Timebuilder, tell me you are not dumb enough to believe in crap like that. Hope you don't think that everything was created in 6 days, or that Noah saved a bunch of animals... By the way, that reminds my of my two year old daughter believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny..., but then she's only two...
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Pledge of allegiance declared unconstuti
- Thread starter TMMT
- Start date
- Watchers 14
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
TWA Dude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,666
Dieterly said:
Actually it was, and all it takes is a little relativistic physics to explain it. From a certain celestial perspective, let's say a God-like one, one "day" may equate to approximately one billion earth years. Once the first man was created, let's say the first homo-sapien-sapien, the perspective comes down to earth years from then on.
For more on this checkout: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...6481044/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7352394-9768036
waka
Emasculating the Right
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 1,972
TWA Dude,
Actually, Christians have readjusted the relativism of "god" days to years etc. many times. These adjustments seem to happen whenever it is convienient in an attempt to make the Christian doctrine scientifically plausible. Even as recently as the early 80's, bible scholars agreed that the age of the universe, after the adjusting for the then current equation, was between 6000 and 12000 years old.
Everyone else;
It's interesting that conservatives label anything in which they disagree as "politically correct". The use of the "pc" label is relative as hell. Afterall, it could be argued that the pro "under god" folks are being "politically correct" by wanting to keep the current pledge.
The crux of the matter is that this trendy use of the "pc" label is just a lame excuse to lump all liberal agendum under one neat and clean banner. Such one-liners makes the villifying of one's beliefs easy and unloads the user of the burden of thought. Incidently, it also makes the job easier for right wing radio talk show hosts. ("political correctness" was coined by a White House staff member (a publicist (a.k.a. "spinmeister")) during Bush Sr's regime).
Whatever YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Constitution of the US, realize that the Consitution is not infallible and the creators of it fully realized this fact.
my .02; leave the "under god " out, ........heck, don't imply pressure to kids to say the pledge at all.
Actually, Christians have readjusted the relativism of "god" days to years etc. many times. These adjustments seem to happen whenever it is convienient in an attempt to make the Christian doctrine scientifically plausible. Even as recently as the early 80's, bible scholars agreed that the age of the universe, after the adjusting for the then current equation, was between 6000 and 12000 years old.
Everyone else;
It's interesting that conservatives label anything in which they disagree as "politically correct". The use of the "pc" label is relative as hell. Afterall, it could be argued that the pro "under god" folks are being "politically correct" by wanting to keep the current pledge.
The crux of the matter is that this trendy use of the "pc" label is just a lame excuse to lump all liberal agendum under one neat and clean banner. Such one-liners makes the villifying of one's beliefs easy and unloads the user of the burden of thought. Incidently, it also makes the job easier for right wing radio talk show hosts. ("political correctness" was coined by a White House staff member (a publicist (a.k.a. "spinmeister")) during Bush Sr's regime).
Whatever YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Constitution of the US, realize that the Consitution is not infallible and the creators of it fully realized this fact.
my .02; leave the "under god " out, ........heck, don't imply pressure to kids to say the pledge at all.
aero99
just a member, not senior
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 394
quote: "Actually it was, and all it takes is a little relativistic physics to explain it. "
Actually, there was a "big bang" and everything was created in an instant. In fact, the universe is still expanding, so it is still being created.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
You guys gonna keep up this religeous debate or are we gonna talk about some aeroplanes? I don't think religion is paying for bandwidth here.
Actually, there was a "big bang" and everything was created in an instant. In fact, the universe is still expanding, so it is still being created.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
You guys gonna keep up this religeous debate or are we gonna talk about some aeroplanes? I don't think religion is paying for bandwidth here.
A Squared
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,006
Timebuilder,
Your lecture on how satan is not the equal of God was truly fascinating. Fascinating, but a bit irrelevant. If you feel compelled to somehow devise ways to "measure" satan and god, and see who is "less" and who is "more", knock yourself out. I don’t think that anyone is going to be surprised when, after all your careful measuring, you conclude that god is superior to satan. Despite all your measuring, we are still left with these fundamental facts:
You favor the inclusion in the pledge allegience a positive reference to an entity which is very similar in name and nature to an entity which you worship, and you expect others not to object to the reference to said entity, even though they do not worship this entity. They may worship an entity or entities which are clearly not that mentioned entity, or, they may worship nothing at all, but still you expect them to accept this reference in the pledge. Yet at the same time, you would object yourself to the inclusion of a laudatory reference to an entity which you do not worship.
That still smells a bit hypocritical to me.
Your lecture on how satan is not the equal of God was truly fascinating. Fascinating, but a bit irrelevant. If you feel compelled to somehow devise ways to "measure" satan and god, and see who is "less" and who is "more", knock yourself out. I don’t think that anyone is going to be surprised when, after all your careful measuring, you conclude that god is superior to satan. Despite all your measuring, we are still left with these fundamental facts:
You favor the inclusion in the pledge allegience a positive reference to an entity which is very similar in name and nature to an entity which you worship, and you expect others not to object to the reference to said entity, even though they do not worship this entity. They may worship an entity or entities which are clearly not that mentioned entity, or, they may worship nothing at all, but still you expect them to accept this reference in the pledge. Yet at the same time, you would object yourself to the inclusion of a laudatory reference to an entity which you do not worship.
That still smells a bit hypocritical to me.
Religion and culture are a very real part of aviation. When you are stuck with a complete crew for 2 weeks talking about "specific fuel burn" and best "nautical miles per gallon" etc. etc. gets pretty boring. Seeing the viewpoint from the other side of the fence from other people is very important. Yes this is an aviation thread and believe me religion and culture are a part of aviation that keeps me right were I am.
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
No problem, Flyer.
Any time we discuss RJ's, PFT, Guns in the cockpit, Hiring preferences, or who "owns" certain flying, emotions seem to run high. The more traditional subjects that arouse ire are religion and politics. While I like Franklin, I think that his quote misses the point of what we were discussing. In fact, our discussion missed the point of what we were discussing: the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Far from being a "It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so." argument, the constitution's article one states that (paraphasing) that congress shall make no law respecting religion. In this case, respect is not deference, in the way a Lieutenant respects a General, but instead it means "having to do with", as in passing a law that says that Catholicsm is our "Official Religion of the United States". The action that congress took to add the words "under God" to the pledge in the '50's was not a law.
Perhaps you are referencing what happened to our discussion in A squared's first post in the thread. He proposed the idea, without merit, that I was comfortable with the pledge because it was "my God" being mentioned, rather than my understanding of the constitution. He then accused my of being a hypocrite for not having a personal respect for other "inserted" names of specific entities such as Mohammed or Satan; a very long reach to imagine that possibility, indeed. I then, perhaps foolishly I admit, tried to meet him suficiently to show him that was not my motivation, and that his argument lacked the logical cohesion to stand up beyond the stage of "finger pointing". Maybe this was a futile effort, I don't know.
Certainly, Franklin's view would apply if we were attempting to ascertain the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin, a fruitless discussion from decades ago. On the contrary, I was trying to follow and dissect assumptions that had been made in his original acusation; assumptions which he had no factual basis to posit. More than likely, those assumptions were based on the views he had heard from others, and I was being lumped into a group where I did not belong. He thought that I wanted everyone to believe what I believe, assuming of course that he knew what that was, which I doubt.
So, Franklin's "It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so." is not really applicable here, since I can clearly, I hope articulate what I do believe, and he can accurately posit what he thinks I believe. Looking back, the only merit I find in the time I took to attempt to clarify my position was to help others who have similar discussions about the constitution to have a better understanding of the document in general, and for others here to understand myself, in particular. Having any religion declared as the "official" religion of the US would be BAD for everyone concerned. I hope that much is clear.
Any time we discuss RJ's, PFT, Guns in the cockpit, Hiring preferences, or who "owns" certain flying, emotions seem to run high. The more traditional subjects that arouse ire are religion and politics. While I like Franklin, I think that his quote misses the point of what we were discussing. In fact, our discussion missed the point of what we were discussing: the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Far from being a "It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so." argument, the constitution's article one states that (paraphasing) that congress shall make no law respecting religion. In this case, respect is not deference, in the way a Lieutenant respects a General, but instead it means "having to do with", as in passing a law that says that Catholicsm is our "Official Religion of the United States". The action that congress took to add the words "under God" to the pledge in the '50's was not a law.
Perhaps you are referencing what happened to our discussion in A squared's first post in the thread. He proposed the idea, without merit, that I was comfortable with the pledge because it was "my God" being mentioned, rather than my understanding of the constitution. He then accused my of being a hypocrite for not having a personal respect for other "inserted" names of specific entities such as Mohammed or Satan; a very long reach to imagine that possibility, indeed. I then, perhaps foolishly I admit, tried to meet him suficiently to show him that was not my motivation, and that his argument lacked the logical cohesion to stand up beyond the stage of "finger pointing". Maybe this was a futile effort, I don't know.
Certainly, Franklin's view would apply if we were attempting to ascertain the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin, a fruitless discussion from decades ago. On the contrary, I was trying to follow and dissect assumptions that had been made in his original acusation; assumptions which he had no factual basis to posit. More than likely, those assumptions were based on the views he had heard from others, and I was being lumped into a group where I did not belong. He thought that I wanted everyone to believe what I believe, assuming of course that he knew what that was, which I doubt.
So, Franklin's "It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so." is not really applicable here, since I can clearly, I hope articulate what I do believe, and he can accurately posit what he thinks I believe. Looking back, the only merit I find in the time I took to attempt to clarify my position was to help others who have similar discussions about the constitution to have a better understanding of the document in general, and for others here to understand myself, in particular. Having any religion declared as the "official" religion of the US would be BAD for everyone concerned. I hope that much is clear.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
