Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[alzan]

exactly why you miss the entire point of pledging allegiance to something greater than oneself

WTF are you smoking/drinking/injecting?

Your original post concerning recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance:

i am very familiar with all the details surrounding the origin of those phrases. i agree you should not have to pledge allegiance to anything. but if you do not have allegiance to any country or organization, then that country or organization has zero responsibility to protect or assist you from anything.

The fact that I have at all times in the past and plan in the future to pay my taxes to all levels of government is what binds them to assist and protect me or anyone else who dutifully pay their taxes. Except for in school I have never been asked nor required to recite any pledge. Pledging allegiance to a flag is repugnant; a flag is merely a symbol. I support the ideals that the flag represents.

If you speak of some deity whose existence can't be proven, that's your issue. Pledge your allegiance to the flag all you want, even though it has been successfully argued that doing so violates a commandment from the Christian deity.

 

[MongGrel]

You guys must be really bored

 

[dphantom]

WTF are you smoking/drinking/injecting?

Your original post concerning recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance:

The fact that I have at all times in the past and plan in the future to pay my taxes to all levels of government is what binds them to assist and protect me or anyone else who dutifully pay their taxes. Except for in school I have never been asked nor required to recite any pledge. Pledging allegiance to a flag is repugnant; a flag is merely a symbol. I support the ideals that the flag represents.

If you speak of some deity whose existence can't be proven, that's your issue. Pledge your allegiance to the flag all you want, even though it has been successfully argued that doing so violates a commandment from the Christian deity.

Paying taxes is only part of the contract one should have. If you are willing to partake of the privileges, you also should be prepared to give allegiance to the same. The flag is a symbol. It is a symbol for a country to have a physical depiction for people to rally around in time of peril. And to be a reminder of what our country stands for.

When enough people have the same attitude as you, then is the time our country or any other will cease to be. Perhaps not actually dissolve but become something other, something poorer than what was.

And I am violating no commandment. I put no god before God. Thru His Son is salvation.

 

[alzan]

Paying taxes is only part of the contract one should have. If you are willing to partake of the privileges, you also should be prepared to give allegiance to the same. The flag is a symbol. It is a symbol for a country to have a physical depiction for people to rally around in time of peril. And to be a reminder of what our country stands for.

When enough people have the same attitude as you, then is the time our country or any other will cease to be. Perhaps not actually dissolve but become something other, something poorer than what was.

And I am violating no commandment. I put no god before God. Thru His Son is salvation.

"Should be" is not the same as "is".

Never said you were. A little defensive, I'd say.

 

[dphantom]

Pledge your allegiance to the flag all you want, even though it has been successfully argued that doing so violates a commandment from the Christian deity.

Never said you were. A little defensive, I'd say.

Obviously you did hence my response. I am not at all defensive; just ensuring a fact is laid out, not something other.

 

[MongGrel]

hence my response ?

RP online much ?

 

[PowerEngineer]

IMO, preventing other people from Imposing themselves onto Others is not Imposition. Those people had no Right to Impose in the first place.

Preventing other people from acting as they want certainly amounts to an imposition on them regardless of how righteous you or I might feel about the reason for doing it.

He tried equivocating clearly Positive things with Negative things. I don't care how large a Majority is or how assured they are that they are correct, forcing a Minority to go against their Nature is Imposing. Allowing that Minority to have the Freedom to live their life without interference from the Majority is not Imposing, no matter how much the Majority dislike it.

What "he" tried to do was point out to you that anyone who has their desired actions restricted by society's rules is being imposed upon, and that this is true regardless of the rationale society has for making those rules. Despite your decision to capitalize the words, your perceptions of positive and negative are personal value judgments that you shouldn't expect everyone else to agree with. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't support the application of your statements to what others might see as "clearly" positive.

As an example, there is minority that wants "the freedom to live their lives" by flashing school age children "without interference from the majority" of society. Despite their contention that for their minority this is clearly positive, I doubt you object to restrictions that society has imposed on this activity, even if it forces flashers to "go against their nature".

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the freedom to flash (or for racial discrimination). The bottom line is that I think you're giving your "positive" views a (dare I say it) holier-than-thou status that doesn't give enough credence to the views of those who see things differently.

 

[sandorski]

Preventing other people from acting as they want certainly amounts to an imposition on them regardless of how righteous you or I might feel about the reason for doing it.



What "he" tried to do was point out to you that anyone who has their desired actions restricted by society's rules is being imposed upon, and that this is true regardless of the rationale society has for making those rules. Despite your decision to capitalize the words, your perceptions of positive and negative are personal value judgments that you shouldn't expect everyone else to agree with. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't support the application of your statements to what others might see as "clearly" positive.

As an example, there is minority that wants "the freedom to live their lives" by flashing school age children "without interference from the majority" of society. Despite their contention that for their minority this is clearly positive, I doubt you object to restrictions that society has imposed on this activity, even if it forces flashers to "go against their nature".

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the freedom to flash (or for racial discrimination). The bottom line is that I think you're giving your "positive" views a (dare I say it) holier-than-thou status that doesn't give enough credence to the views of those who see things differently.

To clarify, I am not arguing for some Free to do anything type of Freedom either. What I am arguing is that taking away someone's ability to Impose their personal beliefs on others is not Imposing upon them. They maintain their Freedom to Believe/Act as they want, the only difference is they no longer get to Impose those Beliefs/Actions onto others.

Perhaps that may sound "Holier than though", I frankly don't care if it does. Mainly because it is the very foundation of what Freedom is.

 

[MongGrel]

• NO ONE GETS OUT OF CHILDHOOD ALIVE. It's not the first time I've said that. But among the few worthy bon mots I've gotten off in sixty-seven years, that and possibly one other may be the only considerations eligible for carving on my tombstone. (The other one is the one entrepreneurs have misappropriated to emboss on buttons and bumper stickers: The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
  (I don't so much mind that they pirated it, but what does honk me off is that they never get it right. They render it dull and imbecile by phrasing it thus: "The two most common things in the universe are..."
  (Not things, you insensate gobbets of ambulatory giraffe dung, elements! Elements is funny, things is imprecise and semi-guttural. Things! Geezus, when will the goyim learn they don't know how to tell a joke.
  • Introduction to Blast Off : Rockets, Robots, Ray Guns, and Rarities from the Golden Age of Space Toys (2001) by S. Mark Young, Steve Duin, Mike Richardson, p. 6; the quote on hydrogen and stupidity is said to have originated with an essay of his in the 1960s, and is often misattributed to Frank Zappa, who made similar remarks in The Real Frank Zappa Book (1989): "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."

 

[MongGrel]

Don't start an argument with somebody who has a microphone when you don't. They'll make you look like chopped liver.

 

[OverVolt]

This thread is like a problem child that you just give up on and let it do what it wants.

 

[JEDIYoda]

To clarify, I am not arguing for some Free to do anything type of Freedom either. What I am arguing is that taking away someone's ability to Impose their personal beliefs on others is not Imposing upon them. They maintain their Freedom to Believe/Act as they want, the only difference is they no longer get to Impose those Beliefs/Actions onto others.

Perhaps that may sound "Holier than though", I frankly don't care if it does. Mainly because it is the very foundation of what Freedom is.

No it`s not what freedom is....
You are trying to say that nobody has the right to speak or vote in anyway manner that could be construed as imposing there will!! That is NOT freedom!
As an adult you have a mind to say - YES or No......
Freedom is a free expression of ideas that allows the other person or persons to accept or reject what you are saying!1
Anytime somebody votes they are voting the way they believe.....plain and simple.......

 

[sandorski]

No it`s not what freedom is....
You are trying to say that nobody has the right to speak or vote in anyway manner that could be construed as imposing there will!! That is NOT freedom!
As an adult you have a mind to say - YES or No......
Freedom is a free expression of ideas that allows the other person or persons to accept or reject what you are saying!1
Anytime somebody votes they are voting the way they believe.....plain and simple.......

Sure, however, passing Laws that force others to adhere to someones Religious principles is unacceptable in a Free Society. Every Religious person has the Freedom to adhere to their Religious principles all they want. They do not have the Right to force others to adhere to them.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Sure, however, passing Laws that force others to adhere to someones Religious principles is unacceptable in a Free Society. Every Religious person has the Freedom to adhere to their Religious principles all they want. They do not have the Right to force others to adhere to them.

Right. I hear my mom's husband complain about prayer not being in school from time to time (GOOD!). No one should be required to pray to a christian god in a public school. But by all means, if you want to pray at school, have at it. But it shouldn't be forced upon everyone.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sure, however, passing Laws that force others to adhere to someones Religious principles is unacceptable in a Free Society. Every Religious person has the Freedom to adhere to their Religious principles all they want. They do not have the Right to force others to adhere to them.

okay I will bite..religious principles as in being anti-abortion? Anti - gay? etc......even atheists have opinions that agree with religious people concerning abortion and other issues that you would probably call religious......

 

[dphantom]

Right. I hear my mom's husband complain about prayer not being in school from time to time (GOOD!). No one should be required to pray to a christian god in a public school. But by all means, if you want to pray at school, have at it. But it shouldn't be forced upon everyone.

I have never been in or heard of any school that mandated someone pray. While I do not know the reference your mom's husband is making, I can surmise it may be in response to government units disallowing a person the freedom to have a prayer to themselves or read the Bible or other religious text. Though (generalizing here) mostly it seems to be Christians who are singled out.

 

[jackstar7]

YES! The terrible plight and suffering of the Christian in America. Sing it, brothers!


What a load of bunk.

How can a group that outnumbers all other groups combined be "singled out", exactly? Unless you mean that it doesn't work out when that vast majority tries to push through things that violate my freedom FROM religion.

"According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians."

 

[sandorski]

okay I will bite..religious principles as in being anti-abortion? Anti - gay? etc......even atheists have opinions that agree with religious people concerning abortion and other issues that you would probably call religious......

Some Atheists hold similar positions to Theists on these issues. That's not the point though. If people object to these they can refuse to have Abortions or be Gay. However, these are 2 very different issues and can't just be treated similarly.

Abortion is the trickier issue. Most people are willing to accept limitations on it, but they must be Reasonable. Simply holding a Religious position on it is not Reasonable in a diverse society. The problem is, at what point does something become Human and/or when does that things Rights supersede the Rights of the Woman, if ever?

Gay is very different as it applies to people who are clearly Human, often only becoming aware of their orientation many years after Birth. To oppose Homosexuals is to violate their Human Rights and that is just unacceptable in a Free Society.

 

[sandorski]

I have never been in or heard of any school that mandated someone pray. While I do not know the reference your mom's husband is making, I can surmise it may be in response to government units disallowing a person the freedom to have a prayer to themselves or read the Bible or other religious text. Though (generalizing here) mostly it seems to be Christians who are singled out.

You have never heard of this happening, ever? Take your fingers out of your ears.

 

[dphantom]

You have never heard of this happening, ever? Take your fingers out of your ears.

I truly have not ever heard some public school or other government unit mandating a person pray. If you have an example, I would appreciate you sharing.

I certainly have been in a public institution where a group has prayed, but not one person in that group was forced to be there or participate.


edit: In the US.

 

[sandorski]

I truly have not ever heard some public school or other government unit mandating a person pray. If you have an example, I would appreciate you sharing.

I certainly have been in a public institution where a group has prayed, but not one person in that group was forced to be there or participate.


edit: In the US.

History. Read up on some.

 

[dphantom]

History. Read up on some.

Thought so. You have none.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have never been in or heard of any school that mandated someone pray. While I do not know the reference your mom's husband is making, I can surmise it may be in response to government units disallowing a person the freedom to have a prayer to themselves or read the Bible or other religious text. Though (generalizing here) mostly it seems to be Christians who are singled out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#School_prayer_prior_to_1962

My mom's husband is in his mid 60's, I guess it is something that happened in his day. He's confident we'd be in better shape if today's youth had to do the same. That would be imposing on the non-christians. You should have the freedom to pray in school if that is what you want to do, but don't force it on others. No one is saying you can't pray, but I want nothing to do with it.

 

[sandorski]

Thought so. You have none.

Incorrect.

 

[Retro Rob]

To clarify, I am not arguing for some Free to do anything type of Freedom either. What I am arguing is that taking away someone's ability to Impose their personal beliefs on others is not Imposing upon them. They maintain their Freedom to Believe/Act as they want, the only difference is they no longer get to Impose those Beliefs/Actions onto others.

Perhaps that may sound "Holier than though", I frankly don't care if it does. Mainly because it is the very foundation of what Freedom is.

I think the point is that its very broad and ambiguous to suggests that its wrong for the majority to restrict the minority from living their lives as they see fit and restricting them from acting according to their nature, as that argument can be made in favor of virtually ANYTHING.

This is the main reason freedom isn't absolute, and cannot be...as people would argue the nature behind, as Engineer put it, flashing their junk to school kids everyday.

Slave owners said it was natural for blacks to be slaves because of an alleged Biblical curse, etc.

Weak argument.