The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

if, as you say, the Bible was never meant to be a science book, why do people keep trying to put it in science classes???

I could concede that it doesn't belong in a science class but I find it troublesome that it's not taught to students at all and Evolution is taught as a scientific basis even though it is also just a theory. Creation offers an explanation of how everything came into existence which flies in the face of Darwinism and Evolution. You can't prove Creation but it's not even mentioned and kids aren't taught it as a possibility. Maybe I'm wrong. I just know it wasn't brought up to me and I went to a public school. I think it's a shame.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I could concede that it doesn't belong in a science class but I find it troublesome that it's not taught to students at all and Evolution is taught as a scientific basis even though it is also just a theory. Creation offers an explanation of how everything came into existence which flies in the face of Darwinism and Evolution. You can't prove Creation but it's not even mentioned and kids aren't taught it as a possibility. Maybe I'm wrong. I just know it wasn't brought up to me and I went to a public school. I think it's a shame.

When I went to school (graduated HS in 90) it was offered. I went to public school, Jr. and Sr. years you had 4 different english classes, but you could pick among a bunch of them. One semester each. I forget all that I took, but I remember War Lit, Renaissance Lit, Science Fiction, and forget the last I took.

But, what was also offered was Religious Lit. They covered most of the major religions, and if I recall, 1/2 was dedicated to the Bible.

[Zenister 0]

I have no issues with truth, it just is not the one you Christians like to beat everyone else over the head with.

You should do some research into your source material. It was pretty much intended to tell the faithful everything they needed to know about how to live.

Science has replaced Religion; Religion once purported to know all things. But it is rather obvious to any but the most stubborn there is a great deal it never knew and even more it has been completely wrong about.

You create the context (belief) that gives your stories any validity at all. When placed in the real world context of actual verifiable facts and natural laws, your Bible is incorrect.

When a “God” is incapable of behaving in a more enlightened manner than his flawed creations.... i judge him (the character as portrayed in your literature) to be an equally flawed creation, from the mind of Man. Remember, I’m not judging God I’m judging a character created by your religion, not the same thing at all….

I find it amazing how your definition of justice is based on the beliefs of the 'victims'. I guess torture is ok if they are wicked people...

i suppose all the children who could not swim were equally wicked?? this is justice? your God is petty, jealous and bloody minded (at least until the NT revisions of his character) all human failings, all failings for any supposedly intelligent being, as determined by anyone with any sense of morality, but then your morals dont apply to your God do they?

btw, the example of Moses applied to Moses.. If a homeless person in the street next to your house were having discourse with a bush, is he sane or no?

check the source of Samson's mandate for genocide.I’d imagine killing every member of a nation, man, woman, and child exceeds the definition of ‘revenge killing’ and gets into the psychotic/pathological behavior..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

if, as you say, the Bible was never meant to be a science book, why do people keep trying to put it in science classes???

I could concede that it doesn't belong in a science class but I find it troublesome that it's not taught to students at all and Evolution is taught as a scientific basis even though it is also just a theory. Creation offers an explanation of how everything came into existence which flies in the face of Darwinism and Evolution. You can't prove Creation but it's not even mentioned and kids aren't taught it as a possibility. Maybe I'm wrong. I just know it wasn't brought up to me and I went to a public school. I think it's a shame.

Creation does not make testable predictions. Evolution does. Hence evolution has a scientific basis, and Creationism doesn't.

"Just" a theory, like general relativity and quantum electrodynamics.

You are quite at liberty to send your kids to Sunday School. I was sent for years, taught me to question dogma.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Belief system:

Creationist view

Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

Everyone 44%
Scientists 5%

--------
Theistic evolution

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

Everyone 39%
Scientists 40%

----------

Naturalistic Evolution

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.


Everyone 10%
Scientists 55%

------------------

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

I guess ~85% of the US population who claim a religious association with that of Christianity are mostly schizophrenic and you guys are the only normal people in the mix.

1) Of those 85%, very few claim to here the voice of god.
2) For the remainder, the only difference is that their mental illness is socially acceptable.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

That would be change it back to how it was written.
Kind of like the placing of clothing on nude statues, the addition of "under God" is a change to the original, in an attempt to "guide" the people to a thought set that is desired to be mainstream by the changers.

Kind of like the Amendments to the Constitution.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

they absolutely are. If you dont think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality.

Great....frustration to the point of personal attacks....I guess it's working.

I'm not a moderator, but I don't see that as rising to the level of a "personal attack." It's an observation someone made about how he feels you're viewing this discussion and the facts surrounding it. It's not the same as if he'd said, "You're an ignoramus who has no clue about reality." Yes, that would be a personal attack, but that's not the way he said what he said.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

And that is why officially, the mention of God should be taken out. Because that is the only way to include ALL Americans. If some subset wants to unofficially add under god to it, feel free.

The Atheists are very much the small subset. If they want to unofficially add “under myself” to it, feel free.

Every time you say that atheists can "feel free" to leave out mention of god when they say the pledge, you're claiming some sort of "ownership" of the pledge on behalf of religious people -- and that's wrong. God-believers do not own the pledge, nor do they own this country.

By taking this stance, you make the pledge like a toilet seat: women want the seat left down, and (some) men argue it should be left up. Very few, it seems, appear willing to simply put the seat where they need it when they arrive to find it elsewhere. Why should it be always down so that women can sit on it? Why do they get to trump guys' need to have it up? Why should guys have to raise it when they enter, and lower it when they leave, and women never have to move it at all? Why would it be unfair for men to raise it from down, and then women lower it from up, each time they use the bathroom? Women would still make out slightly ahead of men, since there are some times when men actually use it down and leave it down, but there are no times when women use it up.

To bring this back around to the pledge: why can't the pledge be left neutral (since it started out that way anyway!) and if people want to add "god," they can?

Pajarito, why do you think it is fair to tell atheists they're out of luck where the pledge was concerned? What if that exact same attitude had been taken when the fact of the matter was the pledge did not have "under god" in it, and religious people were told, "Just add 'god' if you want to"? Since the original pledge didn't have "god" in it, it is YOU who should be out of luck, and who should have to buck the standard way of saying the pledge to ad-lib god into it, and deal with scowls from those who are saying it "right" -- which is what would happen if kids who didn't believe either sat out the pledge, or said a "modified" version.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,116]

>So…we need to give the kids some kind of disclaimer before the Pledge.
>Kind of like requiring Miranda Rights is given when someone is arrested.

Why? Just don't force them to say it. I don't think any schools out there would force a kid to sing a song in an assembly if they didn't want to. No one reads a Miranda warning before kids sing songs at any school I've been to.

>If it’s a public school and they’re going to officially say the Pledge of
>Allegiance, I’d think it would have to be the one recognized by the State
>and the US Government.

As you yourself said, no one is holding a gun to the teacher's head. If she believed in Yaweh, or Vishnu, or Allah, she would be entirely within her rights to use that in the pledge - if, as you claim, the right to associate one's religion with state-sponsored activities is valid.

(I mean, surely you don't claim that only _your_ religion should be allowed in state-sponsored activities!!)

>Officially, however, the Pledge would have to be official.

If you want to keep it the way it was originally, take out "Under God" and restore it to its original form. If you think it can be amended for whatever reason (like it was for the addition of an anti-communist message in the 1950's) then it can be amended again.