Pledge of Allegiance Revised

Categories:

“Billy Johnson, stand at the head of the class. I want you to help us conduct an exercise on the Pledge of Allegiance.”

“Yes, Ms. Smith.”

“Billy, last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is constitutional to use the phrase ‘one nation under God’ in the pledge. Did you know the court reversed its 2002 decision in which it ruled the same phrase was unconstitutional?”

Cartoon by Daryl Cagle - msnbc.com (click to purchase)
Cartoon by Daryl Cagle – msnbc.com (click to purchase)

“No, Ms. Smith.”

“Did you know that the phrase ‘one nation under God’ was not in the original version of the pledge? Or that the original pledge has been altered four times?”

“No, Ms. Smith.”

“The original pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Shortly after he wrote it, the word ‘to’ was placed before ‘the republic.’ In 1923, the words ‘my flag’ were changed to ‘the flag of the United States of America.’ And in 1924, ‘United States’ was changed to ‘United States of America.’”

“What about the fourth alteration, Ms. Smith?”

“That came in 1954, Billy. President Eisenhower added the words ‘one nation under God’ to — says about.com — ‘reaffirm the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future …’”

“Cool, Ms. Smith.”

“America was a much less progressive place in 1954, Billy. In fact, today I want the class to alter the pledge one more time to reflect America’s contemporary values. Billy, begin reciting the current version of the pledge.”

“Sure thing, Ms. Smith. I pledge …”

“Stop, Billy. ‘I’ is so typical of Americans looking at the rest of the world through their own narrow point of view. Say ‘we’ instead.”

“We pledge …”

“Stop, Billy. A pledge is so harsh. Besides, the courts ruled that reciting the pledge is voluntary. Change ‘pledge’ to ‘may or may not provide.’”

“We may or may not provide our allegiance …”

“Stop! ‘Allegiance’ is so confining, Billy. It’s fine if a student wants to hold allegiance for America, but what about those students who don’t? Change ‘allegiance’ to ‘like.’”

“We may or may not like the flag …”

“Stop! The American flag is so divisive, Billy. Isn’t it a symbol of American overreaching all over the globe? It’s really just a promotional marketing gimmick and that’s what I want you to call it.”

“We may or may not like the promotional marketing gimmick of the United States of America and to the Republic … “

“Stop! ‘Republic,’ Billy? You sound as though a republic is somehow better than the political systems used in other countries. Your tone is so condescending. Delete!”

“We may or may not like the promotional marketing gimmick of the United States of America, one nation under God …”

“Whoa! God, Billy? You have the audacity to mention God in a country that holds such strong separation of church and state? Sure, I know the 9th Circuit Court decided that the term neither restricts nor promotes religion, but for today’s exercise, let’s delete it.”

“We may or may not like the promotional marketing gimmick of the United States of America, indivisible with liberty …”

“Liberty, Billy? Is there liberty for the millions in this country who are held down by the rich and powerful? Delete!”

“We may or may not like the promotional marketing gimmick of the United States of America, with justice …”

“Justice, Billy! You really believe there is justice for all in good old America? We use the vast majority of the world’s resources. Where’s the justice in that, Billy? Delete! Now read our new Pledge of Allegiance from the top.”

“We may or may not like the promotional marketing gimmick of the United States of America.”

“Bravo, Billy, bravo!”

—–

©2010 Tom Purcell. Tom Purcell, a humor columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, is nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or email [email protected]. Visit Tom on the web at www.TomPurcell.com or e-mail him at [email protected].


Comments

36 responses to “Pledge of Allegiance Revised”

  1. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    “That came in 1954, Billy. President Eisenhower added the words ‘one nation under God’ to affirm the majority of the populations bias, bigotries, fears, and general superstitions."

    A shameful year, indeed.

  2. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Sycopation:

    It appears that you're misunderstanding the purpose of religion. Typically the purpose of religion is to eliminate or at least minimize the effects of bigotry, bias, and fear. Religion is like any tool: in the right hands, it can do a lot of good, but in the wrong hands, it had be very harmful. Like a rifle, a scalpel, or a hammer, they're all used to do good, but they can all be used to cause harm.

    Your blanket asserstion that religion is simply an organized collections of biases, etc. indicates that you're only looking at the detrimental uses of religion. Where you see bad actions motivated by religion, maybe the approach should be to first judge the actors and second their putative religious motivation. Please note that this is a general idea; I'm all for judging a person's religion when they claim that their religious beliefs say that they should harm others.

  3. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    I understand, Carl. Purpose or not, I am forced to view things through the prism of my own life, my own experience. Whilst I do not care to elaborate on such personal matters on an anonymous blog, I will just say that in more than forty years, I have seen only a handful of acts of definite good that were motivated solely by another's religion. The harm I have seen people do to others and themselves in the name of religion on a personal and national/international scale is far more evidence than I would ever need to justify my level of antagonism towards it. I'm certain that other people's perceptions experiences may be different. However, I am not other people.

  4. hemstead Avatar
    hemstead

    Syncopation,

    You are a sheltered man, to have only seen a majority of harm done to others in the name of religion.

    And what of the harm done to others in the name of medicine? You realize that a significant number of deaths occur in the hospitals, right? Does that mean you should quit going to doctors?

    If you were to honestly look at the things done in the name of religion both good and bad on a statistical basis. Then seperate them out by beliefs as well. You may come up with a different perspective of things.

    I, for one, do know that at times in my past, when I was down and out, I could go to a local rescue mission for food and shelter. I have seen Catholic charities, and Baptist charities do much good. I also know that there have been mis-uses of religion as Carl also admits to, but the teachings are not the source of those evils.

    Look at the teachings of Jesus, he healed the sick, he rescued a woman who was going to get killed for adultry, he healed a guys ear when it was cut off even though that guy was about to escort him to his death. Can you actually say that people who truly follow his teachings would do mean things to others, or do we have the same thing that always happens with good teachings, man comes along and twists it to his own selfish ends without concern or thought of others?

    Just do yourself a favor and honestly look at the real teachings of the leaders of these religions. Compare them, understand them for yourself. Most people do not give due dilligence to anything and just dismiss it based on initial impressions. I have learned a long time ago that initial impressions are not always a good way to judge others.

    Think about it.

  5. geoff Avatar

    Carl JD: "Typically the purpose of religion is to eliminate or at least minimize the effects of bigotry, bias, and fear."

    Like other forms of philosophy (includinglaw and science) t's actually meant to provide a system of beliefs with which to deal with the natural world. The problem with humans is that we think: since we don't do everything instinctively, we tend to ask questions: why was I born, what happens when people die, why is it wrong to kill my neighbours? Since finding up answers to all these on an ad hoc basis would both consume time and lead to unpredictable results, working solutions are codified over time. So: don't eat shellfish because we've decided that we can eat food that parts the hoof and eats cud, but not something with parted hooves that doesn't chew cud; or that flies or is a real fish, but not something that mixes attributes of fish and walking animals. The "bigotry, bias and fear" comes in with any institution: the need to separate "us" from "them" in order to replicate/perpetuate the system.

  6. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Geoff:

    If your premise is that religion's are born out of human thought, then yes, that is the purpose of religion. From what I can tell, that is your premise. If your premise is that religion is given by God to mankind, then my explanation of the purpose of religion is correct and the source of bias etc., is man's misuse of religion. Each premise is of course unprovable, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

  7. geoff Avatar

    Carl JD: "If your premise is that religion is given by God to mankind." That's not my premise.

    I'm just going on histories and infered prehistories of religion dating back to palaeolithic cave paintings, burial customs, etc. up to the codification of legal and sacred texts, the rise of Hellenistic and other forms of speculative philosophy, and the eventual foundations of what would become the scientific method.

  8. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    I think the larger issue is one of respect for the country that was founded rather than the hope of what America can be transformed into. Conservatives love this country as it was originally founded complete with all its flaws. We don’t love the flaws (slavery and Jim Crow) but we are proud of having overcome them as a nation. We love and revere the constitution and the notion that limited government is the best form thereof. We understand America fought a revolution to escape the tyranny (government oppression) of England and its imposition of a state religion. We understand our founders had a strong belief in a divine Creator from Whom all rights flow. If man or government grants or even determines rights, then they can be restricted or even taken away by man as societies change.

    Religious freedom is also a large part of our heritage. It is a protected right in our constitution as our founders understood how difficult it was to live in a land where the state imposed an official religion or oppressed those who didn't adhere to its tenets. What has changed is our fundamental understanding of religion needing protection from the state and that notion being turned on its head to now protect the state from religion. Even the concept itself makes little sense. Religion poses no threat to the practice of statehood or sovereignty but the state can pose tremendous threats to religious practice. Tax exempt status is just one example.

    The change was made when the supreme court intentionally (imho) misused Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he spoke of a wall between church and state. Clearly he meant to assure these church members that this wall would forever protect them from the state, not the other way around. This is the sort of decision that judicial activism brings about. Those with preconceived ideas about values and morals make decisions not based on the constitution but on values they hold. Liberals would have us believe that because things change in a society, the constitution must change, too. Nothing could be further from the truth. The constitution is the bedrock of our legal system and must be the basis for arriving at decisions in all legal matters to which it pertains. There is a process to amend it and that process was made very rigorous for a reason.

    We conservatives want to see a return to this reverence for the constitution and the principles on which America was founded. If you find the Federalist Papers too difficult, try reading “How to Read the Federalist Papers” to learn the intent these wise men had in establishing a new experiment in government "For the People, By the People, and Of the People." (Yes, that was Lincoln speaking retrospectively, thank you very much.)

    Whether or not you “trust in God” isn’t the real issue. It’s do you love the country as it was founded or do you love the idea of a country America could become if someone "really smart" could come along and “fundamentally transform it” into a place you’d like to live? We broke away from Europe for a reason. Personally, I have no desire to be like Europe again. I like American exceptionalism and uniqueness and that is a large part of what the tea party movement is about.

  9. geoff Avatar

    "A divine Creator from Whom all rights flow." So why did women, blacks and gays have to fight so hard to win those rights?

  10. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Geoff:

    You misunderstood me. Your premise is that religion is born out of human musings. Based on that premise, your conclusion about the purpose of religion is correct. I meant to say that my premise is that religion is a gift from god, and from it, I make my conclusions regarding the purpose of religion.

    By the way, paleolithic cave paintings and Hellenistic philosophies prove nothing regarding the real purpose of religion. Even the best scientific theories are useless as proofs for religion. So far, you have not proven your premise (which would be amazing since its proof is impossible) you have only proven that you don't choose to believe that religion is a gift from God, used or misused by His children on Earth.

  11. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    Carl — It is not, in my opinion, upon me to provide the burden of proof of anything. Lack of belief is not a belief. I do not have to prove that elephants do not have wings. I do not have to prove that the moon is not made of cheese. I don't have to prove that gravity keeps us all on the surface of the earth.

    Religion is a set of basically fantastic and outlandish claims. Besides broviding social control mechanisms (in the name of "good" mind you) it usually indoctrinates some sort of theology that it's believers conveniently claim it is unprovable. Of course it's unprovable. It's completely insubstantial – from beginning to end. Others use the fact that religion has been around for a long time as evidence. Just because something is traditional or old doesn't make it any more correct than if it was brand new.

    The burden of proof lies not with those that do not believe. It lies with those that do.

  12. hemstead Avatar
    hemstead

    Could it be that there is no burden of proof necessary. Truth by it's very nature exists whether a person believes it or not.

    The real perspective here is for you to be completely at peace with YOUR beliefs, and willing to accept all consequences of your beliefs. Since Faith by it's very nature can not be proven and I submit that even agnostics and atheists have to have some form of Faith. (Faith in man's ability to prove that God does not exist, which I think is just as hard to prove, all you have to ask is where did ALL matter come from?)

    Anyway truth by it's nature exists outside of man's beliefs. A man does not believe a hammer smacked real hard on his skull will kill him, yet it does anyway. So if we are all honest with ourselves, at peace with our beliefs, and willing to accept all consequences of those beliefs there is no burden of proof necessary. Just no excuses if we find out we are wrong.

  13. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    >Could it be that there is no burden of proof necessary

    For blind faith? You're right. There isn't.

    > Since Faith by it’s very nature can not be proven and I submit that even agnostics and atheists have to have some form of Faith.

    Atheism is a form of faith. Agnosticism is the absence of all faith. I happen to be agnostic.

    > Anyway truth by it’s nature exists outside of man’s beliefs.

    Truth is a human concept, especially when applied to metaphysical matters, and should not be be confused with facts or evidence.

    >Just no excuses if we find out we are wrong.

    And there's the religious threat, which was perhaps inevitable.

    I do not believe because someone tells me I'm going to burn in hell if I don't. I need something a little more tangible.

    And here's the kicker: If some supreme metaphysical being who created the universe decides that simply because I do not believe that I should burn in hell for eternity then it is the definition of evil. I do not believe that the Universe is so capricious. So I guess you could call THAT my faith.

  14. hemstead Avatar
    hemstead

    Syncopation,

    "Truth is a human concept", is that a fact? Or is it just true? How do you know? When did truth originate? Where did it originate? Which human concieved it?

    As far as saying there are different applications for truth when it applies to the metaphysical, that itself is something you can't prove or disprove. You are making statements so matter-of-factly and yet there are too many inexplicable things that have no factual or evidential explanations. How does a man have a tumor the size of a softball in his gut and one week later it is gone with absolutely no treatment? (Happened to someone I know)

    There are things that have happened and are factual dealing with the metaphysical. And to flip your statement around if you are given an opportunity to save yourself and don't take it, is it the supreme mataphysical beings fault that you decided not to take the opportunity? (Something about free will)

    Bottom line for me. You are free to believe whatever you choose. I will defend you and your right to believe it. I would never try to force my beliefs on anyone, but I may express them at times. But I do also believe in the end we have no excuses for what we do and choose to believe, it is our choice and we should accept the consequences, that is not a threat, it just is not blaming others for the things we can control.

  15. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "If your premise is that religion’s are born out of human thought, then yes, that is the purpose of religion. … If your premise is that religion is given by God to mankind, then my explanation of the purpose of religion is correct…"

    The difference between the stated premises is telling though. Geoff's premise, which I happen to agree with, states the underlying basis for the origin of all religions. Your premise doesn't seem to be applicable in the same manner. The religions of the Maya, Norse, Greek or Romans did not fulfill your prescription. They were full of capricious gods, some of whom had a tendancy to be vengeful and spiteful. Nor does the Christian religion fit your definition since it relies on the threat of damnation in an attempt to instill the fear necessary to compel compliance.

    For that matter, most religions, by their very nature, inspire bigotry. As defined in Mirriam-Webster, a bigot is " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Religion divides any population into those who believe and those who do not, or, at the least, those who believe differently. What religion besides Christianity has sent missionaries to influence people away from their native religions. I don't say this was done for nefarious purposes, the missionaries surely thought they were doing what was best for the non-Christians, but the whole my-religion-is-better-than-yours is bigoted by definition. More extreme examples would be the Catholic vs. Protestant conflicts of the past few centuries and the terrorist acts inspired by radical Islam in the last couple of decades.

    I agree with hemstead that great good has been inspired by religion, and this can be said of almost all religions, not just Christianity. Likewise though, some of the most vile acts perpetrated by men have been inspired by religion. It was put into proper perspective by Steven Weinberg: "I think that on the balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

    I also agree with Carl that "Religion is like any tool: in the right hands, it can do a lot of good, but in the wrong hands, it [can] be very harmful." One only has to listen to the news regarding the child abuse scandals that seem to be systemic within the Catholic church to realize the potential harm that can be done, or go to the locally sponsored soup kitchen to see the potential good.

    "What has changed is our fundamental understanding of religion needing protection from the state and that notion being turned on its head to now protect the state from religion. Even the concept itself makes little sense. Religion poses no threat to the practice of statehood or sovereignty "

    – On the contrary, religion can pose a very real threat to a nation such as the US. The education of our kids is hampered by religionists attempting to put forth Creationism, and it's thinly disguised stepchild, Intelligent Design, as a respectable alternative to evolution, or otherwise attempting to ban books that are deemed 'inappropriate'. The rights of minority groups being denied on purely religious grounds, for example, gay couples not being recognized as family in regards to hospital visitation rights or the ability to file joint federal tax returns. The stifling of science such as stem-cell research.

    Given the strength of America's military and economic might, even in their currently weakend condition, the most potent threat to the ideals of individual freedoms is more likely to come from the ascendancy of an internal religious movement than from an external physical or economic threat.

  16. geoff Avatar

    Carl JD: I just find it easier to follow a historical thread behind religion rather than try to ask the next question that leads from your premise: which god? and why would you presume (or interpret it to be) a "gift"?

  17. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Geoff:

    To answer your question, let me first give you a brief history of the universe. j/k. I'll try to be a little more concise.

    To answer the question of which god: the one God. Our spiritual Father. He created the Earth for us to live on and taught our first parents His plan for our lives so that we could progress spiritually to return to live with Him. Over time, some people were tempted to disagree with the plan and began to corrupt the message as originally delivered. That corruption has come down through the ages and resulted in the multitude of concepts of God's attributes, e.g. whether there is one or multiple, if He exists at all, or that He doesn't exist at all.

    To answer why I see it as a gift: He give us knowledge on how to be happy in this life and in the life to come. I would say that demonstrates His love for us. Unless you have a better word for it, I'm going to call it a gift. If your father gave you the knowledge, tools, and materials to build a house, I would call that a gift. If you take that knowledge, tools, and materials to build a weapon and kill people, is that your father's fault?

  18. geoff Avatar

    Carl JD: well… second point first: there were various herecies over time, where it was argued that the "God" of the OT was the devil of the NT: making a set of laws no one could keep (don't lust, etc., i.e. tempting us with the beauties of Creation being a major cause of unhappiness).

    Then there's the problem of the "message as originally delivered." To whom? Palaeolithic cave painters? the Israelites who first passed along a set of oral traditions before finally writing them down? the Sumerians and Babylonians and others who wrote down some of the earlier versions of some of the stories which oral tradition would later codify (Noah's flood, for example)? Zarathustra, with his duality?

  19. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Geoff:

    There's not a lot I can say to that last post. Does it matter who God's first children were? Adam and Eve works for me. Does it matter who corrupted the message? I wasn't there when the books were written. The best we can do now is speculate for all it's worth.

    First point second: Is it truly impossible to see the beauties of nature an not lust? Can you not control your thoughts? Are you no better than an animal? If not, then I withdraw my point and I will concede that keeping God's law is impossible, that we are descended from chimps, and that the world was created by pure random chance.

  20. geoff Avatar

    Carl JD: well, the lust part was just an example. But look at any of the other "deadly sins" and how well they've worked. There are even some out there who seem to take greed as a virtue.

    If the message was corrupted, what is the real message? Hunting magic (a la palaeolithic cave paintings)? Weather deities? animistic spirits? Pantheons? Dualism? Monotheism?

    On the other hand: since animals don't usually destroy their own environments ("the beauties of nature") as badly as we've destroyed ours, aren't you being a little harsh with your "better than an animal"? Animals generally don't start wars, enslave their cospecifics, or build nuclear weapons.

  21. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Carl, Geoff,

    I like both of your perspectives, and I believe in both of them.

    Purely on a scientific basis if I try to explain, I think God was a creation of the wise men, who

    1) were observant,

    2) realized the power of the mind

    3) realized the need for order

    4) realized the importance of team work

    5) realized the need to build compassion amongst humans

    6) Most importantly realized the power and consequently the fear of the unknown (Which I assume was termed as GOD)

    7) realized the resistance to force in the human nature

    and found out ways to develop and utilize from the above to make societies from nomads.

    Where the geographical conditions were harsh and personal survival was given more importance than group, a single god or whatever could convince the people was developed and preached.

    Where resources were in abundance and teamwork was needed, a group of gods resembling the importance of teamwork were preached.

    But all this was with the simple and noble intention of survival of man, in this harsh, animal eat animal world.

    Again, do not misunderstand me to be either a atheist or a agnostic or a believer.

    I sincerely try to be a human and respect all beliefs. That is why atheism is also respected.

    The problem starts when people with one belief start forcing their beliefs on to others or believers of other methods (Gods/religion whatever you want to call it ).

    Like Syncopation said above you do not need to prove that a elephant cannot fly. Similar you do not need to prove that religion brings order to the society.

    Imagine the scenario, a human eating another human, like a snake eating snake or a lion eating another lion.

    We know cannibalism was prevalent in some tribes of Africa. What is the guarantee that this was not common in the pre-nomadic age?

    Some wise men found this to be disturbing, got together, hatched a plan and created GOD to solve this problem.

    So my friends we are actually fighting over a solution, that provided the base for Human Progress and as a result doing the same thing that our fore fathers wanted to avoid.

    Ok there might be a lot of loop holes in this theory, and hence the second point was "Power of the mind".

    We tend to see what we believe in.

    Like atheists do not believe in God, so they do not see miracles.

    Believers believe in God, so they see miracles all around, like somebody getting cured from cancer, somebody coming out alive from an earthquake, or an accident, etc.

    Scientists believe in theories, so they are able to deal and work with atoms and electrons, etc which we normal people cannot even fathom to imagine.

    Similarly, if you believe in something you will definitely find something to prove it.

    Hope that helps to find some balance in this discussion about religion.

  22. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Geoff:

    Do you really want to get into what is the original message?

    As to the deadly sins: I'm pretty sure there's more than seven ways to harm your neigbor but last time I checked, none of God's laws are impossible to keep. Difficult maybe, but impossible, none. When we do slip up, it's nice to know that we can learn from our mistakes and avoid doing it again.

    As to some people thinking that greed is good, I'm not sure how it has come across that I'm defending their actions. Are you asking me to answer for every bad thing done in the course of human history? I'm sure even you as a history prof would get bored digging up every bad thing.

    You're right animals don't do all the bad things humans have done. My point was that mankind has the capacity to be better than animals.

  23. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Is it truly impossible to see the beauties of nature an not lust? Can you not control your thoughts?"

    – Controlling my thoughts is not an issue with me. Ceding control of my thoughts to a flawed religious ideology is.

    "Are you no better than an animal?"

    – I am an animal, so are you, so are we all.

    "that we are descended from chimps"

    – Who claimed that? You've been listening to the inflammatory propaganda of Creationists. Evolution postulates that humans and chimps are both descended from some ancient common ancestor, along with all of the other great apes and the other 22 extinct hominid species such as Homo Erectus and Neanderthal, with a great many branchings along the concurrent evolutionary paths.

    Of course, it isn't easy to reconcile all of the hard scientific evidence in favor of evolution with the book of transcribed oral stories and other bronze-age writings, compiled and edited by Roman religious power brokers, that is The Bible, the unadulturated and unerring (except for the changes and mis-translations) Word of God; all originally done for the political benefit of a pagan emperor and to codify and enable the Christianization of pagan Rome, and simultaneously,the paganization of the original Christian religion.

  24. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Stug:

    Fine, not chimps. Primordial goop is our common ancester or wherever you'd like to claim life started.

    Did I ever claim that the Bible was unerring? I hope I never did because there are obvious problems. I'm not blind. I know how far the Bible gets me.

    Ceding control of my thoughts to religion? We all choose to listen to something, be it the media, a church, a university professor (no disrespect intended, Geoff), or popular culture as filtered through music, etc. So in a way, we cede control to whomever we listen to. Just because I choose to listen to a religion that teaches me to be a good person doesn't make that a bad thing. To what do you cede control of your thoughts?

    I may fall into the the same arbitrary taxonomic category as an animal, but fortunately I am not the same as a rat, a monkey, or rhino. I'm capable of determining my own destiny and acheiving goals beyond the mere staying alive from one moment to the next. I can ask myself, "Am I a better person today than I was yesterday?" Show me an animal that can do that. And if, as you say, we are all simply animals, how does that dovetail with Geoff's assertion that animals don't do many of the things humans have done throughout history?

  25. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    >>When did truth originate? Where did it originate? Which human concieved it?

    Uhhh, no… not going to get drawn into that kind of meaningless banter. 🙂 I made the point I attempted to make.

    >>As far as saying there are different applications for truth when it applies to the metaphysical, that itself is something you can\’t prove or disprove.

    I never said I had to prove or disprove every statement I make. There is no need to be absurd! That's not a discussion, that's just a little silly, a diversion – a feint. Everything – literally everything I state – is my opinion which you may accept or discard at your leisure. And no, you won't burn in hell for eternity if you don't accept the same axioms, premises and facts I base my decisions on. In that way, perhaps, I'm more godlike than your own god, if mercy, acceptance and tolerance are indeed divine qualities.

    >>there are too many inexplicable things that have no factual or evidential explanations.

    There are many things we do not understand. That does not make them miracles or divine in nature. It makes them… things we do not understand. Some people have a *really* hard time accepting that and create or adhere to previously created cultural dogma as a way to explain the currently unexplainable. That, perhaps, is the literal source of Religion. That and Fear.

    >>How does a man have a tumor the size of a softball in his gut and one week later it is gone with absolutely no treatment? (Happened to someone I know)

    Don't know. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

    >>There are things that have happened and are factual dealing with the metaphysical. And to flip your statement around if you are given an opportunity to save yourself and don\’t take it, is it the supreme mataphysical beings fault that you decided not to take the opportunity? (Something about free will)

    My statement holds. If that is indeed your god, then it is the definition of evil, and I do not believe the Universe to be so capricious (my faith, if you will).

    >>Bottom line for me. You are free to believe whatever you choose. I will defend you and your right to believe it. I would never try to force my beliefs on anyone

    By you, I don't mean you PERSONALLY, but you as a person of religion.

    You put it on my money. You try to force allegiance in the courtrooms by "swearing on the Bible". You put it in my Pledge of Allegiance (not too terribly long ago, it certainly wasn't in the original version) You try to put it in my schools. You use it as a basis of bigotry and discrimination against people who do not believe as you do.

    Conversely, my lack of faith requires you to do nothing – nothing at all. I would never try to fire you from your job simply because you believe in a supernatural being. I would never tell you you couldn't get married because you thought an old man parted the Red Sea with a word. I wouldn't try to get you booted out of an apartment I owned because you thought a carpenter made a bunch of fish and bread out of thin air. I wouldn't hate or despise you if you had a disease, or think that you somehow deserved to be sick because of your religion, the concept is foreign to me. I wouldn't beat you up and crucify you on a fence in Wyoming because you thought my life was so trivial and meaningless that you somehow deserved whatever you got. I would never tell you that you will experience eternal suffering if you do not believe as I do.

    >> But I do also believe in the end we have no excuses for what we do and choose to believe, it is our choice and we should accept the consequences, that is not a threat, it just is not blaming others for the things we can control.

    Sophistry. Once again, I do not believe the Universe to be as capricious as you do. So maybe I do have a faith after all.

  26. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    More to the point.

    If Jesus Christ himself were to appear before me and say "Worship me or suffer eternal damnation" I would rebel and refuse, just as if it had been Adolf Hitler that magically appeared before me and said the same thing. Then I'd check for hallucinatory effects on any prescriptions I may be taking.

    If Buddha were to appear before me I'd ask him how he got so fat, but I wouldn't worship him.

    If Allah were to magically pop up in front of me in the shower, I'd find a robe, but I wouldn't worship him if he demanded that I do so.

    If Zeus were to manifest himself in my garden, I'd ask if there was anything he could do about the weeds, but I would not worship him. I'd give him a $20. If he got rid of the weeds, that is.

    Now if the cable guy would arrive at my house at the agreed time/date that they said they would, THEN I'd consider some serious worship. 🙂 (just kidding of course)

    I am a practical man of reason who finds no need to worship or pledge fealty to any supernatural forces, real or imagined. Some might call that freedom.

    I know I would. But then again, I'm an American.

  27. hemstead Avatar
    hemstead

    Syncopation

    A life with no regrets at the end of it. That's really all I ask for. Not to say there haven't been some on the way, but I strive to have at least finished better than the way I started, trying to put others first along the way.

    I do undersatand why Ghandi said , and I paraphrase, "Your Christ I Like, it's the Christians that stop me from becoming one." Not to say that is the cause of your beliefs, but I do feel that there is something to how people percieve all religions based on their interactions with some of the practitioners.

    I also am a practical person, I have found that there are just as many intelligent logical people out there with a belief in a supreme being of some sort, and I do not always see it as a product of their upbringing. To question the existance of a Supreme being is one of the things we can still do freely in this country and you dare not speak about it at all in some countries.

    Enjoy your freedom, and thanks for the dialogue.

  28. phil Avatar
    phil

    hemstead,

    It is Gandhi and not Ghandi.

  29. geoff Avatar

    Syncopation: there's an old Buddhist expression: if you meet the Buddha upon the road, kill him.

    Did Jesus list "worship me" among any of his instructions? I think he said something about "follow me" or being "the way" or whatever. Muhammed would also tell you not to worship him but Allah.

  30. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    Geoff: Buddha would bring the term roadkill to a whole new level.

    I don't pretend to know the verses by heart, Geoff, but I've heard them many times…. something about "thou shalt worship no other God before me", plenty of verses about worshipping the one true "God". I don't really see it as necessary to quote them but coming from a Catholic background the trinity is considered to be God, three parts of the same thing. Anyways, it's all mincing words a bit and I don't really see how it changes the point of my anecdote. 😎

  31. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Syncopation: "I don’t really see how it changes the point of my anecdote." Cuz it doesn't. You're on the right path.

  32. hemstead Avatar
    hemstead

    phil,

    My apologies "Gandhi"

    I should have checked that one but was pressed for time.

    My perspective is still the same though, if I saw people heading down the road to what I believed was certain doom, and did not warn them, then it would be my fault when they met with disaster. If I warn them without a haughty attitude and they belittle me or choose to ignore my warnings, or do not believe me, I have done what I could.

    If I tell them "Ha Ha Ha, your headed for certain destruction and I'm not, na na na na na na." I might as well have not said anything.

    If I am wrong and they did not listen, well they'll be fine.

    If I am wrong and they did listen, I would argue that they would still be fine because there is nothing harmful in the road I am walking.

    Either way I have done what my conscience dictates me to do in looking out for what I believe is the best interest of others without forcing them into something they choose not to do. I think that's the kind of Christian or believer that Gandhi would have prefered to meet.

  33. phil Avatar
    phil

    I totally agree with everything you said hemstead.

    Oh and No need to apologize.

    I understand. such things happen.

    The most important part was your intention was noble.

    Thank you,

  34. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    While the discussion has remained civil and mostly on topic, I think two issues are being combined. One is the origin of religion and the second is its place in society. Whether the common theme of myths in all societies “proves” all religion is man made is debatable. It may be true, but it is also possible that “God” in some form has revealed His will to man. I gave up on organized religion precisely because I don’t believe “God hears and answers prayer.” My lack of belief in way effects whether there is or isn’t a God or whether He hears and answers prayers—it’s purely anecdotal. I came to the conclusion based on personal experience that there _may_ be a God but that if there is, He is not involved in our lives. You may have arrived at a completely different conclusion. Regardless of what it is, I have the utmost of respect for your opinion.

    Now that I’ve convoluted the first issue with my own experience, let me just add that no one knows with certainty in spite of their strenuous claims to the contrary) the answer to these questions such as, “Is there a God?” That’s why we have the term faith. “It [faith] is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for” according to the Bible. We know there are many things we don’t understand about our own universe to include the origin of life and what happens after death. We don’t even understand the quantum world well. So it is a very reasonable question to ask if God exists and if He does what is expected of us? Many have concluded “there is no God.” Fine. Just remember we come to conclusions in ways no one understands. Why do you like red and he likes blue? Why are you liberal and I conservative? No one has that answer and claiming that we (you/me and no one else who disagrees) have arrived at THE correct conclusion is the epitome of hubris whether theist or atheist. Regardless of whether or not religion is a gift from God to man or a creation of his own device it is a part of our society and the world and that is never going to change.

    The second issue revolves around religion’s place in society and how we view it. My problem with many on the left is the almost palpable hatred of religion. Stug is very vocal in his opposition to anyone teaching his children anything that even smacks of religion in school and he is 100% entitled to that opinion. Ironically, our Founders wanted education to be free and public for the reason that children read those books all of them had commonly read to include those on “natural law” and the Bible. This body of literature was the best way they knew to keep citizens involved in government and to understand the constitution and our common history. Others hate religion (Christianity specifically) because it challenges their lifestyle. Gays and others who don’t want to be restrained by what they believe are myths, can not stand being told their lifestyle is sinful by those who believe the Bible is literally the Word of God. I understand that. What I don’t understand is the hatred in return. This is one of my biggest issues with the Left. It advocates tolerance but practices hate in its vehemence against organized religion and conservatives. If you’re gay, a minority, a feminist, etc., you’re golden. But if you’re a black conservative or a pro-life woman, you’re an outcast. I’ve you’re a white, conservative, middle-age male, you’re the devil incarnate. (Okay, that’s a wee bit of hyperbole.)

    My sense is these people feel they are in a political war for what they perceive to be their rights (gay marriage, etc.,) and are pushing back and that often gets ugly. I think a calm, quiet approach that promotes education is better, but I’m not in the battle on either side.

    Hardly a month goes by I don’t have the Mormons or local Baptist or Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking on my door. I just tell them “no thanks.” I don’t get angry or stand there and argue with them. I’m neither pro nor anti gay. I don’t care what consenting adults do. I try to show tolerance. Not acceptance—just simple tolerance. It’s painless.

  35. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Stug, I'm not implying you hate religion. I think Syncopation does, but I don't think you are hateful. And I meant to say, "My lack of belief in NO way effects…"

  36. Jack Sprat Avatar
    Jack Sprat

    Stug if you're still on the thread, here's a link to finish my reply on another thread.

    http://blog.cagle.com/2010/04/01/strategies/#comm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *