|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:42 pm
I read one of my old books on the country (U.S. of A). When I got to the first amendment, I thought of how, on money, it says "in god we trust." It also says that in the pledge of allegiance.
"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."
And that brings us to the topic of Gay Rights, too.
Proposition eight is against gay marriage. Why?
Is it for religious reasons?
I have a cousin who is lesbian (and married to another woman) and is Christian.
But I digress.
What are your general views on the freedom of religion? Is it a crock of crap or is it... something else?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:49 am
I feel that all our laws or laws that are trying to be passed are based on religion in place or another.
For example; gay marriage. People are trying to ban it because of their religion and that is the basis of their argument. There is no non-religious anti-views on the matter other than the argument that "it'll influence children badly" but even then I feel that it is influenced by religion.
Like I said, all are laws are based on religion somewhere and I feel that isn't right because not everyone has the same religion or the same views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:27 am
Yeah...I don't say that part of the Pledge of Allegiance whenever I'm forced to say it. I get some nasty glares for it too.
In my opinion, the First Amendment was made with good intention, but we lack the discipline to carry it out. sadly, those with religious view outnumber those without. Therefore, they can get away with crap like that.
Also, people always keep themselves in mind, no matter what they are doing. So if you try and explain to people that are using religious arguments that they should probably come up with a better argument, they sometimes don't get it.
For example, if I'm debating something with someone who uses a religious argument, I'll often tell them that they need to come up with evidence that is based on solid proof or that is universal. Then they digress to the argument that I hate the most: "Bad" and "good". ((Like you said quoted, Rayne: It will affect children badly"). Then I tell them to define bad and good, they give me these freakin moral highground(And sometimes religious!) answers. It's infuriating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:04 am
(If you notice, it says "..and to the republic for which it stands..." in the pledge of allegiance, too)
I agree with the other parts of the first amendment, freedom of press and speech.
It really is religious :l
I haven't heard of any senators or presidents or political figure that are atheist or simply non-religious (I'm pretty sure those are different things).
I guess that some religious persons believe that religious views are the better argument. What's better than god, ey? Huh.
I think we should just get rid of the "in god we trust" stuff altogether, but the problem is that it would satisfy the lesser of the population, seeing as most people are religious.
There's also the fact... Well, it's not a fact, but, like, why do the religious people care if the homosexuals go to hell like it says in the bible? Do they wanna "save" them or something? But that's another matter, I guess...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:48 am
LOL...I agree with everything you just said.
By the way, atheist and nonreligious aren't the same thing. Atheist is if you have the belief that god does not exist. Nonreligious just means that you aren't paticularly attached to any religion. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:02 pm
I was pretty sure they were different, thanks for confirming it :3
My friend and I were talking about it yesterday and she told me that, instead of saying "one nation under god" she says "one nation under my foot."
I guess that when they were making the amendments they didn't think of the fact that not everyone believes in God...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:13 am
Lieutenant Shotgun I was pretty sure they were different, thanks for confirming it :3
My friend and I were talking about it yesterday and she told me that, instead of saying "one nation under god" she says "one nation under my foot."
I guess that when they were making the amendments they didn't think of the fact that not everyone believes in God... It has nothing to do with the Amendments. It only says that there cannot be one national religion and they have to let you practice your religion. "Under God" in the pledge wasn't added until the 1950s or 60s. (I don't remember which one.) I don't say the pledge at all. Actually, I think some of the people at the Constitutional Convention were athiests/non-religious. But Freedom of Religion was only made because of the King of England.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:56 am
(I am not American. Other than the fact that I do live on the Northern continent to bare the name. I don't even know your pledge of allegiance.)
There is a double standard in the idea of Freedom of Religion. It is supposed to be acceptable to practice any religion. In fact, it is supposedly downright American to be able to practice any religion free of persecution. However, what was one of the most common attacks on Obama during the election campaign? "He's Muslim." "He's connected with Islam." "His family is Islamic." etc. etc. This is not the only example of this attitude being present. For all the protestations to the contrary, the United States of America is the closest the world has to a Christian Theocracy.
I will not say that Canada has a perfect track record, either. We have the line "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem. (The line that has caused more trouble is "True patriot love in all our sons' command.) However, we have had more success in separating our religious lives from our political. The religion of our candidates is usually a non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:02 pm
eccentricanomaly Lieutenant Shotgun I was pretty sure they were different, thanks for confirming it :3
My friend and I were talking about it yesterday and she told me that, instead of saying "one nation under god" she says "one nation under my foot."
I guess that when they were making the amendments they didn't think of the fact that not everyone believes in God... It has nothing to do with the Amendments. It only says that there cannot be one national religion and they have to let you practice your religion. "Under God" in the pledge wasn't added until the 1950s or 60s. (I don't remember which one.) I don't say the pledge at all. Actually, I think some of the people at the Constitutional Convention were athiests/non-religious. But Freedom of Religion was only made because of the King of England. I'm not sure of the atheist/non-religous political figure topic. I said that I wasn't. The pledge of allegiance has changed as follows: 1892“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” 1892-1923"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." 1942-1954"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." 1954-Present"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." You are right about the amendments, but that doesn't resolve the problem of prop eight and "in god we trust."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:34 pm
Freedom of religion is a wonderful idea, if only America could learn to practice what it preaches. There is no separation of church and state. God is brought into many governmental affairs, such as having "in god we trust" written on the dollar, prayer as part of inaugurations, sessions of senate being opened with prayer, and most notably, the line "one nation under god" (added n 1954 during the McCarthy era) in the pledge of allegiance-all of this is unconstitutional. It goes completely against separation of church and state, only further proving the overwhelming presence of god in our government, and how far the government (primarily the right wing) will go to throw it's beliefs onto citizens. Freedom of religion is also the freedom of no religion, which is not available in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:36 pm
faretheewell There is a double standard in the idea of Freedom of Religion. It is supposed to be acceptable to practice any religion. In fact, it is supposedly downright American to be able to practice any religion free of persecution. However, what was one of the most common attacks on Obama during the election campaign? "He's Muslim." "He's connected with Islam." "His family is Islamic." etc. etc. This is not the only example of this attitude being present. For all the protestations to the contrary, the United States of America is the closest the world has to a Christian Theocracy. i agree completely
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:43 pm
FullMetalLex Freedom of religion is a wonderful idea, if only America could learn to practice what it preaches. There is no separation of church and state. God is brought into many governmental affairs, such as having "in god we trust" written on the dollar, prayer as part of inaugurations, sessions of senate being opened with prayer, and most notably, the line "one nation under god" (added n 1954 during the McCarthy era) in the pledge of allegiance-all of this is unconstitutional. It goes completely against separation of church and state, only further proving the overwhelming presence of god in our government, and how far the government (primarily the right wing) will go to throw it's beliefs onto citizens. Freedom of religion is also the freedom of no religion, which is not available in this country. I completely agree with you. I'd also like to add that I'm a Christian, but I'm all for gay rights and I'm straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:16 pm
Aliareana I'd also like to add that I'm a Christian, but I'm all for gay rights and I'm straight. I'm not religious, but it bothers me that many people think that ALL christians disagree with separation of church and state, and do not accept people of other or no religion, are against gay marriage, ect. While I do know some that fit the stereotype, I also know many that are very liberal. I don't think that the bible and other religious works should be taken literally, and have no place in government. Most people I know, regardless of religion, agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:41 pm
On the flip, would you rather it say Satan? Since Christianity is the majority religion, with millions of followers, it makes a lot of sense to add something like that to please. If we edit something like that out, how much of an angry ripple would we cause? Of course, who ever DID would probably be under press for a long time. Being a lutheran/christian, it dosn't particularly bother me.
at least you're not singing praise songs, like you would in a Catholic school or other religion-specific schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:43 pm
@Azusanga: None of us even insinuated that it would be "better" if it said "Satan" or something. Honestly. We're simply stating that if we didn't have "in god we trust" or "one nation under god" on our currency and in our pledge, we wouldn't conflict the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
