Perspective

[ydoaPs]

I recently found this bit of prose which provides a lot of perspective, IMO, on the old Pledge controversy. What if instead of adding "Under God" to the Pledge, Congress altered the Pledge to read as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one white nation' date=' indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.[/quote']

This story explores this idea and the consequences. What do you think about it? Is "White Nation" the same as adding "Under God, or is it a strawman?

[YT2095]

strawman.

[Pangloss]

Well, whether or not it's a straw man kinda depends on the purpose for having the phrase "under god" in the pledge, right? Not that I'm disagreeing with YT, because overstating the case doesn't serve anyone, but to a certain extent the example might illustrate the point that the pledge has been essentially corrupted by a specific ideology, which I think is what bothers a lot of people about that particular 1950s-era addition.

 

The pledge with "under god" is only a violation of separation if the pledge is legally binding and required. I've always had mixed feelings about this issue, but I do think it's worth remembering that the purpose of separation is not to remove religion from governance. Nobody expects every government official to eschew their religion and their public expression of it. The harm comes from forcing other people to adhere to it.

[Sisyphus]

Well, whether or not it's a straw man kinda depends on the purpose for having the phrase "under god" in the pledge, right?

 

The purpose is to set us apart from godless communists. In more recent years it's become bait for people who think maybe it's not appropriate, so they can be called godless communists.

[Pangloss]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about the communist threat. (grin)

[YT2095]

ROFLOL, the Commies (Russians for instance) <Que: wavey wiggley lines as we go back in time>

are actually More Christian per Capita head than in the west, albeit Orthodox Christian.

 

so I don`t think that arg makes the cut very well at all

[ParanoiA]

The pledge with "under god" is only a violation of separation if the pledge is legally binding and required. I've always had mixed feelings about this issue, but I do think it's worth remembering that the purpose of separation is not to remove religion from governance. Nobody expects every government official to eschew their religion and their public expression of it. The harm comes from forcing other people to adhere to it.

 

Indeed, weren't there a couple of states that actually endorsed religion before the 14th amendment was passed? And I don't believe anyone was too worried about it. The intent was aimed at federal endorsement because it was coercive and intrusive federalism that was feared, not religion.

[Pangloss]

are actually More Christian per Capita head than in the west, albeit Orthodox Christian.

 

Idolators!!!!!!

[YT2095]

that`s not Too far from some truth either, most of the "Icons" are Orthodox based.

 

I think you`ll need to look up Icons as a word in context to Russian Orthodox, to get my point entirely.

[ydoaPs]

strawman.

 

Could you please explain this further? Why is it a strawman(what is the crucial difference making the situations not analogous)? I apologize for not making it sufficiently clear that I would like explanations of the positions about this story.

[Pangloss]

that`s not Too far from some truth either, most of the "Icons" are Orthodox based.

 

I think you`ll need to look up Icons as a word in context to Russian Orthodox, to get my point entirely.

 

 

Oh I know, that's why I made that joke!

[YT2095]

Could you please explain this further? Why is it a strawman(what is the crucial difference making the situations not analogous)? I apologize for not making it sufficiently clear that I would like explanations of the positions about this story.

 

well, the most Immediate difference to be noted is that "Under God" is Optional, no one forces you to believe not even God himself.

your Skin color however is Not, there`s Nothing you can do about that.

 

so arguing from the Color basis and making points using it to take down the "Under God" idea/wording is a strawman.

[ydoaPs]

well, the most Immediate difference to be noted is that "Under God" is Optional, no one forces you to believe not even God himself.

your Skin color however is Not, there`s Nothing you can do about that.

 

so arguing from the Color basis and making points using it to take down the "Under God" idea/wording is a strawman.

 

So, you didn't read the story? That specific line of reasoning was explicitly addressed.

 

From what I gathered of the story, Alonzo was trying to portray the inherent divisive prejudice of the phrase by altering the affected minority to one which is obvious(it's a lot easier to tell someone's skin colour than it is to tell their religion or lack thereof). You seem to be saying that since belief is a choice(which is itself arguable), it doesn't matter in this context. Would you feel the same way if the affected group were theists, or does that change the game? Please enlighten me if I misunderstand you(I just got off work, after all, so it's a very good possibility). As for if I misunderstood what Alonzo was trying to say, we could always ask him.

[YT2095]

So, you didn't read the story?

Pardon!

 

Would you feel the same way if the affected group were theists, or does that change the game?

 

it doesn`t change a thing, I wouldn`t care less if they left the words "Under God" out entirely.

I (as a theist) read and say all sorts of things Official, and Non of them mention Anything Theological, do I get offended? Get Real!

 

 

 

[Sisyphus]

it doesn`t change a thing, I wouldn`t care less if they left the words "Under God" out entirely.

I (as a theist) read and say all sorts of things Official, and Non of them mention Anything Theological, do I get offended? Get Real!

 

But "not mentioning it" is neutral. Would your attitude change if you had to declare yourself an atheist every morning?

[iNow]

But "not mentioning it" is neutral. Would your attitude change if you had to declare yourself an atheist every morning?

 

That seems a more appropriate comparison, but to be fair to YT, we're not technically "declaring ourselves theist" every morning. More specifically, we are chanting in large groups of peers daily about our patriotism and assumed belief in a God protecting our country.

 

 

Here's where I see the double standard:

 

Think of how offended a theist would be if the phrase was, "One nation, under purple unicorns, for liberty, and justice, for all..."

 

 

That's how atheists see this, and that's why it smacks in the face of selective preference for one group's world view despite the sheer numbers of those who don't approach the world with that view.

[YT2095]

indeed, you`re not DECLARING anything at all, so your arg about me Declaring I`m an athiest every morning is yet another strawman.

 

the Opposite of a Theist IS neutral Atheist (not theist) like typical and Atypical.

 

Atheist does NOT mean OPPOSED to or AGAINST theism! it means Not Theist (Big difference!)

 

 

it`s Your way of thinking that Gives the Black/White analogy validity, when it`s actually a Strawman.

[iNow]

Damnit, YT! ... I was trying to prevent such an outburst by making the post I did immediately prior to yours!

 

 

 

Do you think that this "pledge" would sound silly if purple unicorns was the term? I do. I also think it sounds silly to suggest that our entire nation is "under God," especially considering that so many of us object to that both in spirit and in principle.

[YT2095]

Damnit, YT! ... I was trying to prevent such an outburst by making the post I did immediately prior to yours!

 

 

 

Do you think that this "pledge" would sound silly if purple unicorns was the term? I do. I also think it sounds silly to suggest that our entire nation is "under God," especially considering that so many of us object to that both in spirit and in principle.

 

I was agreeing with you dude, just putting it in more simplistic terms, and yes it Would sound silly coz everone Knows Unicorns are White!

 

I don`t understand the objection part though, it should for the most part be Meaningless to you, and Couple that with the fact that you all like the old Green-Backs! that clearly state "in God we trust".

 

never seen anyone turn That down on "Principal" or "Spirit"

[iNow]

I don`t understand the objection part though, it should for the most part be Meaningless to you

I don't think this is a very reasonable comment. The god concept is laden with meaning, both at the level of the individual and to society at large. I don't believe in God as defined by the various religions any more than I believe in Zeus or Thor, but to suggest that the concept of god itself should be "meaningless" to me would be quite a stretch, despite my self-identification as an athiest.

 

 

and Couple that with the fact that you all like the old Green-Backs! that clearly state "in God we trust".

 

never seen anyone turn That down on "Principal" or "Spirit"

Yes, we like money, but many of us have precisely the same issue with the statement being printed on our currency. That should, IMO, be removed as well.

 

I will say this, despite the parallels between the pledge and the currency... at least our children are not being asked to stand with a group of their peers and chant these words which are contrary to many of our world views... words which happen to be printed on the currency... each time they and we use it.

 

 

 

So, you think unicorns are white?!? Haha... what kind of crack are you smoking? Everybody knows that the white ones are just an archaic fairy tale. The purple ones, however, are both real and more powerful.

[YT2095]

aha, but as explained earlier Atheist is NOT Against theism, it`s not Proactive at all, but rather Neutral to the concept.

 

like the Opposite of Love isn`t Hate, it`s Indifference!

 

so to take Exception to it isn`t Atheism, it`s something entirely different again isn`t it

 

 

Purple unicorns my ass! ya know that smoking Crack comment?.... Back atcha

 

 

"Oh say can`t you see, by the dawns early light...." well NO actually I`m night-blind! but if I was an american I might sing that in the anthem even though it`s bullshit for me, coz I can`t See!

with me now?

[iNow]

with me now?

Honestly? No. Out of all of the points I made, you chose instead to argue with me semantically over my use of the word atheist.

 

 

Also, the star spankled banner is not printed on our money nor indoctrinated in the classroom with a daily chant among peers.

[YT2095]

but isn`t that what this thread is Really all about? (Again)

 

consider the OP!

 

but that`s fine, and I respect your opinion, and so if I`m arguing unreasonably, then I will leave this thread alone.

[CDarwin]

I think I can do Alonzo one better. "White nation" is a loaded phrase, which is unnecessary to make the point. What if the words were "liberal nation" (referring specifically to the American political faction). Would that be acceptable?

 

Fundamentally, it's government endorsing a specific point of view and presenting it in a coercive manner to school children. Now the government does that on a variety of issues other than theism. The Pledge also coercively supports the idea of a unified state. Maybe some people disagree with that. That makes the issue of "under God" fundamentally constitutional.

 

So, on a rhetorically level, Alonzo's proposal is a valid argument. But it misses the constitutional point, which makes "under God" potentially even worse.

 

I hope that made sense.

[Saryctos]

If it was instead "one nation under Zeus"(or allah) it might be a better example. The distinction being that when you say 'one white nation' you're being exclusive of the other people in the country. But when you say 'under X', you need not necessarily believe in, or be an X.

 

However, if it was that way for a while, the children might ask "but Zeus doesn't exist, why do we still say that?" Because we've been saying it for 100 years, just go with, it's tradition. Oh no, you've brainwashed the little children into saying something they don't understand, the horror!(Political ads never do this...GW commercial much?) I'm sure they'll come around once they hit college and go to a flag burning party and realize that the pledge has no binding authority. Saying the pledge didn't really mean anything more than showing respect for the flag and that which it stood for, you know, a unified nation for freedom, and justice for all.