So much for the US being a secular nation

Disturbed wrote:errr foot baths? Where? And the thing is, we don't need prayer rooms, can pray pretty much anywhere long as its clean.

The only favor I could say is allowing to grow beard/ wear religious headgear etc. but not allowing that is against constitution.

In Minnesota schools, if there is a Muslim population, the schools have bowed to pressure from Muslim and human rights groups and put in foot baths and prayer rooms. but if a Christian asks for a room to pray in they are told no because of the establishment clause. Makes no sense right? A couple of articles about the subject.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm

http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/muslim_prayer_in_public_schools

Personally i do not care if they are provided or not but, if you provide them for one you have to provide for all. Christian, Muslim, Buhddist, Wiccan what ever. If it is represented you have to provide a room for prayers. Wiccan may be a bit difficult with the bon fires and such...

Disturbed wrote:think they should have the right to support and endorse that religion as long as it does not interfere with others' religious practices.

And I think most people with a lick of common sense will as well. You don't have to be religious to think preferential treatment is unfair.

You misunderstand, by preferential I don't mean getting better treatment then another group(s), I mean getting worse treatment then other group(s).

Aardvark wrote:To answer Dist, I don't know, to me, "God" is fairly vague as it can imply Allah as well, and Buddhist just don't give a fuck. As for the anti-Christian stand, they seem to be targeting any instance in which the government makes reference to a Deity of any sort, and since the Founders of the U.S. were Christian, this means reference to Christian God. And for some unexplained reason they decided to prick them off more by eliminating the "national day of prayer" which I have no idea why they even needed to mess with it.

We stil have the national day of prayer,

the founders were deists

the national day of prayer was instituted by Reagan,

I don't think that the government should try to do anything with religion

a song is a song, it represents the nation but is fine as it is

they should take out god from the pledge, some people are atheists

if there is liberty and equality for all then why not gays

there are a shit load of things wrong with this country, not being secular in a plethora of ways is one of them.

I dont know why but the star spangled banner always gives me goosebumps, thanks for sharing this.

That's... That' just whack.

Nihil wrote:they should take out god from the pledge, some people are atheists.

If you're an atheist, then you don't believe in any god, so why do you care if that's in there? If you don't believe in any god, then what does it hurt if it's in there? You're not going to offend any religious deity of yours by saying it, atheists by definition believe in nothing but what science can explain.

would you pledge yourself to a king, thinking he is in no way worthy of that title?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

pledge alliegance. not asking for blessing. pledging allegiance.

I'm not an atheist, I'm a deist.

not everyone believes that

religion is a very tight issue for many parties, it is safer and easier to take out god

imagine GWB saying that God had told him to go into Iraq?...

wait...

i think he did say that...

Imagine Obama saying God told him to go into Iran, that wouldn't sit well with anyone

questions like: whose god; what religion; all that stuff.

God is a general term that can be used for any deity. It's really not offensive at all, to anyone, unless they WANT to be offended.

I think dist hit the nail on the head.

Aardvark wrote:God is a general term that can be used for any deity. It's really not offensive at all, to anyone, unless they WANT to be offended.

then I point to the draw mohammed day protests, they want to be offended.

How about we change it to Yahweh.

We know why that was put in there, the intention was christian, we aren't all christian.

I don't want to say god in a pledge, thats like pledging allegiance to the flag under magical flying unicorns.

See? So people find it ridiculous, I know it may be hard to grasp, but just think about it for a bit.


also, when people are blinded by faith, I had a talk to someone recently about this, it seems, to me, that they are blinded to reality, because they often refuse to accept things that go against their faith, these scientific things having great backing and while their faith having no real or substantial backing. Then they tell me that I don't have faith... I mean, how are you supposed to argue against such flawed logic? Its like arguing with a primate, we speak different languages, body and verbal, its impossible to talk.

Disturbed wrote:

Dray The Fingerless wrote:I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
.........
one nation under God, indivisible, .

allegiance is pledged to America, not God. The phrase 'under god' is invoking a blessing meaning that the nation is guided by the hand of God and thus successful in its ventures.

ok then let me explain to you what Context is.

if i said i like flowers, is one thing. if i said i like flowers, created by God, is another thing. if you pledge yourself to America is one hting. If you pledge yourself to America, a nation created by God is another thing. in the first one you are simply pledging yourself to America. you recognize America and officially pledge yourself to it, you acknowledge its existence and your allegiance to it as well. now when you pledge yourself to America, a nation under God, you are pledging yourself to America, but you are also admitting the existence of God, and you are pledging yourself to a country you acknowledge is created by God. I dont fucking care, its words and i dont believe in pledges or alliegances. But many people dont want to acknowledge America was created by God, because they dont believe in it.

I can give a rats ass what the words mean in the end, its still a stirring and brilliant song. And I am not being biased, I have heard some pretty sweet national anthems from other countries as well (like Khazikstan).

I'm pretty sure comparing the cartoons to the pledge the way Nihil did includes a myriad of logical fallacies. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

If you can definitively prove the existence of God, then there is no reason to take it out.

To some people, God maybe as real as magical flying unicorns.

also, I'm fine with the song, thats an anthem, it doesn't need to be changed.'

also, apples and oranges are fruits, they also adhere to an interesting symmetry of about 72 degrees, if you cut them in that order, you usually miss the seeds.


draw mohammed day is supposed to piss off extremists dist... since I don't think you read the link last time, I'll put down two quotes from it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day


No one has a right to an audience or even to a sympathetic hearing, much less an engaged audience. But no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.


The single most important element–and the thing that ties these selections together–is that each image forces the viewer to do two things. First, they consciously call into question the nature of representation, no small matter in fights over whether it is allowed under Islamic law to depict Mohammed ... Second, each of the images forces the viewer to actively participate not simply in the creation of meaning but of actually constructing the image itself.


my GOD, does it say that you are not allowed to LOOK? at a picture of Mohammed? Is that the problem? Because, from what I've heard, you would like all of us to follow a Religious law.

but lets not create another thread like that, if you guys want to respond, put it in the old thread thingymabober.