TK-8252 Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 You believe that their personal views are to be given the same status as law? No, I don't think so. The Constitution is made up of all the Founding Fathers' personal views, and they hold the status of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 The Constitution is made up of all the Founding Fathers' personal views, and they hold the status of law.And that of their constituents. It's not like they could just come up with something only acceptable to them. They had to get it ratified by the state's people. There have been modifications of the Constitution, and amendments that do not reflect what the Founding Fathers 'originally' wanted. Are they illegitimate because of that? What makes their views 'better' than someone else's? It's better to just take the Constitution at face value, I think. If you object to something in it, work to get it changed - as has been done since the founding of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerAir1587249581 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 ...dang this thread is active... I stand corrected on several things, but you get my general idea. Most of America is Christian, and I would think that they would want to keep it in. Also, I would also like to point out that most of the presidents, if not all, were Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't think anyone is trying to restrict anyone from being christian. But if this country has demonstrated anything in 200 years, its that being a majority does not mean you are right. Nor does it mean you have the right to impose your beliefs on minorities. To suggest otherwise is clearly unpatriotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Thank you, Samuel Dravis. I appreciate it.Hehe, I hope you knew I'm not in cahoots* with you on the main point of this argument when you posted that. Just one more thing from me on this: since I do like the 'under God' bit, I'm not willing to actively attempt to get rid of it myself. However, should it come to a vote (and that is likely eventually), I will probably decide to remove it. I don't see how I, in good conscience, could do otherwise given what the First Amendment says. * lol, "cahoots." Sorry, I had to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 But if this country has demonstrated anything in 200 years, its that being a majority does not mean you are right. "Americans always do the Right Thing. After they have tried everything else." - Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 "I said I'll do what is right!" - Darth Sidious Doing what is "right" is a point of view. Rightness cannot be measured by one person, which is the crux of the problem. What one nation considers right another nation considers to be wrong. What one person considers right another considers foolish. So, what would Winston Churchill consider right? Well, probably what was best for his country, He oft was working for such a purpose. Does that make it right for America? Maybe, maybe not. I'm probably wrong about this, but it seems that US posters seem to want to keep the words Under God while other nationalities seem to want it removed. Curious. Of course, people, don't hesitate to prove me wrong, but please keep it nice. I'm not xenophobic at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Does the 1st ammendment trump the 5th amendment? Or are all ammendments created equal? As an outsider looking in it does sometimes appear like the US's defence of the constitution can be very patchy. Try and do anythig that could be even remotely construed as touching the "right to bear arms" or "right to freedom of speech" (like putting age limits on games, restricting hand guns, shutting down nazi propoganda) and people jump around like mad. Put a christian oath in the pledge of alleignece, put christianity on the currency of the land, funnel millions into christian education programmes... no one really cares. I'd guess this is a case of the majority rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 A quick glance at the thread reveals: 11 Americans opposed; 4 non-Americans opposed; 7 Americans in favor; 3 Americans who don't care/have no discernable opinion. It was a quick look at the actual posts and not the poll itself. Obviously there were more who took the poll than who posted. My margin for error is probably +/-2 since I kept the names in my head instead of writing them down and just made hash marks on a piece of paper. Still, I believe the non-American number to be accurate: Toms, Lukiamyourdad, Dagobahn Eagle, and Shadow Templar posted. It seems clear that even if I missed 2 non-Americans, the hypothesis "that US posters seem to want to keep the words Under God while other nationalities seem to want it removed" cannot be quantified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Thank you for the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 It is clearly implied in the First Ammendment. Merging State with any one church excludes all others. Thus, it is unconstitutional. Lets apply critical thinking here rather than having a conclusion to which you recognize only that data which are supportive. I wonder if subsuming all cults would be constitutional... That's not quite right. It does not restrict religion from government. It restricts any particular religion from being endorsed by the government more than others. Not under the relevant caselaw and precedents. Still, I believe the non-American number to be accurate: Toms, Lukiamyourdad, Dagobahn Eagle, and Shadow Templar posted. Take me off the list, Skin. For me it's a non-issue. If push came to shove, I would side with removing the reference, if only in the vain hope that Pat(wa) Robertson would die from the shock. Might be different if I lived in the US, of course. Besides, your little statistics is flawed in (at least) a couple of critical ways: 1) Small data sample. 2) (Heavily) unequal distribution of Americans vs. Non-americans. Your little exercise in number-juggling is meaningless. Indeed, if you were a politician, I'd probably be calling it an outright lie. Harsh words, but I believe in calling it as I see it when it comes to manipulative use of (other people's ignorance about) numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I wonder if subsuming all cults would be constitutional... We aren't talking about cults. There are secular cults. There are cults of all sorts. We are discussing religion in general and its presence in the Pledge of Alliegance. Might be different if I lived in the US, of course. Besides, your little statistics is flawed in (at least) a couple of critical ways: 1) Small data sample. 2) (Heavily) unequal distribution of Americans vs. Non-americans. OK, why don't we get more Americans in here? This issue concerns us directly, and I'd welcome more voices, with or against me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 We aren't talking about cults. There are secular cults. There are cults of all sorts. We are discussing religion in general and its presence in the Pledge of Alliegance. Uh-huh. 'Cult' or 'sect' means '(closed) religious group and/or parallel, religious society'... OK, why don't we get more Americans in here? This issue concerns us directly, and I'd welcome more voices, with or against me. Uh, seeing as there are 18+ Americans in this thread and only 4 foreigners (not counting lurkers), that wouldn't exactly improve the situation. Besides, that comment was directed at Skin's number-juggling, not yours. Not that the same thing couldn't be said for your claim as well, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I never said it would balance the situation of "Americans are more numerous than non-Americans". I would like to hear more opinion from people who will actually be affected by this, and possibly balance the "yea vs. nay" situation. Oh, and... Cult 1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. 2. The object of such devotion. Unflattering to religion at best, insulting and demeaning at worst. Just because you don't practice religion doesn't mean others are stupid for believing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. Sounds about right to me. Unflattering to religion at best, insulting and demeaning at worst. Just because you don't practice religion doesn't mean others are stupid for believing. How so? There's no negativity implicated in the definition. Anyway, here's a more complete definition list. cult n. 1. 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 2. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5. 1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. 2. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. Just because you don't expand your vocabulary, doesn't mean others are wrong in using appropriate terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Cult 1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. 2. A particular form or system of religious worship The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 1989 There aren't many dictionary sources that rival the OED. Regardless, cult, from an anthropological perspective, refers to individual religious practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.24edface7c76d897543b1e05da64a97d.gif)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.