"one white nation"

[hive_king]

Now imagine if the pledge of allegience read, instead of simply "one nation", "one white nation". Doesn't that seem racist? Even though this country was founded by white men, and its culture is almost everywhere, at least historically, "white european", this statement just seems discriminatory and wrong. It implies that whites are more american than any other race. So why is "one nation under god" acceptable?

[luminousnerd]

Because the nation was founded under God. Even if you think you don't believe in God, A) You're wrong, you do believe in him, you just disguise him as something else (often money or something like that) to fool yourself. And B) Even if you truly didn't believe in God, the nation was still founded under Him, and in His name.

There would be no reason whatsoever to make it "one white nation". This nation has been reformed to accept those of other races. This is a clearly racist statement. There is a reason for "under God", though, because it's simply not debatable...this nation WAS founded under God. And it doesn't make any attacks on those who don't believe in God, because it transcends belief...it is truth.

Don't mistake me for saying that "God is real and that's a fact". That is my belief, but I'm not cramming it down your throat here. All I'm saying is that, real or not, this nation was founded upon Him.

[jotabe]

But... was the God USA was founded under (if that's so) the same as your God?. From what i understand, the "founding fathers" weren't exactly your everyday Christians.

[luminousnerd]

I don't know to be honest, but even if it was a different god, still it is the god that our nation was founded under. I don't support the phrase "one nation under God" because I believe in God or because it agrees with my beliefs. I support it because this nation was founded under one god, one specific god, and they found it important enough to put it in the pledge. That's fine with me.

That's the minimum respect we can offer to those who founded a great nation. And to those who would be running our nation a lot better than the current government is, but that's another discussion for another day.

[jotabe]

Ok, imagine this God was actually Allah. Would you feel comfortable with this?

Btw, from what i heard H_K saying a while ago, the part "under God" in the pledge of alliance wasn't really in the original pledge, but it was added in a much later period. Surely someone can document this better than me.

[luminousnerd]

Ok, imagine this God was actually Allah. Would you feel comfortable with this?

Btw, from what i heard H_K saying a while ago, the part "under God" in the pledge of alliance wasn't really in the original pledge, but it was added in a much later period. Surely someone can document this better than me.

Yes, if America were the great nation it is, and the pledge said "one nation under Allah" I would be fine with it, if that is what the people who put it there intended.

However, so that someone doesn't misunderstand and quote this topic at some point in the future, I will make it clear that I do not/will not pledge allegiance to the flag for different reasons. I do not mind the nation being under any god, or Allah, or divine being. What I do have a problem with is the unlawful prohibition of marijuana. That is why I do not pledge.

And, yea, under God wasn't in the original pledge. Not sure exactly on the details there, but I still stick by my opinion that under God should stay in the pledge.

[jotabe]

So...

You say that "under God" has to stay in the pledge because that's how USA was founded, even thought "under God" wasn't present in the original pledge, and was introduced in a time later than the founding of the USA.
Also you don't care which God this "God" is.
And even though you think the "under God" should stay, you won't pledge because there is a law (that has nothing to do with the Constitution that is represented by the flag) that forbids smoking weed.




Edited for spellnig

[luminousnerd]

So...

You say that "under God" has to stay in the pledge because that's how USA was founded, even thought "under God" wasn't present in the original pledge, and was introduced in a time later than the founding of the USA.
Also you don't care which God this "God" is.
And even though you think the "under God" should stay, you won't pledge because there is a law (that has nothing to do with the Constitution that is represented by the flag) that forbids smoking weed.




Edited for spellnig

The law has much to do with the constitution, and as I said, it has absolutely nothing to do with this argument, I was merely pointing it out so that someone didn't think they'd made me eat my words in the future.

I don't care which God this 'God' is, because it's the God this nation was founded on. The pledge itself isn't that old, and again, I'm not very clear on the details of when this phrase was added. However, it was homage to the god this nation was founded upon. That's all that matters. Even if he doesn't exist.

[RoyalMother]

I don't know to be honest, but even if it was a different god, still it is the god that our nation was founded under. I don't support the phrase "one nation under God" because I believe in God or because it agrees with my beliefs. I support it because this nation was founded under one god, one specific god, and they found it important enough to put it in the pledge. That's fine with me.

That's the minimum respect we can offer to those who founded a great nation. And to those who would be running our nation a lot better than the current government is, but that's another discussion for another day.

"under God' was added in 1954 (perhaps '53).
It was not original in the pledge. It was "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Bellamey was long dead when the Knights of Columbus petitioned for the change to add the much debated line.

[luminousnerd]

"under God' was added in 1954 (perhaps '53).
It was not original in the pledge. It was "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Bellamey was long dead when the Knights of Columbus petitioned for the change to add the much debated line.

Thanks for bringing clarity to that issue.

My personal belief still stands: it is out of respect to the original god on which this nation was founded.

[Seiryu]

Hmm...I like the phrase "Under God," but I don't think it should be said if the speaker chooses not to say it, but to take it out completely is wrong. It should just be optional.

[luminousnerd]

Hmm...I like the phrase "Under God," but I don't think it should be said if the speaker chooses not to say it, but to take it out completely is wrong. It should just be optional.

Sounds like a good policy to me.

[RoyalMother]

I suppose to ME it seems the addition of 'under God' is very recent, and belated, being nearly 60 years after the original pining of the verse.

I am interested in how many knew the original was written by a Baptist Minister?

How many knew the original writer hated the addition/ changing of the part 'my flag' to "the flag of the United States of America"?

The writer obviously felt that his original verse was complete and needed no 'corrections'

[luminousnerd]

I suppose to ME it seems the addition of 'under God' is very recent, and belated, being nearly 60 years after the original pining of the verse.

I am interested in how many knew the original was written by a Baptist Minister?

How many knew the original writer hated the addition/ changing of the part 'my flag' to "the flag of the United States of America"?

The writer obviously felt that his original verse was complete and needed no 'corrections'

Not obvious to me. He just didn't like that correction, and I can see why. I think he would like this one. All speculation, of course, and it really doesn't matter, because he's dead and he doesn't have a say in the matter

[RoyalMother]

Interestingly in light of the title of this thread, the Bellamy reportedly considered adding "equality" to the pledge, but did not because he knew the state superintendents of education were against the education/equality of women and African Americans.

[Eaquae Legit]

Times I'm happy to be Canadian...

[Rei]

You and me both

[Sibyl]

Ok, imagine this God was actually Allah. Would you feel comfortable with this?

Btw, from what i heard H_K saying a while ago, the part "under God" in the pledge of alliance wasn't really in the original pledge, but it was added in a much later period. Surely someone can document this better than me.

I can document it by my memory: I'd been in elementary school, saying it every day, for two or three years when they made the change, and the groove in my head runs both ways, "...one nation indivisible,..." and "...one nation, under God, indivisible...". It would have been roughly 1953-5.

And btw, that's "allegiance", not "alliance".

[AnthonyByakko]

Because the nation was founded under God.

False, and egregiously so. The Founding Fathers were averse to any sort of religious entanglement in government, and went out of their way to make sure that their was no religious involvement in the nation as a whole. Just because the Pilgrims were religious puritans doesn't mean the nation was founded under God, or anyone else for that matter. If you've read anything by any of the Founders - Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., - you'd know this for a fact.

James Madison

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together"

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state"

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect"

Thomas Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity"

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

"the insertion (of religious views in the Constitution) was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination."

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."

"religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god"

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it"

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

There are so many more that it would be ludicrous for me to try and share them all with you. The key thing for you to do is READ: read things that the Founders actually wrote, find out what they actually thought. You boldly claim with authority that it is FACT that the nation was founded on God, yet you provide NO facts to PROVE this. Just a reminder, when you make incredible claims, you better have EVIDENCE to back it up: you have shown NONE. The Founding Fathers were free-thinking libertarians, who rejected the notion of god having anything to do with their new country. The religious Right has perverted the views on all of these things, and inserted (like in the Pledge) references to God that the Founders would have gagged at.

All I'm saying is that, real or not, this nation was founded upon Him.

So now that you are educated in the fact that this nation was, in fact, NOT founded on God, you can refrain from spreading ignorance like the above statement.

ADDENDUM: The Founders would have agreed with you on marijuana prohibition; it is rumored that some of the wealthier may have had cannabis crops for hemp rope, paper and other by-products. They would have totally disagreed with your stance on the "new" Pledge of Allegiance, but like I said, they were free-thinking libertarians who would have NEVER supported the prohibition.

[luminousnerd]

I really don't feel like arguing. It's fairly pointless right now, because you're wrong, and I know it, but I'm not willing to spend my time searching the nets for evidence to support my claim because even if I do, you'll still attack my character in order to try and prove your point, just like every dumbass politician these days. I'm not going to change your opinion, and you sure as hell won't be able to convince me something other than what I know to be true is true, ESPECIALLY with attacks on my character, so let's just drop it.

[AnthonyByakko]

1.) I have not attacked your character in this thread. You can disprove this by quoting exactly what I said that was an attack on your character, or you can provide tacit evidence of the fact I did NOT by sticking with your decision not to argue.

2.) You still cannot claim that you are right without proving it. I went out of my way to provide you with some compelling evidence that stands in contradiction to your belief, but instead of critically analyzing it and thinking about the issue, you have decided that you are right (no matter what) and refuse to be convinced otherwise. I am more than open to evidence that might refute my belief - if I am proven to be wrong about something, I will alter my viewpoints and opinions to reflect the truth. However, by refusing to be open-minded, you have cut yourself off from the truth. Even if you ARE right, you can't prove it - even to yourself. You wouldn't HAVE to "spend time searching the nets for evidence" if you already HAD evidence to support your belief. This leads me to the third point:

3.) People (in general) need to start believing things AFTER they've seen arguments on both sides and formulated an INFORMED opinion. However, as evidenced thus far, you have formulated an opinion first, and only when challenged do you search for support - and now, you refuse to even do that. This leads one to believe that you are either closed-minded, or a troll. This is not a character assassination (as you would like people to believe) but an objective assessment of the evidence. You were so eager to argue before (when you thought you had supporting evidence) but now, in the face of opposition, you "don't feel like arguing."

I'm bored with you now. The truth, the facts state that the Founding Father's were against religious sentiment in government. The truth, the facts state that "god" in the Pledge was only added much later, and with much opposition. The truth, the facts state that the Founders were not religious men, and that they shunned formal religions in favor of agnostic stances. This is not to say that they were not Christians - some of them were. However, none of them were for religious entaglement in government - as proven by their own words. Even though you claim to love the Founders, and believe that they were noble men (which is true), you refuse to understand anything about them, or read anything they've written. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, etc, these are your guiding lights - and they ALL refuse religion VEHEMENTLY in their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not - your opinions are irrelevent to Truth. The truth is the same regardless. Their own words are testiment to the secularist leanings of the Founding Fathers.

In short, you are pwned.

[Rei]

To be honest, luminous, I don't see very many attacks on your character. Rather I see a lot more attacks on your utter refusal to back up anything you say. Do yourself a favour and try to make your arguments credible so that your opinions will hold more weight than the weight of an anonymous person.

[Eaquae Legit]

Hey, I'm willing to respect an anonymous person if they back themself up.

[Rei]

Then their weight is no longer just the weight of an anonymous person, is it?



And this may be of interest to people in this thread: The Jefferson Bible, also here, and wiki link.

[AnthonyByakko]

Then their weight is no longer just the weight of an anonymous person, is it?
And this may be of interest to people in this thread: The Jefferson Bible, also here, and wiki link.

Thank you Rei. Yes, as indicated, Jefferson removed a great deal from "The" Bible in order to create what he thought was a more effective representation of Jesus' life and teachings. This would be completely heretical and blasphemous to most Christians today, and most of them never know that Jefferson did it - or, in the case of luminous, acknowledge it even though they do know it.

[Eaquae Legit]

No, they're still anonymous, they're just somewhat credible. I still don't know who they are.

[luminousnerd]

You're right about me. I'm not a very good arguer at all. You are entirely right in your judgment of my arguing skills.

Also, a lot of times, what looks like evidence to me does not to others. I don't know what it is, and it gets me very frustrated a lot of times which doesn't do wonders for the way I come across to other people.

As far as your judgment about my opinion not being an informed one, you are very, very wrong. I have seen the facts, and my opinions are always either informed or nonexistent. I am terrible at communicating this, however.

I have a terrible problem with communication in that I take other peoples' words too harshly, and I cannot get my words across to mean what I want them to mean, in area of debate anyway.

And, the truth is, I lied. I do feel like arguing. But I know that I'm going to do such a god-awful job that it will hurt my position, not help it. That's why I'm refusing to argue at this point.

i haf bin pwnt.

I still believe in Under God

[AnthonyByakko]

Well then luminous, just tell us who or what "informed" your "informed" opinion - that's all we've been asking. If you have seen the facts that support your claim, why can't you tell us what they are? If evidence exists to support your claim, why can't you tell us where it is? This is the difference between "arguing" and "proving." In an argument, you are trying to persuade someone to your viewpoint. You don't have to argue - just show us the evidence and we can decide for ourselves. If you feel incapable of doing the evidence justice, just tell us where this evidence is. If you believe in "under God", and you only believe things you have seen evidence for, then the evidence MUST exist; either that, or you are lying. I'm not calling you a liar, but either one of the two must be true.

[Rei]

No, they're still anonymous, they're just somewhat credible. I still don't know who they are.

Yes, but their weight consists of an anonymous person and whatever is backing them up then, not just an anonymous person alone.

[AnthonyByakko]

No, they're still anonymous, they're just somewhat credible. I still don't know who they are.

Yes, but their weight consists of an anonymous person and whatever is backing them up then, not just an anonymous person alone.

Like in my case, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (two pretty reputable dudes, if I do say so myself) are backing me up.

[Eaquae Legit]

Links help. Quotes help. We don't mind if you do bulleted lists or take forever to put all the pieces of the argument together. Let lose with the pedantry! I prefer a longer post that takes time to put together than a post with a claim that it just leaves hanging.

When you make a claim or state a fact, assume the person(s) you are addressing are ignorant and stupid. If we were ignorant and stupid, you'd have to explain each step of the logical process to us. So do so. Assume I have no idea what you're talking about and start from the ground up.

Every time you make a claim or state a fact, remind yourself that no matter what you say, someone is going to ask "WHY?" and demand some sort of evidence. Then beat them to it and include it right away. Don't just share what you believe, share why you believe it. Because, inevitably, someone is going to challenge you. We're an argumentative bunch.

Don't set out to "prove" something, because you probably won't convince anyone. Make it your goal simply to explain yourself and your perspective. You'll be surprised how many people may start nodding their heads.

Keep debating. The only way to hone any skill is to practice. Take the hits that come your way and roll with them, and take the advice that comes your way to heart. If you believe passionately about something, keep arguing! Just realise you have to back yourself up.

So there's some advice to get you going.

[luminousnerd]

Perhaps the problem lies in that I find so much to be worth arguing. I will make it my goal to only argue things I am very passionate about indeed, and include much evidence to back myself up.

I hope I have not already desecrated my s/n on these forums to the point of not at some point down the road becoming a somewhat respected member of the group.

And sorry to litter the topic with my sap crap.

[Rei]

Eh, chin up, carry on. If you make an effort and show some improvement we may give you that chance

[hive_king]

If I haven't ruined my screen name with some of the tripe I've posted, you'll be alright.

[Matty]

"One nation under God" is less offensive than "One white nation" because people aren't as offended by it. Most people don't consider "under God" hate speech in the same way that a statement of white superiority would be, so it isn't. In assessing how bigoted a statement or word is, the widely accepted meaning is much more important than the literal one. That's because these kinds of things aren't arguments at all -- they just serve as shorthand for the beliefs of the speaker as they are commonly perceived. And most people who say "Under God" aren't militantly intolerant of other faiths.

That being said, if I could wave a wand and remove "Under God" from the pledge, I would. But out of America's top 1,000,000 problems, this one is like #981,327. (I have a list). It's not worth actually doing anything about.