" the abberations within your society...then there is no possibilty of anarchy because crime is merely "bugs in the system" or "a system of continuous improvment to the current laws"). BUT...
...my contention is not from the societal point of view. My belief is that individuals who break the law (ie. don't conform) have created their own system of morality and justification for their actions. They have accepted the consequences in order to suit their needs. If they have not created their own society, but return after a short trip into lawlessness, the society sees them as anarchists until they get back. But the individual doesn't see it that way - they did what they think is right - and therefore is not amoral.
So I do believe morality is based on perspective - not only the societal perspective. You kind of said that in your last sentence above. Applying this to anarchy - I believe there is no absence of authority or disorder, because the individual has essentially created his own authority/order/code, or society has allowed the abberration to occur as a method of control/pacification or as a method to progress and adjust its own morality.
/puts crack pipe down
I contend that morality is a point of view because what is moral or amoral depends on who sets the standard. For instance in your example - preferred behaviors generally agreed or adhered to by a group - okay, that makes sense...but what about another group which conflicting values? It can't be moral in one group but then amoral in another. For instance - drinking is amoral in one group but not the other. Wouldn't the determination of morality depend on which group you are in? And isn't that a point of view?
But lets take another example - you have developed a barometer that predicts rain in Salem, Mass. The townsfolk accuse you of being a witch and want to burn you. Your society has labeled you amoral, but you don't see a problem with it because you have proven it works. If you truly believed it was amoral (aka absolutely wrong) wouldn't you desist immediately? If you persist, then haven't you decided its not witchcraft and therefore not amoral? Therefore, its a point of view - the society condemns you, but you think its ok. And further - from our current point of view burning people is misunderstood is absolutely wrong - but it was perfectly fine back then...so isn't that perspective as well?
As far as anarchy goes - I'm defining it as a tear in society's fabric - not in the political sense of the word. Breaking the law means you have committed a punishable offense within society. Since laws are the mores of the region, used to enforce the local morality/ideals/preferred societal organization. Therefore, committing a crime has labeled you as an amoral individual who needs to be punished.
Here's the twist though - if you are a member of that society, whenever your laws have been broken, it's a sign that the society as a whole has failed in establishing the mores within that individual. From the societal standpoint, as more laws are broken, the less in control the society is. So I define (from the societal point of view) any infraction of the law as temporal anarchy. (Unless you expand the definition to include the justice system to "reign in" the abberations within your society...then there is no possibilty of anarchy because crime is merely "bugs in the system" or "a system of continuous improvment to the current laws"). BUT...
...my contention is not from the societal point of view. My belief is that individuals who break the law (ie. don't conform) have created their own system of morality and justification for their actions. They have accepted the consequences in order to suit their needs. If they have not created their own society, but return after a short trip into lawlessness, the society sees them as anarchists until they get back. But the individual doesn't see it that way - they did what they think is right - and therefore is not amoral.
So I do believe morality is based on perspective - not only the societal perspective. You kind of said that in your last sentence above. Applying this to anarchy - I believe there is no absence of authority or disorder, because the individual has essentially created his own authority/order/code, or society has allowed the abberration to occur as a method of control/pacification or as a method to progress and adjust its own morality.
/puts crack pipe down
it's great to see a clear position explained even if I don't agree fully.Marconius wrote:
I still disagree with the divine providence addition, as it is still assuming there is such a thing and it breaks the secularity. Accepting the notion of divine providence automatically means that you believe in a higher power, and not everyone believes that (plus, it defeats the idea of Free Will, a direct interference with the Liberty part of the pledge).OpsChief wrote:
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).
I disagree that Divine Providence, a higher authority or power, means God or a god(s) exclusively, as I said before, it could include luck for those who like that sort of thing, the definition is pretty cool and the pirpose is a generic secular nod to beneficial things out of our control. Astrology, numerology, science. You name it, anything that people use to explain the unexplanable or the "damn lucky" adage can fit nicely into it.
I voted yes but then I changed my mind. I bet christians everywhere would be pissed if it said "one nation, under science".
"A higher authority" is still attempting to entertain the supernatural and is therefore still spiritual in nature, no matter if it is defined as god, luck, Zeus, or a mayonnaise jar lid. That is not secular.
I contend atheism is not secular, either. Rather it is a value system just as any other religion. The pledge as it is now does not endorse or establish any one religion. It merely acknowledges in a very general form that there is a higher power. The act of removing the "under God" the government would establish athiesm by the exclusion of all other religions. It would also contradict the founding documents of our nation in which God is directly referenced as Creator.
-----
Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
-----
Shall we change this too because some find God or even a higher power/divine providence "offensive"? Our nation's heritage acknowledges divine providence at the very beginning of its existence. This cannot be changed unless the record of history is altered - no matter how offended anyone may choose to be.
-----
Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
-----
Shall we change this too because some find God or even a higher power/divine providence "offensive"? Our nation's heritage acknowledges divine providence at the very beginning of its existence. This cannot be changed unless the record of history is altered - no matter how offended anyone may choose to be.
Because nothings wrong ~ "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". Only a very, very, VERY small percentage would like to have "God" taken off in Argentina, those being the atheists, if you don't believe then fine, whatever floats your boat, but don't try changing every other persons ideals and beliefs because besides being dumb, some might take it personal.sergeriver wrote:
Why shouldn't we try to change what is wrong?|=-sL-.Cujucuyo. wrote:
Only if you're making a mess about it and you're trying to change it.sergeriver wrote:
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?
Are you telling me that I'm a god? Flattery will get you nowhere!OpsChief wrote:
"intangible philosophical concept"??? no we are not a nation under CameronPoeCameronPoe wrote:
It should say "One nation under an intangible philosophical concept" or even better: "One nation under Zeus".
We are all our own gods and the sooner we all realize this the betterCameronPoe wrote:
Are you telling me that I'm a god? Flattery will get you nowhere!OpsChief wrote:
"intangible philosophical concept"??? no we are not a nation under CameronPoeCameronPoe wrote:
It should say "One nation under an intangible philosophical concept" or even better: "One nation under Zeus".
Stop worshipping yourself before hair grows on your palms.Religion=WAR wrote:
We are all our own gods and the sooner we all realize this the betterCameronPoe wrote:
Are you telling me that I'm a god? Flattery will get you nowhere!OpsChief wrote:
"intangible philosophical concept"??? no we are not a nation under CameronPoe
I'm not religious at all and i personally think the people who say "don't say under god not everyone follows YOUR religion or believes in a god" those kinda people really need to stop caring so much. We say the pledge everyone monday of the week and it doesn't bother me one bit. Thats how it was written, leave it that way.
Metaphorically, this is true. For the most part, we are each the master of our own destiny. Granted, this principle really only applies to individuals in free countries. This would not apply at all to people in North Korea, for example.Religion=WAR wrote:
We are all our own gods and the sooner we all realize this the betterCameronPoe wrote:
Are you telling me that I'm a god? Flattery will get you nowhere!OpsChief wrote:
"intangible philosophical concept"??? no we are not a nation under CameronPoe
For the most part, I agree. I'm atheist, but saying "one nation under god" doesn't affect me in a negative way.Mafia47 wrote:
I'm not religious at all and i personally think the people who say "don't say under god not everyone follows YOUR religion or believes in a god" those kinda people really need to stop caring so much. We say the pledge everyone monday of the week and it doesn't bother me one bit. Thats how it was written, leave it that way.
My only complaint is if the pledge is required. Leaving the pledge as it is seems fair to me, but forcing people (mostly students) to say the pledge is rather.... unconstitutional. I don't think it's big enough of a deal to sue over or anything, but living in a free country should paradoxically involve not forcing oaths upon people (unless it applies to court, of course).