- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
FredFlash said:You are rejecting the absolute and exclusive authority of Christ over the things that are be rendered only to God.
No man can serve two masters. You need to decide who is the authority over your duties to God. Choose either the government or God?
FredFlash said:No man can serve two masters. You need to decide who is the authority over your duties to God. Choose either the government or God?
FVF
Lachean said:Holy crap do people like you scare me. Didnt Christ say render to ceasar what is ceasar's and to god what is god's?
Your statements make me think that your loyalty is to your faith and if your faith demanded it you would commit treason against our government.
Captain America said:Doesn't God require a flat tax of 10%? Hmmm...... you may be on to something there Fred. Can we pick one or the other?
Crispy said:Just a point. that's all. Its as reasonable to view any group being lead by the wrong people, being sold the worng message, pushing them into the wrong actions. No group is beyond that.
I don't need the government to back a religion and I'm really not religious myself. What we all do need though is toleration. When an issue like this is brought up not on its merit but in order to grandstand a point of view that belittles a group its counter productive and even if the ruling is successful and fair, the outcome is a divisive failure. I personally don't see Under God in the pledge as "controlloing," that's my personal opinion. I do see the religious rights debate on abortion and other matters that you mention below just as dangerous and divisive and I'll stand side by side with you guys to stop them when they're trying to push this stuff on the center and the left.
Agreed, I see them as bad as Radical Islam but thankfully we're in a more Civil country. But the problem isn't the belief. The problem is the way the belief is practiced. I don't insult Christians, Jews or any other believers of any practice and to the contrary I respect them and respectfully disagree. I don't call them stupid, I don't call them ignorant and I don't use issues to open the door to belitteling them. And that's what this whole debate seems to be. If this was just being introduced into the pledge I'd say "yea it shouldn't be put there". But all the sudden, the christian right has made a power grab and right is loud so its time to attack the symbolism and belitte them, and not just the one's who are extreme but anybody who is "deluded", "ignorant", (add derrogatory terms here) enough to believe in this "irrational" imaginary god. That I disagree with. Talk about Pat Robinson yea, and the examples you brought up above, that's concise and that's attacking who needs to be attacked not the group that he's a part of.
Its funny because I generally do support yours and Scarecrow's side on this, but, I can't support, and wouldn't want the support of those who can't discern their personal prejudice from their public stance no matter who's doing it. People don't disagree cause they veiw the world differently based on their ideology, they disagree because they can't accept others that view the world differently. That's the problem, not ideology. In every group there's leaders and followers. In every group there's the potential for Leaders who teach anti-social ways of practice what the group believes (some beliefs albeit more prone than others to this). In every group there's the protential leaders who teach socially admirable and benevolent ways of practicing their belief. I take the "anti-social" grandstanding ones whichever side of the fence they're on and point to them as the cause of violence and injustice not the belief they've distorted.
Well and activist liberal judge from the 9th circuit court in San Francisco has struck again today striking the word "Under God" from the Pledge of Alegiance....
It will go to the SCOTUS and be struck down but what are your thoughts?
Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?
How a few words force anything, is beyond me..No, the United States was founded as a non-religious nation.This cannot be as most Americans at that time were religious, but most were not fanatics or extremists. The founding fathers, who consisted of not only theists, but also deists and agnostics, purposely separated the new government and religion.But the separation was simply a line, not a Berlin wall.. Unfortunately, the United States is quickly becoming a Christian nation and our freedoms are rapidly diminishing.A few rather meaningless words do not take away any freedoms. "One nation under God" or "In God we trust" were not included on the original pledge of allegiance or currency, but was later added in the 1950's during the Cold War (U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"). Christians complain when courts rule issues like this as unconstitutional, but the first amendment protects people's freedom from religion. Citing Christianity in classrooms, courts, and other public places alienates Muslims, Atheists, Jews, and any other form of opposing belief.Even if true, who cares, they will get over it.. Christians would be outraged if the pledge of the allegiance said "One nation under Muhammad" or if currency said "There is no God." This is exactly what Christianity foists upon Non-Christian citizens. This does not mean that Christians should not be allowed to practice their religion, but they should do it privately or in churches and not force their beliefs upon other people.
Yessir..... :2wave:
Moderator's Warning: |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?