The Pledge of Alligiance and "In God we trust"

[Kalypso]

You keep saying it's symbolic, but you never explain what you think it symbolizes.

And I'm not associating "God with the Christian God in the meaning" (never mind the original intent of the words "under God"). I'm saying that mentioning God in the pledge is favoring "religion generally," not that it is favoring Christianity in particular. However, even favoring religion over lack of religion is against the law, and that's stated quite explicitly in the First Amendment. I'm really not sure how you can argue that it's not.

The word God specifically refers to a deity, in Islam Allah for example, but that is not the root of the word, nor what it really symbolizes. The entire concept of a 'god' stems from the desire for order in the universe. That's the entire reason religion has so much power, it offers stability and order to people in a chaotic world, and establishes rules/laws that protect them from problems they can't handle, like death. EVERY religion addresses death in a way that removes its real meaning.

Beyond the literal meaning of 'God,' the word really symbolizes 'Order.' In the case of religion, order from divine sources. However, everyone is seeking order in some way. We all have something in our lives that gives us order, that sets our heads on straight, we all believe in something. That something is our god, our order, our diety. It may not be an invisible man in the sky, but it serves the same purpose. It may be an abstraction, a set of beliefs, but this serves the same function as god.

That is what I think of when I hear the term 'God.' That is what people speak of when they refer to god in the abstract, especially the eastern philosophical religions, the 'Search for God' is a search for meaning and order. They are metaphorically one in the same.

This is, of course, an opinion, based on my point of view. Your point of view may very well be that God only refers to a divine being, and 'One nation under god' refers to, specifically, the Christian incarnation. Neither of us are 'right' though. And really, who is right isn't important.

What matters are the consequences of the action you are proposing. Removing 'God' from all government-related items.

You are offended at its mention. You have it removed. Now, religious people are offended. See how it cycles in circles? This accomplishes nothing. You don't have to accept god, you just have to tolerate it, its vague mention in US currency. Tolerance is a wonderful thing. I don't like a great deal of things, but I tolerate all of them.

You aren't accomplishing anything by removing the words, it will just cause more problems. Why? It's not causing any real problems now. You don't have reason to be offended. If I sitting next to to a Christian child next to his mother on a bus and say 'Jesus was not the son of god,' she has reason to be offended. If, instead, I say 'I don't believe that Jesus was the son of god,' she doesn't have reason to be offended. She may still be offended, but her being offense won't accomplish anything. There is a big difference between the two situations, and their outcomes. One is active, one is passive.

It's the same with 'One nation under god.' Even if, as you say, it's referring specifically to the Christian God (Which it isn't), it isn't encouraging anything. It isn't active. If it said 'One nation under Jesus' it would be much different.

My two points in this post are-

1) God doesn't specifically refer to a single thing. It is a vague, abstract idea, rather than a specific deity, and the term is so diverse and vague that it isn't offensive.

2) Even if it were, you accomplish nothing by removing the words. The cycle of hate just goes around in circles. It's better to tolerate/ignore it, and focus on things that matter. As stated, it isn't hurting any Atheists. There are things that are, though. Focus on those things.

 

[snex]

except, if the words are removed, it doesnt matter if christians get offended - because the action would be legal. in the current situation, it is NOT legal.

furthermore, if the term "god" is this vague reference to order, why would christians be offended if it were removed? seems kind of odd to get offended about the government no longer endorsing a "god" that isnt specifically their god anyway, dontcha think? it kind of reminds me of how creationists say that creationism is science, but any time they lose a court case they cry about "religious discrimination." they want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Kalypso]

except, if the words are removed, it doesnt matter if christians get offended - because the action would be legal. in the current situation, it is NOT legal.

I disagree, and that disagreement is explained earlier on.

furthermore, if the term "god" is this vague reference to order, why would christians be offended if it were removed? seems kind of odd to get offended about the government no longer endorsing a "god" that isnt specifically their god anyway, dontcha think? it kind of reminds me of how creationists say that creationism is science, but any time they lose a court case they cry about "religious discrimination." they want to have their cake and eat it too.

The facts of the matter have nothing to do with who gets offended.

 

[Mediocre]

Kalypso, why, exactly, do you interpret the "God" mentioned in the Pledge to be the kind of amorphous, secular, order-bringer that you imagine? I can accept your definition as one meaning of the word "God", but certainly not the only definition, nor even the primary definition.

I'm not going to argue with you on the origin and rationale behind God, because I largely agree with you.

But what does your personal interpretation of the word "God" have to do with anything, in a legal sense? Was that what the people who introduced the word into the Pledge meant? No. Is that what the majority of people in the United States mean when they say God? No. Is that what the millions of schoolchildren who recite the pledge every school day think it means? No.

So you think that your personal opinion that the word "God" means so and so is enough to make something legal that would otherwise be illegal? And if not you, what other authority confirms your definition of God? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[Kalypso]

Kalypso, why, exactly, do you interpret the "God" mentioned in the Pledge to be the kind of amorphous, secular, order-bringer that you imagine? I can accept your definition as one meaning of the word "God", but certainly not the only definition, nor even the primary definition.

Because the intentions of the people who put it in the pledge mean nothing compared to the use of the word today. Since people of different faiths both say the phrase 'One nation under god,' and both think it fits their world view, the only logical way to interpret it is the way I have, in my eyes. The intentions of the people who established it mean nothing in comparison with the current useage, by the peoples of various faiths.

But what does your personal interpretation of the word "God" have to do with anything, in a legal sense? Was that what the people who introduced the word into the Pledge meant? No. Is that what the majority of people in the United States mean when they say God? No. Is that what the millions of schoolchildren who recite the pledge every school day think it means? No.

I disagree with the last No. And again, I don't care what the original intention was.

If 10 million Americans say the pledge every day and think of the old man with a huge beard, father of Jesus God, and 1 Muslim American says it and sees Allah, in my eyes the useage of the term has gone from specific to vague. And obviously, in the case of America, enormous diversity leads to enormous vagueries. It doesn't matter if 'most' people who say it think of a Christian god. The term, itself, is not that specific, and the diversity of the word is seen through the different interpretations of the pledge.

So you think that your personal opinion that the word "God" means so and so is enough to make something legal that would otherwise be illegal? And if not you, what other authority confirms your definition of God? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

My personal opinion isn't relevant, I was just conveying that not everyone shares your views, and that your idea of 'One nation under a Christian God' is flawed. The term is much more vague. That is why it is legal. I'm not changing something that is illegal to something that is legal, I'm explaining why it is legal. That's why the 10 commandments are taken down (Specific) and the 'god' is left (Vague). I don't think you understand just how vague the term 'God' is.

And you place far too much importance on the original intention of the words, when they were written. A pledge, like a song is a piece of art, and it's true meaning is determined through interpretation.

 

[snex]

it doesnt matter how vague the term is. it promotes a religious concept to claim our country is under it. why do you fail to understand this?

 

[Kalypso]

it doesnt matter how vague the term is. it promotes a religious concept to claim our country is under it. why do you fail to understand this?

You say it does, I say it doesn't, you can't just say something until everyone else accepts it as truth. Why do you fail to understand this?

 

[lonejedi]

it doesnt matter how vague the term is. it promotes a religious concept to claim our country is under it. why do you fail to understand this?

As I've stated before, if you want to take the words Under God out of the pledge and money, why not take them out of every statue, and significant memorial that has the words Under God out. Why not change every speech,detering them saying the words God.

If you're against Under God in the pledge, then you're against the Liberty Bell, which has a scripture from the BIBLE, that's even a specific religion, why don't you guys get a group together and take that out. I realize what Medicore said, that would ruin some historical places.

But how can you be pro something, and then be against basically the same thing. That's what you're doing when you say you're pro taking out Under God in the pledge and Money, but you're fine with monuments having these same things mentioned.

You know how often the Constituition is broken more severely in America. And is actaully harmful to Americans. We're wasting our time, debating over a couple of words. While more important issues are at hand. I could name multiple issues that have a bit more priority then something like this.

In fact, the word establishment is so vague, it could mean multiple things.

It could mean an established church
or it could mean a certain religion.

But let's look at history here. We've never had a problem up until maybe 60 some years ago, with religious monuments or documents being somewhere in our governemnt. Why? Maybe because the law makers, the senators, the ones who actually wrote the Constituition. I.E Madison and Jefferson, knew the meaning of what they wrote.

Why would jefferson write one thing, and then go on to contradict himself. If Jefferson really meant what he said, the way you describe it. Then why would he swear on the Bible, and say "So Help me God" Why would he do that. Answer me that, why would someone who wrote that phrase do this? I want a legitimate answer

 

[Kalypso]

You know how often the Constituition is broken more severely in America. And is actaully harmful to Americans. We're wasting our time, debating over a couple of words. While more important issues are at hand. I could name multiple issues that have a bit more priority then something like this.

Intelligent Design in Public Schools.

 

[snex]

lonejedi the original presidents did not swear on the bible you freak. the constitution clearly states that no religious test shall be offered to take office. presidents who swear on a bible or say "so help me god" do so out of their own personal choice. thats perfectly fine. its when they start claiming that *i* am under the jurisdiction of their fictional god that the constitution is violated.

re: bible quotes on the liberty bell and other monuments - the quote makes no reference to any religious claim. it is perfectly fine to quote the bible or any other book when the quote in question 1) has relevance (as the liberty bell quote certainly does), and 2) does not push a particular religious agenda (which it doesnt).

i also forgot to reply about state constitutions that specifically deny atheists the right to hold office or testify at a trial. well here they are: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_20_1

 

[Mediocre]

You say it does, I say it doesn't, you can't just say something until everyone else accepts it as truth. Why do you fail to understand this?

I'm really not sure how you can continue to argue this point with such absolute confidence in your own opinion.

You say that the original intent doesn't matter? Fine, but in law, original intent does matter. For example, manslaughter and homicide are both the crime of killing someone, but the punishments differ greatly because of the original intent of the person who committed the crime.

You say that it doesn't matter what the majority of people who use a word think that word means? Then how else are we to define a word? Just because a group of people or an individual defines a word in a different way does not make that definition correct, or something other people would recognize.

You say that schoolchildren interpret the God in the Pledge to be whatever God they are most comfortable with? Then what about me, and many others like me, who for years pledged our allegiance to a God we didn't believe in? Because I, and many others I've met, believe that the God mentioned in the Pledge is indeed the Christian God, even though we are atheists. What about the Wiccans, who believe in two chief Gods? What about many other religious people, who do not believe that the God referenced in the Pledge is their God?

Or do they not matter? Just because you interpret the word "God" in a certain, extremely vague way does not mean that everybody else agrees with your interpretation.

 

[Kalypso]

You say that the original intent doesn't matter? Fine, but in law, original intent does matter. For example, manslaughter and homicide are both the crime of killing someone, but the punishments differ greatly because of the original intent of the person who committed the crime.

Don't try association fallacies, the argument does not become more legally legit because you say stuff like this. We are discussing the original social intent of the current pledge vs the current social use and interpretation. This has NOTHING to do with legality, and doesn't belie that it would make it more likely to be illegal because the original intent inferred a Christian God. That's not how it works. Whether or not it is illegal is based on the Separation of Church and State and other related legal documents, not the original intent.

Just because a group of people or an individual defines a word in a different way does not make that definition correct, or something other people would recognize.

Exactly. This sums up my entire argument relating to the vagueries of the term. The word 'God' means a great many things, and the fact that you think it's only referring to the Christian God is not absolute, entirely because of how many opposing viewpoints on the matter there are, and they are all 'right.'

You say that schoolchildren interpret the God in the Pledge to be whatever God they are most comfortable with? Then what about me, and many others like me, who for years pledged our allegiance to a God we didn't believe in? Because I, and many others I've met, believe that the God mentioned in the Pledge is indeed the Christian God, even though we are atheists. What about the Wiccans, who believe in two chief Gods? What about many other religious people, who do not believe that the God referenced in the Pledge is their God?

If you professed a pledge to a god you didn't believe in, that's your problem. You could just as easily say the pledge with no Christian undertones, or not say the pledge, or say the pledge relating to your beliefs, or any number of things. Saying the pledge and thinking of the Christian God is your doing, not others.

Or do they not matter? Just because you interpret the word "God" in a certain, extremely vague way does not mean that everybody else agrees with your interpretation.

Or yours?

You have a major flaw in your argument, you keep telling me I'm wrong and implying that you're right, and trying to back that up with 'Not everyone agrees with your views.' Here's the problem. My opinion includes your opinion, and everyones opinion, in one. It supports all views of the issue. Any interpretation is represented when God is seen as vague. That is not true in your case, where you repeatedly insist that it ONLY refers to a Christian God. Your own logic debunks your claims.

 

[Kalypso]

i also forgot to reply about state constitutions that specifically deny atheists the right to hold office or testify at a trial. well here they are: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_20_1

Slavery was 'legal' in Mississippi until like 5 years ago. Old, archaic, completely un-enforced laws don't prove your point. Atheists are not in a state of oppression, you are projecting.

 

[Mediocre]

This has NOTHING to do with legality, and doesn't belie that it would make it more likely to be illegal because the original intent inferred a Christian God. That's not how it works. Whether or not it is illegal is based on the Separation of Church and State and other related legal documents, not the original intent.

Answer me this then - if not by the original intent of a word, or the majority of people's interpretation of a word, then how are we to define it?

Exactly. This sums up my entire argument relating to the vagueries of the term. The word 'God' means a great many things, and the fact that you think it's only referring to the Christian God is not absolute, entirely because of how many opposing viewpoints on the matter there are, and they are all 'right.'

You have a major flaw in your argument, you keep telling me I'm wrong and implying that you're right, and trying to back that up with 'Not everyone agrees with your views.' Here's the problem. My opinion includes your opinion, and everyones opinion, in one. It supports all views of the issue. Any interpretation is represented when God is seen as vague. That is not true in your case, where you repeatedly insist that it ONLY refers to a Christian God. Your own logic debunks your claims.

You say "any interpretation is represented when God is seen as vague". Sorry, I don't think that cuts it. If definitions of words are so ****ing vague, how can any laws have any meaning? How can anything we say have any meaning?

It's fine if you want to interpret a word a certain way, but to in a legal context, that just doesn't cut it. If words can be interpreted in any way that any individual wants, and that interpretation has legal consequences, then no law has any value, because they are all rendered unenforceable.

Your position seems ridiculous to me.

 

[snex]

Slavery was 'legal' in Mississippi until like 5 years ago. Old, archaic, completely un-enforced laws don't prove your point. Atheists are not in a state of oppression, you are projecting.

bull****. had you actually read the article i posted youd see exactly why these laws prove my point. you clearly are not interested in seriously considering other views on this topic, because you dont even take the time to read articles written by them.

 

[Kalypso]

Answer me this then - if not by the original intent of a word, or the majority of people's interpretation of a word, then how are we to define it?

A word does not have one definition. It has many, and all are correct. A summation of popular usage and origin.

You say "any interpretation is represented when God is seen as vague". Sorry, I don't think that cuts it. If definitions of words are so ****ing vague, how can any laws have any meaning? How can anything we say have any meaning?

God is probably one of, if not the vaguest word in the English canon. This does not commonly apply to other words. Don't try to take the argument out of context.

It's fine if you want to interpret a word a certain way, but to in a legal context, that just doesn't cut it. If words can be interpreted in any way that any individual wants, and that interpretation has legal consequences, then no law has any value, because they are all rendered unenforceable.

Your position seems ridiculous to me.

You are again, projecting this conversation on OTHER legalities. The inherent vagueries of the term God dismiss the only clause of the Separation of Church and State that would make it illegal. This isn't always true in other laws. If it said 'The government shal make no mention of religion or religious themes or ideals' then it would be illegal. Your problem lies with the document you are trying to force this into being illegal, not with the word itself, and much less with other legalities.

 

[Kalypso]

bull****. had you actually read the article i posted youd see exactly why these laws prove my point. you clearly are not interested in seriously considering other views on this topic, because you dont even take the time to read articles written by them.

To an extent, you're right, I've been atheist my entire adult life and known many atheist people and never heard of a single case of atheist discrimination, ever. You are acting like we need a civil rights movement. In my mind, you are an extremist, and you are not going to listen to anything I say because you're convinced atheists are being oppressed.

Even if they are now unenforceable

That is the only meaningful line of the article. There is no atheist oppression in America. The only way to even determine if there is one is to talk to people of the Atheist 'faith' and ask if they feel oppressed, and why. I have never, in my life, until this thread, ever seen someone complain about it. And you have given no real evidence thusfar, you have presented archaic, unenforceable laws, faulty statistics and nothing that strikes me as evidence at all that there's a problem.

There will always be some level of bigotry toward any group. There is still racism towards blacks. Do blacks need another civil rights movement? No. Presenting 4 cases where Atheists have been 'oppressed' is not proof of a problem, it's the exception that proves the rule. In order to support your 'There is a massive atheist oppression in America' argument, you need large-scale proof. Multiple Supreme Court cases dealing with the oppression of Atheists, a good number of Atheists having their liberties infringed upon because of their beliefs, and proof of cultural conditioning against Atheists. These three things are present with any major bigotry problem/civil rights movement, which you are making Atheism out to me. So show us some real proof.

 

[Mediocre]

A word does not have one definition. It has many, and all are correct. A summation of popular usage and origin.


God is probably one of, if not the vaguest word in the English canon. This does not commonly apply to other words. Don't try to take the argument out of context.


You are again, projecting this conversation on OTHER legalities. The inherent vagueries of the term God dismiss the only clause of the Separation of Church and State that would make it illegal. This isn't always true in other laws. If it said 'The government shal make no mention of religion or religious themes or ideals' then it would be illegal. Your problem lies with the document you are trying to force this into being illegal, not with the word itself, and much less with other legalities.

So then, by extension, you would be fine with something like, "God created the universe" being taught to school children?

After all, God could be the God of a religion, or it could represent something like the various universal forces.

 

[Kalypso]

So then, by extension, you would be fine with something like, "God created the universe" being taught to school children?

After all, God could be the God of a religion, or it could represent something like the various universal forces.

No. There are an enormous numbers of different contextual and literal differences between what you're describing and 'One nation under god,' do I really need to explain them all?

1) You are describing a method of indoctrination, the pledge does not indoctrinate
2) You are describing something that, contextually, specifically references religion. None of the abstractions of the word 'God' play at all in what you describe. It refers specifically to a creator god.
3) You need a scientific basis for teaching something in school, what you are describing has none.

 

[snex]

1) it doesnt matter how old or unenforceable the laws are. they are on the books and are a testament to how little society cares about atheists. any such laws about ANY OTHER MINORITY have been removed from the books, regardless of how old or unenforceable they were. and these arent simply laws made by legislatures, these are written into STATE CONSTITUTIONS, the ultimate laws of the state! that you cannot see how this is discrimination boggles the mind.

2) you have presented ZERO evidence that the survey was faulty. you only assert that it is because it DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION. this is CIRCULAR LOGIC.

3) if you BOTHERED to look, you would INSTANTLY find open discrimination against atheists ALL OVER THE INTERNET! the fact that you are so lazy and dont even feel the need to type a phrase into google shows just how unreasonable you are.

 

[Kalypso]

1) it doesnt matter how old or unenforceable the laws are.

Yes, it does, in fact it's all that matters.

2) you have presented ZERO evidence that the survey was faulty. you only assert that it is because it DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION. this is CIRCULAR LOGIC.

1) Small survey size
2) Conducted by non-professionals who were more than likely not trained, and conducting the survey for student instead of professional work
3) Those kinds of surveys are very, very fallible, and easily manipulated.
4) No stated guidelines for objectivity
5) Non-specific
6) Interpretive

I swear you say everything you disagree with is Circular Logic, I wonder if you even know what it means.

3) if you BOTHERED to look, you would INSTANTLY find open discrimination against atheists ALL OVER THE INTERNET! the fact that you are so lazy and dont even feel the need to type a phrase into google shows just how unreasonable you are.

Yes, ON THE INTERNET. Everything you read on the internet is NOT TRUE. You can't just say 'It's on the internet, you're wrong,' that is so far beyond correct logic I don't even know where to begin.

If you go and 'hunt down' bias, you will always find it. It only matters if it is present before you look for it.



You have not met the Skeptics Challenge. You really have little to no proof supporting your outrageous claims, and you are resorting to "If you only looked you'd see" and "You're just using circular logic" to try and slam my character. That doesn't work. You are still lacking in evidence.

 

[Mediocre]

1) You are describing a method of indoctrination, the pledge does not indoctrinate

That's questionable.

I'll admit I can't offer proof that it does indoctrinate, but I very much doubt you can you give proof that it does not.

In any case, that is irrelevant to any legal distinction.

2) You are describing something that, contextually, specifically references religion. None of the abstractions of the word 'God' play at all in what you describe. It refers specifically to a creator god.

What context? I gave the statement without any context at all.

Assume none of the students know whether the teacher is religious or not. The various definitions of the word "God" could apply just as much in the example I gave as in the Pledge. Who are you to say that the teacher is referring specifically to a creator God?

Please explain to me specifically how the Pledge and the example I gave differ in this regard.

3) You need a scientific basis for teaching something in school, what you are describing has none.

The Pledge has no scientific basis. What separates it from other instruction throughout the school day? Simply because it is not part of any actual class does not make it exempt from any relevant laws.


By the way, I'm probably voting for you in the next voting thing. You're horribly stubborn, but you're not stupid, and that's enough for me.

 

[Kalypso]

Assume none of the students know whether the teacher is religious or not. The various definitions of the word "God" could apply just as much in the example I gave as in the Pledge. Who are you to say that the teacher is referring specifically to a creator God?

Please explain to me specifically how the Pledge and the example I gave differ in this regard.

The words matter, not the teachers intentions. You place entirely too much stock in intentions.

The Pledge has no scientific basis.

The pledge is not teaching material

You're horribly stubborn, but you're not stupid, and that's enough for me.

I'll concede a point if I feel I have lost (See the women in videogames thread), but if I feel debate is to be had I'll engage in it ^^

 

[snex]

Yes, it does, in fact it's all that matters.

more bull****. not only does the article i linked EXPLAIN WHY, you completely snipped relevant facts about the matter from my post. you have neither refuted the reasons given in the article nor addressed my points about other minorities.

1) Small survey size
2) Conducted by non-professionals who were more than likely not trained, and conducting the survey for student instead of professional work
3) Those kinds of surveys are very, very fallible, and easily manipulated.
4) No stated guidelines for objectivity
5) Non-specific
6) Interpretive

all lies. the study has passed the scientific peer review muster. you only ignore it because you dont WANT it to be true.

I swear you say everything you disagree with is Circular Logic, I wonder if you even know what it means.

no, every argument you make is circular logic. you assume that your viewpoint is true, and then you make arguments that only make sense if we accept your assumption. but if we do not accept it, your arguments make no sense. since you cannot support your argument without already assuming it, you are on shaky ground.

Yes, ON THE INTERNET. Everything you read on the internet is NOT TRUE. You can't just say 'It's on the internet, you're wrong,' that is so far beyond correct logic I don't even know where to begin.

If you go and 'hunt down' bias, you will always find it. It only matters if it is present before you look for it.

once again, you deny evidence right in front of you because it proves that you are wrong. until you actually address any of the evidence i have given instead of merely ignoring it, you are just spouting your worthless opinion with no factual basis behind it.

 

[Kalypso]

more bull****. not only does the article i linked EXPLAIN WHY, you completely snipped relevant facts about the matter from my post. you have neither refuted the reasons given in the article nor addressed my points about other minorities.

I don't care about your perception of bias against Atheists. I care about hard evidence that shows oppression. You have presented none.

all lies. the study has passed the scientific peer review muster. you only ignore it because you dont WANT it to be true.

no comment, this is simply ridiculous. Even if the study were 100% scientifically accurate and fallible, it only says that some people don't trust atheists. It in no way expresses widespread bias.

once again, you deny evidence right in front of you because it proves that you are wrong. until you actually address any of the evidence i have given instead of merely ignoring it, you are just spouting your worthless opinion with no factual basis behind it.

...

Can I please just rant and flame him? Rationality is not working.

Just because bias against a group exists does not mean it is some enormous, widespread problem. Any belief, race, gender, creed has someone hating it for stupid reasons. What matters is whether or not this discrimination is endorsed by society in general as well as the government, and whether or not it is infringing on liberties.

I am not going to say this again. You have presented no proof that shows Atheists being largely discriminated against. At most, you have a vague survey that shows 'Some people don't trust atheists,' a handful of court documents that prove absolutely nothing (Being that ANY group will have a small amount of discrimination, this does not in any way imply a societal bias), and some laws that are no longer on the books that 'Show social bias.'

THERE IS NOT A WIDESPREAD, RAMPANT BIAS PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU CAN FIND 4 COURT CASES THAT INVOLVE SOMEONE BEING FIRED AND THEIR BEING ATHEIST, SOME LAWS THAT ARE NO LONGER IN EFFECT, AND A STUDY THAT SAYS PEOPLE MAY MISTRUST ATHEISTS.

That does NOT consist a major, widespread bias against Atheism. This is IN YOUR HEAD. IT DOES NOT EXIST. The evidence you present is both faulty and short-sighted, even if I concede that it is all legit (Which it is not), it does not in any way prove your point. You completely fail to show widespread bias against Atheists.

Because it is not there.

I'm tired of repeating myself. Atheists cannot be denied basic rights, liberties or work because releasing Religious information is not mandatory, and the minuscule 4 cases you found prove nothing. Atheists are not religiously oppressed, we are not influenced to practice religion, we are not denied benefits that religious groups have. HOW ARE WE BEING SO OPPRESSED?

How can you POSSIBLY with a straight face compare the 'Atheist Oppression' to that of Black Americans?

The burden of proof is on YOU to make your point, you are succumbing to some of the most basic and widespread fallacies if you continue to act like I'm wrong for opposing you, and acting like I don't have facts. I don't even need facts, it has nothing to do with my argument, I stand with the point of view of almost everyone in America that Atheists are not oppressed. You are the one with the agenda, the opposing viewpoint, it is your task to make your point convincingly, which you are massively failing to do.

 

[Mediocre]

The words matter, not the teachers intentions. You place entirely too much stock in intentions.

How, exactly, do the words differ?

From what I can see, the word we're discussing here is exactly the same.

The pledge is not teaching material

I concede this.

But legally, is there any difference? You seem to suggest that there is, but provide no evidence to back this up.

 

[Kalypso]

How, exactly, do the words differ?

From what I can see, the word we're discussing here is exactly the same.

Like I said, it's about context. When saying 'One nation under god' I have, at the very least, explained that it can be interpreted many ways, many non-religious, and that the sheer vagueness of the term (Ranging from various deities to ideas or concepts) in addition to the symbolism of the passage renders the literal translation much less influential. There is enormous room for interpretation.

This isn't true when discussing a 'God creating the universe.' It is not, in any way, abstract, because it speaks of a creator. A creator is only found in religion. No scientific theories in any way reference a creator, or even a reason for the creation of the universe, the Big Bang theory doesn't touch issues of 'Why.' It simply states that a bunch of **** may have blown up, we don't know exactly why, but it makes sense with what we know and it's the best guess we have. There is no vagueness to the phrase 'God created the universe.' It is a very direct, blatant reference to religion.

I concede this.

But legally, is there any difference? You seem to suggest that there is, but provide no evidence to back this up.

The way the child interprets the material. If I am being taught something by a teacher, it is assumed that it is true, it's essentially a message from government/society to the child. A daily recitation like the pledge isn't interpreted as teaching material. It's hard to prove this, but throughout the thread people seem to agree that the pledge, while possibly offensive, isn't 'influential.' It would be if it were presented in from a teaching standpoint. Hard to explain.

I'm not sure of specific legalities, but I know some years ago when prayer was allowed in school it was not allowed in a teaching context, only as another form of recitation before teaching. Directly teaching religion was still condemned.

 

[snex]

the fact that theist teachers lead classes in an endorsement of theist views, even when there may be students of atheist parents who do not want their children exposed to religious endorsement is exactly the "evidence" of bias against atheists you were asking for!

you have been given all the evidence you need and more that discrimination against atheists is not only accepted in this society, but encouraged by its very government. the ONLY thing that makes our case different from the case of other minorities is that you cannot instantly spot an atheist the way you can spot a black person.

you have been shown that the government openly endorses theist positions, even to the children of atheist parents - who ALONE should have the right to educate their children in any religion THEY wish.

you have been shown that several state governments openly discriminate against atheists in their state constitutions. there is no movement by anyone to get these discriminatory laws removed from the books as any form of restitution for past injustice or to make amends.

you have been shown that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to win any major elected office in this country due to the inherent bias against us in the public view. you completely ignore the impact that the above two points have on this public view.

you have seen very real cases of discrimination against atheists. to say it is only 4 cases is simply a lie and reveals that once again you have posted without actually looking it up.

if all that isnt enough, how about president bush sr making the following statement while in office: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES said that atheists should not be considered citizens, and you dont see this as discrimination? you are completely in denial.

 

[Mediocre]

Like I said, it's about context. When saying 'One nation under god' I have, at the very least, explained that it can be interpreted many ways, many non-religious, and that the sheer vagueness of the term (Ranging from various deities to ideas or concepts) in addition to the symbolism of the passage renders the literal translation much less influential. There is enormous room for interpretation.

This isn't true when discussing a 'God creating the universe.' It is not, in any way, abstract, because it speaks of a creator. A creator is only found in religion. No scientific theories in any way reference a creator, or even a reason for the creation of the universe, the Big Bang theory doesn't touch issues of 'Why.' It simply states that a bunch of **** may have blown up, we don't know exactly why, but it makes sense with what we know and it's the best guess we have. There is no vagueness to the phrase 'God created the universe.' It is a very direct, blatant reference to religion.

God as a creator can be interpreted many different ways as well. For example, Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

This is an interpretation which does not deal with the idea of God put forward by organized religion, but recognizes a God who is all the laws and rules of the universe that gives it the order and coherence that it has.

This is a creator "God" that exemplifies the vagueness of my hypothetical teacher's statement, despite your arguments that the teacher's statement was specific to one certain interpretation of "God."

The way the child interprets the material. If I am being taught something by a teacher, it is assumed that it is true, it's essentially a message from government/society to the child.

Do you really think every five year old kindergartener will be able to recognize the difference between the teacher teaching the class and the teacher reciting a nationalistic manifesto in front of the class?

A daily recitation like the pledge isn't interpreted as teaching material. It's hard to prove this, but throughout the thread people seem to agree that the pledge, while possibly offensive, isn't 'influential.' It would be if it were presented in from a teaching standpoint. Hard to explain.

Even if the pledge is not "teaching material", it gives credence to the various monotheistic religions because of the inclusion of the word "God" in this context. It gives the impression (although you may argue that this interpretation is incorrect) that the government approves of "God", and therefore of religions that believe in God.

I'd say that this, again, falls under the category of supporting "religion generally", which goes against he principle of separation of church and state.

 

[Kalypso]

the fact that theist teachers lead classes in an endorsement of theist views, even when there may be students of atheist parents who do not want their children exposed to religious endorsement is exactly the "evidence" of bias against atheists you were asking for!

I had an atheist professor this term who very blatently expressed his views in class, I'm sure religious parents would rather not have heard it.

You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm done discussing this, it is simply ridiculous. There are no sactions on atheists. We don't have problems getting jobs, we CANNOT be discriminated against. Our beliefs cannot be suppressed. Our beliefs cannot be held against us. We are not told to worship other religions.

There is no huge problem and I'm done with this 'debate.'

if all that isnt enough, how about president bush sr making the following statement while in office: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES said that atheists should not be considered citizens, and you dont see this as discrimination? you are completely in denial.

We both know that is a lie.

 

[Kalypso]

God as a creator can be interpreted many different ways as well. For example, Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

This is an interpretation which does not deal with the idea of God put forward by organized religion, but recognizes a God who is all the laws and rules of the universe that gives it the order and coherence that it has.

This is a creator "God" that exemplifies the vagueness of my hypothetical teacher's statement, despite your arguments that the teacher's statement was specific to one certain interpretation of "God."

Interesting, I didn't know that. However, it is still directly religious, it's still a creator god, it simply isn't concerned with the fate and doings of mankind. While 'creator god' is open to interpretation, it doesn't really go beyond religion.

Do you really think every five year old kindergartener will be able to recognize the difference between the teacher teaching the class and the teacher reciting a nationalistic manifesto in front of the class?

I always did, but I can't speak for other people.

I'd say that this, again, falls under the category of supporting "religion generally", which goes against he principle of separation of church and state.

At most I'd call it a religious reference, if it were interpreted religiously.

 

[blazedaces]

I had an atheist professor this term who very blatently expressed his views in class, I'm sure religious parents would rather not have heard it.

You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm done discussing this, it is simply ridiculous. There are no sactions on atheists. We don't have problems getting jobs, we CANNOT be discriminated against. Our beliefs cannot be suppressed. Our beliefs cannot be held against us. We are not told to worship other religions.

There is no huge problem and I'm done with this 'debate.'

We both know that is a lie.

If that is a lie, why do all these sources say otherwise:

www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
www.noutopia.com/christianlove.html
http://www.atheistsforhumanrights.org/****ed.htm
http://www.socialist.nu/citat/religion.html
http://www.off-the-map.org/atheist/2006/04/18/presidents-and-prayer/
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=george bush
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/george_bush/
http://www.gocreate.com/quotamaze/qpnk.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401908.html

*This last one was the washington post, if you don't believe that then I don't know if you'll believe anything*

http://www.religioustolerance.org/natpled7.htm
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsnapoleon.html
http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_07/001626.php
http://blogs.opml.org/tommorris/2006/04/30
http://daryl.learnhouston.com/2005/01/15/
http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/Hitler.shtml
http://www.tedellis.net/

Seriously, every source says this is true and no sources deny it! Why do you always open your mouth before even bothering to look up a single source?!

 

[lonejedi]

dis·trust (dĭs-trŭst') Pronunciation Key
n. Lack of trust or confidence.

tr.v. dis·trust·ed, dis·trust·ing, dis·trusts
To have no confidence in.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Distrust

How do distrusted and hate get mixed up so easily. Just because don't trust someone, does not mean you hate them. There are alot of people in my lives, who I know, talk to, but I don't trust them, but that doesn't make me hate them. I searched the most hated group in America, and that came up. Along with other sites that were like, yah we're the most hated group.

Snex, do you trust all christians? Prob not, OH NO that must mean you hate us... That site was taken totally out of context.

The article on the poll, was very generic, it didn't even give all the %, nor the exact questions they asked. I want specifics. If this is a professional poll, I want to see professional results.

 

[lonejedi]

Seriously, every source says this is true and no sources deny it! Why do you always open your mouth before even bothering to look up a single source?!

Ok first off, yes this is true, as much as I admire George Bush Senior, that was a stupid comment.

2nd off, that's really bad logic. ALL THE SITES SAY IT's SO, so so so, and no one denies it! So it must be TRUE!

Let me ask you something blazed, if you're trying to find sites that are supporting your idea, are you going to post one that goes against what your side...?

 

[blazedaces]

Ok first off, yes this is true, as much as I admire George Bush Senior, that was a stupid comment.

2nd off, that's really bad logic. ALL THE SITES SAY IT's SO, so so so, and no one denies it! So it must be TRUE!

Let me ask you something blazed, if you're trying to find sites that are supporting your idea, are you going to post one that goes against what your side...?

Alright, I agree that the way I posted may have lead one to believe such things, but I'll clear things up:

First of all, I would post sites that go against my side/statement. I searched that quote + president + george + bush and picked any site that had the quote in the first 3 or 4 search pages (this might vary depending on how many sites you put on a page, I think I have 10).

Second of all, I put about 10+ sources there, not just 1, you don't think that increases its credibility?

Thirdly, it was a challenge as well as a statement. I tried my hardest to find anyone denying the claim and if anyone else here has a source that does so I would love to see it.

Fourthly, and this is the most important point of all, Kalypso claimed the statement was a lie without even trying to check what other sources had to say on the subject. That's what that post was entirely about.

Honestly though man, how can we ever really know that a quote is actually what someone said? Books? Encyclopedias? Newspaper articles? Online periodicals? Websites? When will it be enough? It also depends on the tone of each site. If the sites quote the exact same quote directly, most of them even sourcing the quote, there's a higher chance this is a legitimate quote. Of course it also depends on the credibility of the source, but I pointed out one source that I believed to be more reliable then the rest for that reason.

Listen, whenever I post sources, especially multiple ones like this making a very "in-your-face" statement I am challenging people to refute the sources/find ones that disagree. After all, that's part of what debate is all about, right? We're trying to discover the truth, or at least get closer to it. The only way to do that is by exchanging information/sources/backed up opinions and keeping an open mind so we don't forget the reason we started: to attain the truth or get closer to it.

-blazed

 

[Mediocre]

Interesting, I didn't know that. However, it is still directly religious, it's still a creator god, it simply isn't concerned with the fate and doings of mankind. While 'creator god' is open to interpretation, it doesn't really go beyond religion.

Really? Look at pantheism.

If you're going to say that the God in the Pledge is not religious in nature, you really can't say that this hypothetical teacher's God is religious either.

 

[Kalypso]

www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
www.noutopia.com/christianlove.html
http://www.atheistsforhumanrights.org/****ed.htm
http://www.socialist.nu/citat/religion.html
http://www.off-the-map.org/atheist/2006/04/18/presidents-and-prayer/
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=george bush
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/george_bush/
http://www.gocreate.com/quotamaze/qpnk.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401908.html

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987.

It's the other bush, and he WAS NOT president at the time. This is 20 years old, and he is simply expressing a personal opinion. That does not hint towards a nation-wide atheist bias.

The article on the poll, was very generic, it didn't even give all the %, nor the exact questions they asked. I want specifics. If this is a professional poll, I want to see professional results.

I already told him that, he told me I was ignorant and using circular logic. Don't waste your breathe.

Fourthly, and this is the most important point of all, Kalypso claimed the statement was a lie without even trying to check what other sources had to say on the subject. That's what that post was entirely about.

He said that the president made the remark, which means that he would have had to be PRESIDENT WHEN SAYING IT. He was not. It WAS a lie by his strong inflection that the president said it. It was an offhand statement by a presidential candidate who happened to win the election, pre-office. Much different than a statement from the president.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

By the way, I'm probably voting for you in the next voting thing. You're horribly stubborn, but you're not stupid, and that's enough for me.

Quoted for truth, on both points. Stubborn, but not stupid.

 

[blazedaces]

It's the other bush, and he WAS NOT president at the time. This is 20 years old, and he is simply expressing a personal opinion. That does not hint towards a nation-wide atheist bias.

He said that the president made the remark, which means that he would have had to be PRESIDENT WHEN SAYING IT. He was not. It WAS a lie.

Sorry to pop your bubble of excuses to fall back onto whenever your shield of an argument gets flapped aside:

if all that isnt enough, how about president bush sr making the following statement while in office: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES said that atheists should not be considered citizens, and you dont see this as discrimination? you are completely in denial.

Snex said it was "president bush sr making the following statement while in office". At the time the man was in office as vice president and would later become the president of the united states. Snex's point was that someone who was president of the united states was vehemently biased against atheists to the point that he claimed they were not citizens. He was vice president at the time! He became president 2 years later!

Snex's statement didn't say that this was a quote of today's president, nor did he say it was george bush jr.

Snex didn't lie at all whatsoever. I just want to point out, if this was snex claiming you lied and he went about it the same way, I would defend your words just as vigorously. Even if snex lied in some slight way you obviously didn't look up a single source to verify your accusation, but just jumped the gun to call someone a lier.

I'm sorry dude, but if you do not apologize or at least take back the claim, then you are simply digging your own grave further. If you maturely and respectfully recline your previous statement we can move on normally, but if you refuse I say that there is absolutely nothing more you can say to defend yourself without looking even more pathetic.

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

Sorry to pop your bubble of excuses to fall back onto whenever your shield of an argument gets flapped aside:

Snex said it was "president bush sr making the following statement while in office". At the time the man was in office as vice president and would later become the president of the united states. Snex's point was that someone who was president of the united states was vehemently biased against atheists to the point that he claimed they were not citizens. He was vice president at the time! He became president 2 years later!

From what I've read, it was an offhand comment, similar to a freudian slip. In other words, he may very well be biased against atheists. Bush jr may very well be biased against atheists. However, that DOES NOT imply a nation-wide bias, it DOES NOT infringe on atheist liberties, and NOTHING he has presented suggests that.

SNEX repeatedly states that there is a nation-wide problem where atheists are being oppressed. Do you see that? Does anyone see that but him? Is there any evidence?

Yes, Bush Sr. made the quote. When I said 'we both know that is a lie' I thought he was talking about Bush Jr. As is, it was still a lie for strong inflection that the president made heavy comments against atheists, when in context a presidential candidate made a remark against atheists 20 years ago. Consider this point conceded because I do. not. care.

He still has not presented evidence to suggest there is a nation-wide bias. I'm not going to do this respond-to-countless-stupid-sources thing, picking apart his argument like Michael Moore, showing stupid little inconsistencies when his argument is at its core, completely flawed, because he HAS NOT SHOWN a nationwide bias.

He compared the atheist oppression to that of the blacks.......

I can hardly believe that we are debating this in a serious context.