unclehobart
New Member
I'm a little stunned that weve managed to remain polite and engaging on this. 
One nation under God...
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
ris
New Member
you're right, we need a little action....
*fight mode*
yeah? well fuck you and your little non-god oldmanhobart.
my nongod is better than your nongod and because yours fights like a girl
obviously i mean none of the above[/siz]
*fight mode off*
any better? you feel enraged yet? even a teeny bit? not even faint annoyance that i meade you read that shit?
bah
*fight mode*
yeah? well fuck you and your little non-god oldmanhobart.
my nongod is better than your nongod and because yours fights like a girl
obviously i mean none of the above[/siz]
*fight mode off*
any better? you feel enraged yet? even a teeny bit? not even faint annoyance that i meade you read that shit?
bah
Jeslek
Banned
No sorry. Do you know what "god" translates to in Arabic? Allah. Reading the same pledge in Arabic will be like this (see attachment). Translating "god" to other languages will most of the time end up with their respective god name (in monotheism). Unless Congress put in "Jehova" or a similar name that identifies the God of Christianity or Judaism, "god" refers to a deity in general and is by no means religious specific.PuterTutor said:
Attachment(s):
under_god.jpg, 10.11kb
ris
New Member
LastLegionary said:Perhaps, but we are arguing legally and unless otherwise stated, the rest is an opinion...ris said:
well, if its legally then the breach of the constitution seems clear, so argument appears academic. i guess i can close this thread with a clear conscience
the monotheistic reference of 'god' still excludes polytheism through its non use of the plural, and those of no religion who are surely legally entitled to use currency without the trust of god [or even gods].
Polite my ass, I'm gonna kick this shit into HIGH GEAR!
One Nation, Under God...if they used the lowercase G, then it could indeed include anyone's god. However, using the capital G it, in effect, says Yhwh. Do Buddahists call their Deity God? Do Christians call Buddahists Deity God? So, in essence, there are seperate & unequal deities. The phrase has no ethical reasoning to be in a Government sponsored & backed allegiance, when in fact, our country was founded on religious freedom. If you choose to add "under God" to the pledge, go ahead, but don't force something onto others.
The Pledge of Allegiance was not written with those words. It was not adopted with those words. They were added to poke at the Soviet Union, rewritten in the 50's-McCartyism?
The ruling that started the debate came in 1948 & can be read about here.
It is extra-constitutional to use that phrase &, frankly, to imprint our coins & cash with it. Just remember, we don't force others to worship a God in which we believe & they damne sure won't force us to worship theirs. With that in mind, it is unconstitutional.
One Nation, Under God...if they used the lowercase G, then it could indeed include anyone's god. However, using the capital G it, in effect, says Yhwh. Do Buddahists call their Deity God? Do Christians call Buddahists Deity God? So, in essence, there are seperate & unequal deities. The phrase has no ethical reasoning to be in a Government sponsored & backed allegiance, when in fact, our country was founded on religious freedom. If you choose to add "under God" to the pledge, go ahead, but don't force something onto others.
The Pledge of Allegiance was not written with those words. It was not adopted with those words. They were added to poke at the Soviet Union, rewritten in the 50's-McCartyism?
The ruling that started the debate came in 1948 & can be read about here.
It is extra-constitutional to use that phrase &, frankly, to imprint our coins & cash with it. Just remember, we don't force others to worship a God in which we believe & they damne sure won't force us to worship theirs. With that in mind, it is unconstitutional.
B
Bubba
Guest
Gonz said:
Let's be civil. Mind yer manners.
Fuck manners, this ain't finishing school.
True, no one forces me to say the pledge. I say it myself at least once every two weeks at my son's Boy Scout meeting. That's not the point.
The point is, the government is supposed to stay the fuck out of certain parts of our lives, religon being one of those, and they aren't.
True, no one forces me to say the pledge. I say it myself at least once every two weeks at my son's Boy Scout meeting. That's not the point.
The point is, the government is supposed to stay the fuck out of certain parts of our lives, religon being one of those, and they aren't.
B
Bubba
Guest
Gonz always tells me to be cool when I get hot and bothered about something, so I am doing the same.
B
Bubba
Guest
Yeah, but I like to give him the biz.
unclehobart
New Member
And they neatly sidestepped the currency issue as well. tsk.
flavio
Banned
"God" is clearly a reference to a single Christian diety. What it translates to in Arabic is of no importance as the Pledge is written in English and when using English other dieties are not called "God".
For anyone who says "just don't say 'under God'" I'm sure you would be annoyed if the official version said "under Zeus" and you didn't happen to be a follower of Zeus....and yes, the money issue was clearly sidestepped.
What they could do is omit "under God" from the official version, but anyone reciting could simply add "under God", "under Buddha", or "under Zues" if they felt inclined.
For anyone who says "just don't say 'under God'" I'm sure you would be annoyed if the official version said "under Zeus" and you didn't happen to be a follower of Zeus....and yes, the money issue was clearly sidestepped.
What they could do is omit "under God" from the official version, but anyone reciting could simply add "under God", "under Buddha", or "under Zues" if they felt inclined.
B
Bubba
Guest
I have a solution for the currency issue. Anyone who doesn't believe in God that objects to what is printed on the currency can just give it to me. I'll be happy to take it off their hands so they wont have to worry about it.
Ok, I just picked up a dollar and looked at it, its in ALL CAPS so the capital G is irrelevent for the currency matter. Furthermore, the word god is a generic word used to describe many things.
God,
-A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
-The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
-A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
-An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
-One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
-A very handsome man.
-A powerful ruler or despot.
Obviously we are in another semantic argument. YOU choose the meaning, its that simple. Ok, maybe if the English language were simpler, and had less uses for the same word this would be less ambiguous, but it isn't. Ok, I will give you this, the INTENT was to convey the meaning that everyone is arguing about, but in FACT it doesn't HAVE to have that meaning. The meaning is up for interpretation depending on the readers judgement. It can be unconstitutional, but at the same time, it can be argued that it isn't, because the constitutionality of it rests soley on YOUR interpretation of the meaning, and which DEFINITION of the word you ASSUME it to mean.
If you ASSUME it means God, as in the god of christianity, judism, islam, etc etc, then you CAN say its unconstitution based on this arguement. Yet, at the same time, if someone else ASSUMES another meaning, he or she can refute your argument equally well. The INTENT was no doubt as everyone is assuming, the meaning however still remains ambiguous in both cases. Its this ambiguity that keeps it from being unconstitutional!
Like it or not, this is the reality of the matter. Neither side is 'right.' This depends entirely upon your personal interpretation of the definition of the word. Argue as much as you like, its an not possible to make a stronger argument one way or the other. You can thank the english language and its multiple definitions for the same words, and the inherent ambiguity it creates
God,
-A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
-The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
-A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
-An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
-One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
-A very handsome man.
-A powerful ruler or despot.
Obviously we are in another semantic argument. YOU choose the meaning, its that simple. Ok, maybe if the English language were simpler, and had less uses for the same word this would be less ambiguous, but it isn't. Ok, I will give you this, the INTENT was to convey the meaning that everyone is arguing about, but in FACT it doesn't HAVE to have that meaning. The meaning is up for interpretation depending on the readers judgement. It can be unconstitutional, but at the same time, it can be argued that it isn't, because the constitutionality of it rests soley on YOUR interpretation of the meaning, and which DEFINITION of the word you ASSUME it to mean.
If you ASSUME it means God, as in the god of christianity, judism, islam, etc etc, then you CAN say its unconstitution based on this arguement. Yet, at the same time, if someone else ASSUMES another meaning, he or she can refute your argument equally well. The INTENT was no doubt as everyone is assuming, the meaning however still remains ambiguous in both cases. Its this ambiguity that keeps it from being unconstitutional!
Like it or not, this is the reality of the matter. Neither side is 'right.' This depends entirely upon your personal interpretation of the definition of the word. Argue as much as you like, its an not possible to make a stronger argument one way or the other. You can thank the english language and its multiple definitions for the same words, and the inherent ambiguity it creates
unclehobart
New Member
^ which all falls into my first argument that its all monotheistic. All I see is a, a, a, one, a .. singular form. Not one definition up there covers polytheistic cultures. That inherintly makes it a religous specific promotion on a grand scale by casting aside 1/3 of the worlds religions as improper.