MATAWAN — A group representing atheists has decided to end its attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. The American Humanist Association allowed its 45-day window to appeal a Monmouth County Superior Court judge’s ruling to pass, according to a report on APP.com. The group didn’t say why it chose to…
(more…)
Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.
arc99 April 14th, 2015 at 21:19
Anyone who objects to the phrase “one nation under god” is perfectly welcome to use my version “one nation under all goddesses, gods, and beliefs” . That should take care of everyone’s concerns, including atheists. After all, atheism is a belief.
Heck of a lot cheaper and less time consuming that paying a bunch of lawyers to go to court.
Ronald L April 14th, 2015 at 21:39
>> After all, atheism is a belief.
Isn’t true atheism a disbelief?
But, I agree, atheism for a lot of people is affectively a pseudo-religion.
Um Cara April 14th, 2015 at 23:50
Yep, there are a lot of evangelical atheists out there – and they are every bit as annoying as prosthelitizers of various supernatural belief systems.
Red Mann April 15th, 2015 at 17:37
Here’s a book you might look at. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-You-Atheists-Angry/dp/0985281529
Um Cara April 15th, 2015 at 17:49
I dunno, I know plenty of atheists who aren’t angry. In fact, understanding that we are limited to the time we are on this rock rather than infinite time should encourage one to be happy. Who has time for anger (or that book, when there are so many thousands of trashy sci-fi books to read).
Red Mann April 15th, 2015 at 19:42
So, the crappy treatment and lies that atheists are handed by religious people and the fact that atheists are the least trusted group in America, below murderers, rapists and Muslims is meaningless and should be ignored? In the not very distant past in the West, and today in many countries, atheists are killed just for being atheists, but that’s OK with you. Alright then.
Um Cara April 15th, 2015 at 20:14
LOL, yer a big silly.
tracey marie April 16th, 2015 at 17:25
you always dismiss people who disagree with you, especially when you can’t intelligently respond to their post.
Um Cara April 16th, 2015 at 18:23
Tracey, I try to respond with at least as much respect as I am given – with aspirations towards showing more respect than I am shown. If you review the above exchange you’ll notice he made a ridiculous leap of logic to my being ‘OK’ with atheists being killed for being atheists because I:
1. Find proselytizing annoying
2. Know happy atheists
3. Thought his book recommendation looked like something I would not be interested in.
He was clearly ‘itchin for a fight & wasn’t going to take the bait, hence the ‘big silly’ dismissive comment. I have indeed done similar things to you in the past after massive disrespect you showed me. I don’t hold grudges though, I’m very happy to provide a respectful response to this respectful comment of yours and would be quite pleased to continue to do so in the future, whether we agree on the given topic or not.
I enjoy debate, I don’t know if Red Mann is capable of it or not – should he ever engage me in a similarly respectful way as you have in this post, I will happily debate him. If he wants to accuse me of being OK with the murder of anyone, when in fact I am more anti-death penalty, anti-violence, etc… than even most libs I know. When I quite literally do not swat flies or ‘unnecessarily’ kill any living thing (I treat my dog for fleas, even though it means their death. I sanitize my hands. I swat mosquitoes. I eat meat. Etc… I’m no Buddhist monk, but I do have a profound respect for life).
Redd Mann can quite kindly fuck off if he wants to say I’m OK with my fellow humans being murdered. And I mean that with absolutely every ounce of respect he deserves.
Dwendt44 April 15th, 2015 at 19:42
Not sure that that book is what you think it is.
Um Cara April 15th, 2015 at 20:38
I was just going by the title, which sounded pretty uninteresting & non science fictiony. Plus it was recommended to me by a guy who is now making up that I am OK with people being killed for being atheists. I’ve got a pretty long list of book recommendations in genres I am interested in (theoretical physics, science fiction, fantasy, and history) by people I know and respect who don’t make up ridiculous things about me.
I did (just now) read the first several paragraphs & it seems to match the title pretty well – so I *think* it is about what I thought it was about, but seriously, it sounds like a pretty wasteful way to spend my very short time on this planet. I mean, good God man, there are still some Robert freaking Heinlein books I have yet to read!
Red Mann April 15th, 2015 at 20:52
Ah ha, “Plus it was recommended to me by a guy who is now making up that I am OK with people being killed for being atheists.”
Nice twist, you are the one that said atheists should just let it all roll by and not be concerned, implying there is no need for any concern and categorized atheists who speak out against such behavior in this manner “there are a lot of “evangelical” atheists out there – and they are every bit as annoying as prosthelitizers (sic) of various supernatural belief systems.” Given that atheists arguments are based on facts, reason and rationality it is hard for me to see how this could be annoying to reasonable people.
What I said was the logical conclusion of your laissez-faire attitude.
Um Cara April 15th, 2015 at 21:10
What I said was the logical conclusion of your laissez-faire attitude..
If you think it critical to prosthelytize & be pissed off, then rock on! I’ll just make a polite exit, perhaps using the excuse that I need to refill my drink while you rage on to someone who can’t figure out a polite way to slink away… (I am nothing if not a compassionate cara though – if I notice they still haven’t figured out how to get away after 15 minutes or so, I’ll suggest to the host that they find a way to extract the hapless victim).
But your ‘logical’ conclusion seems to be based on the fact that I’m not interested in reading some very boring looking book, and that I know happy atheists. Going from that to I’m OK with atheists being killed just for being atheists is pretty kooky. Maybe your brain is a little off from too many boring books? Here’s a book you might look at: http://www.amazon.com/Color-Magic-Discworld-Terry-Pratchett/dp/0062225677/
Dwendt44 April 15th, 2015 at 00:08
Atheism is the LACK of belief. To call it a belief or a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
arc99 April 15th, 2015 at 13:19
Have to disagree. Believing that there is no supreme being or similar entity is a belief. Lack of belief in one area simply means your belief is the polar opposite.
Red Mann April 15th, 2015 at 17:35
Not really, it simply is a position that there is no sufficient evidence to support the notion that there is a god or gods, or for that matter any superstitious beliefs. Individuals atheists have a wide spectrum of beliefs, most believe in humans.
arc99 April 16th, 2015 at 16:52
Having a “position” on any subject is equivalent to having a belief.
Why is it incorrect to summarize your statement by saying atheists believe there is no sufficient evidence to support the notion that there is a god or gods?
If it is not incorrect then how can say that atheism is not a belief?
Red Mann April 16th, 2015 at 16:59
In the same manner as baldness is a hair color and non stamp collecting is a hobby, not excepting religious claims that there is a god because there is nearly zero evidence is not a belief
arc99 April 16th, 2015 at 18:21
Your analogy is not logical. Stamp collecting is an activity and non stamp collecting is refraining from the specified activity. Atheists are not refraining from believing in something. They have a very definite belief, which is the absence of deities.
Hair and no hair are two completely different conditions.
With atheism, we are not talking about two different things. We are talking about an opinion on a single subject e.g. religion.
Some people believe in god
Some people believe there is no god
How is the first statement a belief and the second statement not a belief
Red Mann April 16th, 2015 at 23:52
Belief and lack of belief are two states as well. Belief is an active behavior, lack of belief isn’t. I do have opinions about religion, but atheism is not a belief, I don’t believe there is no god, I simply don’t see any actual evidence to support the notion. Religion has the burden to show actual evidence to support their claim, I do not have to do anything since I am not making any positive claim to begin with.
trees April 17th, 2015 at 14:20
You are correct, both are beliefs.
The question then becomes, are there compelling reasons to choose, or adopt, one of these beliefs?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
In order for the atheists here to be correct, that there is a state of consciousness where no belief in God exists, and that, that is what their atheism is, would require a third option…..
That option being complete ignorance of anything and everything. It would require a plane of existence on the level of an insect, or plant, or other non-self aware creature.
God, by definition, is a self-existing, eternally present, all powerful, omniscient being. God is unique, and being unique is understood to be singular in being. There can be only one God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45%3A5-6&version=NIV;KJV
Red Mann April 16th, 2015 at 23:40
Nope, I do not “believe” in atheism since it is not a belief. If anything it is the absence of belief. I don’t “believe” there is no evidence, there is no empirical evidence. Anecdotes and feelings are not evidence. My beliefs are based on reality and founded in facts. I may “believe” that when I press on my brake pedal, my car will slow down, but that belief is passed on my past experience and my knowledge of how brakes work. I actually trust that they will work, of course they may fail, but there will be an actual, physical reason for that and it won’t be because I offended the brake gods.
trees April 17th, 2015 at 14:04
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Red Mann April 17th, 2015 at 14:33
The notion of the universe being tuned, finely or otherwise, for humans to exist is basically nonsense, if anything we are tuned to the universe the life found itself in. See http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy.html
The notion of the universe being designed for us is like Douglas Adams’ quote
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
trees April 17th, 2015 at 16:17
Opinion stated as fact, not very convincing.
And the part about the puddle being self aware and introspective? Well, I’ve just got to giggle on that one.
The argument of the absent landlord is weak, and makes about as much sense as the blind watchmaker, especially considering that the atheists blind watchmaker is also mindless as well….
Red Mann April 17th, 2015 at 17:17
Since there in no empirical evidence that the universe is designed for us, my “opinion” is based on the best available facts and not an attempt to justify believing in a totally unevidenced supernatural being. You’re expounded purely religious beliefs and there is virtually zero evidence for any god or gods and no need of any such beings to explain anything in the world around us. If you could not understand that Adams’ analogy was pointing out the foolishness of those that believe the universe was made for us, you need to expand your mind a bit. You also don’t seem to understand the that the idea of a blind watchmaker is a refutation of Paley’s watchmaker argument.
Dwendt44 April 17th, 2015 at 16:24
Atheism is basically accepting facts or reality. Not belief is necessary to accept a fact. It just IS.
trees April 17th, 2015 at 13:05
Atheism is a belief. Without experiential knowledge you have an unknown possibility that neither you, nor I, knows about with absolute certainty, that possibility being, what lies beyond the portal of this mortal life? Neither of us knows with absolute certainty. Neither of us knows how this material universe came to be, how life began in it’s very beginnings, and if there is a supernatural world, or place, or time, that exists beyond our abilities to perceive it. Neither of us know what brought all of this into existence.
We are finite beings, and being finite we are incredibly limited in our abilities to understand.
Eternity.
There’s a concept for you.
It’s an incredibly difficult concept to get your mind around. The question I hear asked most often is, “Who made God?”
When you explain that God has always been, that God is eternal, and that God will always be, there is often a long pause as the finite mind ponders the infinite realm.
“Its not possible to be eternally alive, it’s not possible to be eternally existent, it’s not possible to be….”
It’s not possible to be eternal.
How is it then possible to be….
eternally dead.
Isn’t this the belief of the atheist?
That when you die you will be eternally dead?
The atheist has some major problems, a couple of these being, why does anything exist at all, and why do beings exist who are capable of contemplating these things.
Is life ultimately without purpose?
Budda April 17th, 2015 at 13:29
Why do you assume you need to know completely all there is about the universe? Maybe you just live and die…and that’s all there is.
trees April 17th, 2015 at 13:58
That’s a great question Budda, why do we contemplate our existence, why do we strive to set records, build great architectural accomplishments, question our origins, search the heavens, study our world, discover mathematics, build tools, to build engines, paint pictures, make music, these activities being just a few of the many.
Why do we seek fulfillment?
Does life have meaning?
Yes, we not only value it, we treasure it.
What is the greatest gift?
Life.
Red Mann April 17th, 2015 at 14:37
Because of the evolutionary fluke that gave us a thinking brain long before there was good science to explain what we see, so we made up “solutions”. Life has meaning to those who live it, there is no karmic, fateful, teleological actions behind it.
Budda April 17th, 2015 at 15:47
It is not “why do we contemplate our existence”. It is that many religions claim to know WHY we exist. Thus, religions are based on a conclusion before any facts.
I counter that atheism says we don’t know the facts therefore we can’t have a conclusion.
OldLefty April 17th, 2015 at 15:54
The atheist has some major problems, a couple of these being, why does anything exist at all, and why do beings exist who are capable of contemplating these things.
______
That is not a problem at all.
There does not have to be a reason why.
“How is it then possible to be….eternally dead”
No atheist believes that.
They simply believe that you cease to exist.
Dwendt44 April 17th, 2015 at 16:21
Atheism is the lack of belief. Period. An Atheist follows the evidence. There is NO, none, nada, zip, evidence that a god of any sort exists.
Any argument for any one god works for any other god. Man has created over 3000 of them. Over a dozen gods have returned from the dead (supposedly), a couple of dozen gods came here to clean up the ‘sin’ and error of human kind. None can be proven.
We have a darn good idea how the universe and this world came into being. We have darn good evidence how life began here. That YOU don’t accept the evidence, is a lack of understanding or a willing to remain ignorant. There’s no evidence of anything beyond death. None. To pretend there is is an attempt to ease the mind of the fear that you may end someday. We don’t want to die, but that’s how the system works. There may be, to some extent, degrees of Atheism. An Agnostic basically takes the position that we don’t know and may never know. The true Atheist knows there is no supernatural beings.
Believers have a couple of problems themselves.
IF there is a/are supreme being(s). What are they like? Why haven’t they shown themselves? Do they really want to be worshiped? Which god do you believe in if any?
trees April 20th, 2015 at 14:36
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You will have to prove that God does not exist, until then you can only believe that God does not exist.
tracey marie April 16th, 2015 at 17:22
nonsense, I don’t make fun of your beliefs do not make fun of my disbelief.
Ronald L April 14th, 2015 at 21:41
As a Christian, I have a problem with pledging to a flag. It’s too close to idolatry for me.
trees April 15th, 2015 at 02:04
It’s not a proclamation of worship, it’s an acknowledgement of a symbol. It’s an admission of recognition. It’s a statement of unity with your fellow countrymen, and a proclamation that liberty is not something given to you by another human. Liberty is something possessed from the moment of creation, and as such, can only be revoked by a court of law…..there must be legally compelling reasons to deny your freedom. Freedom was not granted to you on a whim, but rather was given to you as a fundamental right of existence…….
I’m not sure why anyone would want to deny this.
OldLefty April 15th, 2015 at 06:06
Basically, no one would deny what?
The original version;
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”, would imply the very unity that is called tyranny now.
Those who claim to be the greatest patriots now, are the ones who flirt with secession, (just as they did when the Republic was ACTUALLY extending liberty and justice for ALL.
What does it have to do with We The People, (and don’t forget, at the time it was We (some of) The People, declaring OUR freedom?
trees April 16th, 2015 at 18:24
The pledge implies tyranny? Tyranny is the result of a tyrant imposing his will. A couple things, you are not compelled to recite the pledge, just as you are not compelled to vote. Liberty is the freedom to do as you choose. Tyrants are not elected, tyrants seize power, they take and impose. Freedom does not mesh with tyranny. You can say the pledge, or not say the pledge. You can recognize and worship your creator, or you can deny creation and insist that none of the material world was created. If a tyrant was involved there would be consequences for not participating in saying the pledge. I think the atheists who filed the lawsuit realised how ridiculous their position on the matter ultimately was/is and withdrew their opposition.
OldLefty April 16th, 2015 at 19:47
The pledge implies tyranny?
______
I said that if the pledge came about NOW, instead as it did in the 1800’s, written by a socialist, with Obama signing the proclamation, there is no question that the right would call it tyranny.
They call everything he does tyranny, to the point that the word no longer has meaning.
Technically the atheists are correct as it is a secular pledge.
Warman1138 April 14th, 2015 at 22:26
Just another little step on the road to a theocracy.
Um Cara April 14th, 2015 at 23:48
LOL
Um Cara April 14th, 2015 at 23:55
The whole concept of the pledge is creepy – whether God, gods, goddesses, unicorns, pickup trucks, beer, chili dogs, or anything else is added or subtracted to it. It’s not something that raises to the level of me wanting to form a group to shut it down, but I wouldn’t be terribly sorry to see it go away.
trees April 15th, 2015 at 01:45
I’m not sure what’s so creepy about a pledge that affirms solidarity as a nation, and recognises God as the creator of life and provider of rights.
Perhaps you’d prefer to attribute your liberty as given to you by your ruler, and pledge allegiance to your human master?
Maybe it’s the concept of pledging itself?
bpollen April 15th, 2015 at 03:53
It is a hell of a lot more about conformity than about solidarity. “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” comes first. Allegiance to a piece of cloth. The nation gets second billing. In it’s original form, it didn’t include Gawwwwd at all. But it does resemble liturgy more than an affirmation.
trees April 16th, 2015 at 04:00
“Of the United States of America”
Allegiance to a piece of cloth?
No, allegiance to the nation, to the nation, the symbol of this nation being embodied in the flag. There are many American flags, and they are all symbols. If your assertion were correct there would be one sacred flag that all would be pledging to.
bpollen April 16th, 2015 at 04:23
“to the flag” not “to the symbol”
I don’t pledge to symbols. I didn’t enlist for symbols. But isn’t it interesting that the symbol gets top billing, and the actual nation is a secondary concern.
And the only flag that I have ever seen used during the pledge was the one we, and the planet, call the US flag. Thou shalt have no other flags before it.
trees April 16th, 2015 at 09:44
It seems then, that you would prefer to pledge allegiance to your ruler.
Three choices,
A) pledge allegiance to a man
B) pledge allegiance to your country, this being represented by it’s flag, so that the country being pledged to is clearly identified.
C) pledge allegiance to nothing, because I don’t believe in being loyal to anything.
OldLefty April 16th, 2015 at 14:39
Or…
D) Pledge allegiance to your deeply held morals and principles that you believe transcends a nation state, man or institution.
E) Pledge allegiance to your God, whatever you believe it to be.
It has nothing to do with a “ruler”.
trees April 16th, 2015 at 18:04
D) I pledge allegiance to myself
E) I pledge allegiance to God
Whom will you serve?
OldLefty April 16th, 2015 at 19:49
Me?
I will serve my deeply held morals and principles that it believe transcends a nation state, man or institution, but includes serving my country and humanity in the best way I can, as most people do.
bpollen April 16th, 2015 at 15:02
I pledge allegiance to this map of the United States of Amerika! (After all, a map is a symbolic representation of our glorious country!)
I pledge allegiance to my country. I pledged to serve my country. I DID serve my country. I put my life on the line for my country. You can fetishize a piece of cloth all you want. Bow down before it. Worship your false idol. Legally, I can burn the damn thing.
I believe in my country and my people. Symbolism is a pale substitute for reality. Oh, and my ruler? My conscience.
trees April 16th, 2015 at 16:38
Interesting reply. “I can burn the damn thing”, yes you can, you can be blatantly disrespectful. You’ve been verbally burning it throughout this post. You despise what it stands for, cause it can’t be the flag itself that you hate, for it’s merely a piece of cloth…..
It’s not the flag that you hate, it’s the country it represents and a good portion of it’s citizenry that you despise. If you were honest you would admit this.
burqa April 18th, 2015 at 00:12
I sure do appreciate your service to us all.
While I’m not too too hot on this pledge, the flag is used figuratively for the nation. It is not a literal statement. I’m a bit rusty on figures of speech but my best off-the-cuff guess would be one of the 40 forms of metonymy, or one of the several types of the figure synechdoche.
It is a powerful symbol for many, and I imagine people of other countries feel the same way about their own national colors.
I am fortunate to live where bald eagles can occasionally be seen. They are a beautiful sight and another symbol of America. When I was a kid, the bald eagle was threatened with extinction and a lot of people, spanning the political spectrum, were upset about this and not just because a bird might become extinct.
I have an affection for bald eagles, Old Glory, the Statue of Liberty, and the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington. I have seen the tattered remains of the flag that flew at Fort McHenry when “The Star Spangled Banner” was composed and was glad to see it back on display at the Smithsonian. It is a moving experience.
On many occasions I have seen the flags hoisted on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima in 1944 and they likewise move me every time, but that’s just me.
If you want to burn a flag, I’ll support your right to do so; but if you do it in front of me I’ll try to stop it.
OldLefty April 15th, 2015 at 05:58
It was written by a Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy who “viewed his Pledge as an ‘inoculation’ that would protect immigrants and native-born but insufficiently patriotic Americans from the ‘virus’ of radicalism and subversion.”
President Benjamin Harrison issued Presidential Proclamation 335, making the public school flag ceremony, including the pledge, the center of the Columbus Day celebrations in 1892.
The original salute looked like the Nazi salute.
God was only added in the 50’s by Eisenhower
Imagine if that had been Obama??
How quickly patriotism and liberty would be called the tyranny of a lawless Socialist/Marxist/Maoist…. HITLER!!!!
“to attribute your liberty as given to you by your ruler”????
I thought it was given to us by We The People?????
StoneyCurtisll April 15th, 2015 at 09:22
High Five~!
Dwendt44 April 15th, 2015 at 13:04
The three religious inclusions were due to christian activists during the McCarthy hysteria. The ‘evil’ communists were officially Atheist and we could have that, so in response, the Congress passed bills changing the pledge, the motto, and adding ‘god’ to our currency. Eisenhower signed the laws, in part because he would have been overridden anyway, and as been pointed out by anothertoothpick above, Ike was all in on the symbolism.
Dwendt44 April 15th, 2015 at 13:04
The three religious inclusions were due to christian activists during the McCarthy hysteria. The ‘evil’ communists were officially Atheist and we could have that, so in response, the Congress passed bills changing the pledge, the motto, and adding ‘god’ to our currency. Eisenhower signed the laws, in part because he would have been overridden anyway, and as been pointed out by anothertoothpick above, Ike was all in on the symbolism.
burqa April 15th, 2015 at 22:42
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. …”
Dwendt44 April 16th, 2015 at 00:43
But that ‘creator’ was the Deist creator, not the christian one.
Jefferson was a Deist (at best) as were many of his friends and associates.
trees April 16th, 2015 at 03:52
http://www.str.org/articles/the-faith-of-our-fathers#.VS9o-aXD_qA
OldLefty April 16th, 2015 at 05:52
There is also;
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
The truth is probably more that they were a diverse group who ranged from athiests to devout Christians, And even amongst the devout Christians, there was likely to be a vast range of opinions about what “devout Christian’ even means.
burqa April 17th, 2015 at 23:01
You are contradicted by your own definition, which is:
“The basic Deist belief was that god (Deist god) started the universe and the earth going and then walked away. He(they considered god a male) did not interfere with human’s or their activities.”
If God walked away after creating the heavens and the earth then He was not around later on when mankind came along to give them unalienable rights.
OldLefty April 16th, 2015 at 05:27
I don’t get it.
Wasn’t it We The People who wrote the declaration?
burqa April 17th, 2015 at 23:18
The Declaration of Independence says the unalienable rights are given by the Creator and to secure these rights we form governments.
This is the basis for the concept of natural law that many people adhere to. They believe we are born with certain rights, they are ours naturally.
So, for example, if we were to believe that marriage is a right and all have it, then gays already have this right and the government is behind in recognizing the rights they already have. Recently we have seen state governments pass laws that recognize gays’ rights to marry. Under this theory, the government is not giving them a right they did not have before, the government is merely securing a right they had all along.
I’m not positive, but I think this theory holds that violent revolt is justified when the government denies us the free exercise of natural rights, but is not justified when other rights are denied. This is about as far as I can go, because I can’t answer which are the natural rights and which are artificial.
I’m no legal scholar so I can’t say my own thinking on the natural rights theory is cemented into place.
I think the important thing is we are doing pretty good in remaining free. Things ebb and flow, but overall we’re not doing too badly. Our system is able to correct most mistakes and we’re slowly making progress.
OldLefty April 18th, 2015 at 05:26
This is about as far as I can go, because I can’t answer which are the natural rights and which are artificial.
_______
I agree.
Our “natural rights” seems to change with the composition of the Courts, as do who “we” are.
“Corporations are people, my friend”.
StoneyCurtisll April 15th, 2015 at 09:21
No..
It’s the god as the creator of life and provider of rights that I find creepy.
Dwendt44 April 15th, 2015 at 00:12
The words ‘under god ‘ were added during the McCarthy hysteria of the mid 1950’s, along with the change in the motto of the United States of American and adding ‘in god we trust’ to our currency.
the original pledge salute.
StoneyCurtisll April 15th, 2015 at 09:18
And to be accurate..
Those are not nazi salutes.
Those are American children pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation….
Indivisible, with liberty and justic for all. (I think I got it right, been decades since I recited it)
Larry Schmitt April 15th, 2015 at 10:16
Of course, all children since the beginning of the pledge recited it in the same sing-song fashion, without understanding a single word of what they were saying. I have a problem with any kind of pledge. It’s akin to a loyalty oath, and it accomplishes nothing. Even during the “Red Scare,” if a communist wanted to stay under the radar, he would say the pledge. I compare it to a catholic kid being raised to say the Hail Mary (which I was). It is just empty words.
StoneyCurtisll April 15th, 2015 at 10:26
Indoctrination.
burqa April 15th, 2015 at 22:34
A lot of times it reminds me of a radio commercial for an early 70s horror movie. I think it was “Behind the Green Door.” The narrator instructed people that this was such a powerful, awful movie that they needed to keep repeating to themselves, “It’s only a movie.”
Then in the commercial was a crowd of people morosely repeating, “It’s only a movie, it’s only a movie” and it sounded a lot like times when people recite it today.
I agree with you on the whole idea of having a pledge.
I wonder why this group decided to give up the fight?
My first thought was maybe they were running low on funds and the lawyers were getting expensive.
Dwendt44 April 15th, 2015 at 12:56
Right. It was changed ’cause it was similar to the Nazi salute. I don’t recall which came first, I’m thinking they copied it from us. But then again, we may have copied it from the Romans.
FatRat April 15th, 2015 at 14:52
USA then Italy then Nazis.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a1/d1/12/a1d112d06954f2aca16f085e4c2efda2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy, Christian socialist minister and author, to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the “flag salute”. Later, during the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted a salute which had the same form, and which was derived from the Roman salute. This resulted in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942.
trees April 16th, 2015 at 03:10
I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything objectionable in that pledge.
It’s a pledge of allegiance.
The converse would be an intention of betrayal.
You had mentioned God, or the concept of God, as being creepy. Can you explain why you feel that way?
OldLefty April 16th, 2015 at 05:43
It’s a pledge of allegiance.
The converse would be an intention of betrayal.
_______
Some of us are just making the point that if Obama had taken up a “pledge of allegiance”, written by a socialist, and inserted into the public schools, his opponents would have been apoplectic calling it indoctrination and tyranny of the highest order while claiming it was EXACTLY what Hitler did.
Remember, when Obama spoke to school children about staying in school, it was “indoctrination” while it was fine when GH Bush did the same and Reagan extolled his policies.
Again, it is the question of the inverse proportionality.
anothertoothpick April 15th, 2015 at 10:15
Eisnehower;
Took the oath of office using TWO bibles.
His inaugural speech started out with a prayer.
His left hand rested on not one bible…BUT TWO.
The most memorable part to the parades was the very first float, Anointed “Gods Float”
In God we trust was added to a postage stamp in 1954 and then to paper money in 1956.
Corporate titans enlisted conservative clergyman in an effort to promote a new political argument embodied in the phrase “freedom under God”.
Eisenhower even went so far as to be the first president to be baptized in the White House.
These were the beginnings of “Republican Jesus”
trees April 17th, 2015 at 14:35
Dude, you are one of the coolest to have ever posted here.
Um Cara April 17th, 2015 at 16:47
I’ve enjoyed our many debates as well, even if you are always wrong 8^p
trees April 17th, 2015 at 17:15
Lol….
If we ever get the chance to meet I’m buying. I was over at UTEP for a week awhile back, and had thought about contacting you. I found an old post Frosty had written, I liked him alot too. He was actually expressing a feeling of missing the old gang, the regulars from when Alan first launched LL, and I was touched. I miss him too. We had some great times, at least I know I did. The lack of civility in this latest bunch is disturbing at best. Anyhow, you have a great weekend, as always, your friend trees.
tracey marie April 17th, 2015 at 14:53
stop whining
Um Cara April 17th, 2015 at 15:36
OK, sunshine. We can go back to our previous relationship. But didn’t you promise, erm… ‘threaten’ not to read/respond to my posts a while back?