Pledge of allegiance declared unconstuti

[A Squared]

So, my hypothetical examples are "obnoxious"? Really? I hypothesized a school which had Moslem prayer. ummm....so what? They exist, not here, but in other parts of the world. That's neither good nor bad, that's just a fact. I merely hypothesized one existing in the US .... and you find that obnoxious? really ? But wait! In a previous post you stated that I am "in the untenable position of pretending further that I (meaning you, timebuilder) would be offended by Muslims praying in a school."

Hmmmm...which is it Timebuilder? You find Muslim prayer in school "obnoxious" or you aren't offended by it? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If you find it obnoxious, than I was right, you are offended, and your previous statement that I was wrong is dishonest.

Yeah, "squealing like a stuck pig" is insulting, perhaps a bit childish too. the thing is, if you read my post, I am insulting you personally. Nowhere in my posts have I attacked, denigrated, or otherwise insulted Christianity, or any other religion. It is interesting that you consider an insult to you personally to be an insult to Christianity. Perhaps you suffer from a bit of a Messiah complex?

It seems very important to you to label me a liberal, even though you have no evidence of such. You speak of "tests" but you don't say what they are. All you know is I am contemptuous of your hypocrisy. You seem desperate to characterize yourself as fighting the good fight against an evil liberal. Fine. Label away. It’s not true, but if you find some pathetic comfort in it, be my guest.

>>>>>when somone calls you a hypocrite without the proof.......

What more proof do you need? The proof is very clear in your own words. I apologize for repeating myself, but it appears that I must, as you don’t seem to understand.

Here’s your hypocrisy:

When it’s your god in the pledge of allegiance, everyone, no matter what their beliefs, should be happy, because after all, it’s not worship, according to you. Here’s your words, verbatim:

>>>> "the phrase fails to mention the worship of this God, that god, or any particular "god""

and

>>>> "nor does it direct any person to listen, find, study, respect, or embrace any religion whatsoever"


Yet, when it’s Satan in the pledge, you’re not happy, and in your own words you describe it as Satan worship to mention Satan in the pledge.

>>>> "Am I glad that satanism isn't yet practiced in the public schools? You bet"

and

>>>> "teach my children about the satan who is being worshiped by their teacher"

You seem unclear on the concept, so I’ll restate it:

Your position is that "god" in the pledge should be accepted by all, because it isn’t worship or religion, but you won’t accept satan in the pledge, because in your own words, it is satanism to mention him.

Your application of different standards to the mention of god and the mention of satan is hypocrisy in it’s purest form.

You say:


>>>>all they have to stand on is to pretend that they fell, pointing and saying "look, you fell!

Really? What am I pretending? My entire case is thoroughly documented by verbatim quotes of your own words. Perhaps you mean that I am inferring your answer on whether or not you’d like to have "..one nation under satan...." in the pledge. You’re right, I am inferring, you left me no option, as you repeatedly wouldn’t answer the question directly, instead preferring to cloud the issue with extraneous verbiage about my political beliefs, what constitutes satanism, and your earlier life. OK, here’s your chance to clear up any misconception I may have inferred from your obfuscation.

Answer the question that has been asked.

Would you graciously accept replacing "...one nation under god...." with "...one nation under satan...." in the pledge of allegiance in our public schools?

It’s a yes or no question. Answer it with either yes, or no. Don’t continue to evade the question. Be a man, don’t try to hide behind your waffling, stand up for what you believe in. Grab the bull by the horns....yes, or no?

 

[Flyer]

[No message]

 

[Timebuilder]

We'll take this a step at a time. Part One.

You start right off with an attack, just like James Carville, pointing fingers and making gross assumptions. Here is what you said at the beginning:
Timebuilder,

the trouble with people like you is deep down inside you KNOW that yours is the RIGHT religion, so it shouldn't offend anyone to have YOUR religion pushed on them, because after all it's the RIGHT one, right?

I'm sorry to say this, but that was 100% incorrect, right off the bat. You had to make an assumption for which you had no text to quote, and no idea to which you could point.
Your post of the hypothetical situations were obnoxious because of your intent to sneer, to demean, and inject venom into what was for the most part a civil discussion of the constitutional aspects of the ninth circuit decision. You bad attitude was uncalled for, and brings dishonor to yourself and to other pilots on this board.

Quote: So, my hypothetical examples are "obnoxious"? Really? I hypothesized a school which had Moslem prayer. ummm....so what? They exist, not here, but in other parts of the world. That's neither good nor bad, that's just a fact. I merely hypothesized one existing in the US .... and you find that obnoxious? really ? But wait! In a previous post you stated that I am "in the untenable position of pretending further that I (meaning you, timebuilder) would be offended by Muslims praying in a school."

Hmmmm...which is it Timebuilder? You find Muslim prayer in school "obnoxious" or you aren't offended by it? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If you find it obnoxious, than I was right, you are offended, and your previous statement that I was wrong is dishonest.


Muslims praying in a school are not obnoxious to me. Your attitude is what I find obnoxious. I don't know you well enough to know if this is indicative of your personality on a day to day basis, so I can't say if you are obnoxious. As I mentioned, Muslims pray in schools here in the US everyday. You act as though I am troubled by that. I'm not. I'm troubled that US public schools exclude Christians from exercising the same rights, in the same manner, with the same time and spaces (rooms) set aside for the purpose. I have visited mosques. Muslims do not offend me, whether I believe they are correct in their belief is a separate and distinct matter than the respect that I hold for their freedom to practice their religion. The same holds true for satanists. I don't have to agree with their views in order to support their constitutional freedom of religion.


Quote: Yeah, "squealing like a stuck pig" is insulting, perhaps a bit childish too. the thing is, if you read my post, I am insulting you personally. Nowhere in my posts have I attacked, denigrated, or otherwise insulted Christianity, or any other religion. It is interesting that you consider an insult to you personally to be an insult to Christianity. Perhaps you suffer from a bit of a Messiah complex?

A bit childish? Are you serious? I was talking about you insulting me personally, not Christians or Christianity. Other posters did that, and my post addresses all of the individuals taking part, as appropriate. How could you possibly make such an error in interpretation?

Quote: It seems very important to you to label me a liberal, even though you have no evidence of such. You speak of "tests" but you don't say what they are. All you know is I am contemptuous of your hypocrisy. You seem desperate to characterize yourself as fighting the good fight against an evil liberal. Fine. Label away. It’s not true, but if you find some pathetic comfort in it, be my guest.

As a journalist, which is still in my blood, just like aviation, I call'em like I see 'em. I've been there done that have the t-shirt. Before you entered this thread, I had already discussed the liberal court, and both your attacks and the court's decisions are liberal by any test. If you have some right wing ideas, they would appear to be inconsistent with what I have seen from you here in this thread. You are free to reject any label that I choose to describe you or your views, and I am free to reject yours, too. What I find pathetic is what I used to think that passed for truth in those days. I take NO comfort in the idea that someone believes what I believed back then. That is pathetic.


Quote: >>>>>when someone calls you a hypocrite without the proof.......

What more proof do you need? The proof is very clear in your own words. I apologize for repeating myself, but it appears that I must, as you don’t seem to understand.

Here’s your hypocrisy:

When it’s your god in the pledge of allegiance, everyone, no matter what their beliefs, should be happy, because after all, it’s not worship, according to you. Here’s your words, verbatim:
>>>> "the phrase fails to mention the worship of this God, that god, or any particular "god""

and

>>>> "nor does it direct any person to listen, find, study, respect, or embrace any religion whatsoever"

Yet, when it’s Satan in the pledge, you’re not happy, and in your own words you describe it as Satan worship to mention Satan in the pledge.


Where does MY god appear in the pledge? How can I be certain, and more important, how can YOU be certain that it is "my god" that is mentioned there? Waaaaay back in the beginning of this thread, I tried to make this clear. No one's particular god is mentioned, so how can anyone be offended? The Gia worshipers can think it is their god, the satan worshippers can think it is their god, and so on.

Unless you give an identity like "God of Abraham", you haven't made your case. When you mention satan, a particular, identifiable being, rather than a general spiritual idea such as "god", you have completely changed the dynamic of the discussion. No my friend, I did not say that mentioning satan in the pledge was the equivalent of worshiping satan.

Since my post contained responses to several comments, there may be some confusion regarding the whole "worshiping of satan" angle of this discussion. A guy called beezlebozo made this post:

If it's not unconstitutional, don't be upset if your child's teacher is a satanist, and worships in front of the kids every day, as long as they don't have to participate and no laws are broken.

beezlebozo
clown from hell

Maybe you thought that I was lumping in the mention of satan with the worship of satan during my response, which did not refer to the focus of our discussion.

Quote: >>>> "Am I glad that satanism isn't yet practiced in the public schools? You bet"

and

>>>> "teach my children about the satan who is being worshiped by their teacher"

Quote: You seem unclear on the concept, so I’ll restate it:

Your position is that "god" in the pledge should be accepted by all, because it isn’t worship or religion, but you won’t accept satan in the pledge, because in your own words, it is satanism to mention him.


No, I never said it is satanism to mention satan. I concede that it is unlikely though, that anyone but a satanist would want to. Once again, how I would handle the situation in my personal life has no bearing on how I feel about the religious freedoms we are discussing. Certainly, I would teach my children about the satan being worshipped by their teacher, as I told beezlebozo. Perhaps this is where you became confused. I'm not talking about a teacher leading the pledge version you describe that mentions satan. I'm talking about a reference made to a teacher practicing the worship of satan before the class. Was that your misunderstanding?
I think the response from PETA would be hilarious.


Quote: Your application of different standards to the mention of god and the mention of satan is hypocrisy in it’s purest form.


Ahah. Maybe this is the problem. You are mixing constitutional thinking with personal belief. No wonder you think I am being hypocritical! The mention of God in the pledge is sanctioned in two ways. One, by the majority wishes of the American public which is demonstrated by the recitation of the pledge by the individuals who see fit to do so, and second, by the act of congress previously mentioned.

The fact that I detest the evil one personally is not hypocritical, but it is both doctrinal and personal. Just to be extra clear, if congress changes the pledge to mention satan, then I would have the same choices available to me as the people who don't like having God mentioned in the pledge. Those options include, but are not limited to: not speaking during the recitation of the "offending" passage, writing letters to my representatives asking that the pledge be reinstated in its original form, and appearing before the school board. I invite all of the satanists to take this approach.

 

[Timebuilder]

And, part two:

It is important to note that the Christian God and satan are not "equivalent" in the eastern sense of the word, like yin and yang, supposedly equal and opposite. Doctrinally, satan is less than God, since He created him as an angel, and he rebelled against God, attempting to usurp his position.

Quote: >>>>all they have to stand on is to pretend that they fell, pointing and saying "look, you fell!

Really? What am I pretending? My entire case is thoroughly documented by verbatim quotes of your own words. Perhaps you mean that I am inferring your answer on whether or not you’d like to have "..one nation under satan...." in the pledge. You’re right, I am inferring, you left me no option, as you repeatedly wouldn’t answer the question directly, instead preferring to cloud the issue with extraneous verbiage about my political beliefs, what constitutes satanism, and your earlier life. OK, here’s your chance to clear up any misconception I may have inferred from your obfuscation.

Answer the question that has been asked.

Would you graciously accept replacing "...one nation under god...." with "...one nation under satan...." in the pledge of allegiance in our public schools?

I would call these imagined responses of yours that you posed to your "hypotheticals" an act of pretending. In you accusing tone, you imagine my response before hear an answer. You may refer to my commentary anyway you like. If it clouded anything for you, I apologize. I'm used to reading authors where an aside can go on for several paragraphs, and I felt that it was appropriate in this context to illuminate the discussion with observations as I see them. If you look at the major players in the school pledge controversy, you will see that my assessment of the politics of those who hailed the ninth circuit decision are liberal indeed. Don't be surprised if your similar ideas are identified in that manner. You can usually identify a person by what he says and does.

I'm going to stick my neck out and identify this as the question that you say was asked:

Quote: You have two choices. You can admit that you wouldn't like the public schools to have a pledge of allegience to a nation under Satan....Even though, to repeat your own words, it is "is not a prayer" and it does not "direct any person to listen, find, study, respect, or embrace" Satan.
If that's the case, you're a hypocrite, because as soon as it's not YOUR god the nation is under, then you don't want it in the pledge.

Or, you can try to pretend that you wouldn't be bothered by it, in which case we'll all know you're a liar. There's not a single reader on this forum who is dumb enough to believe that an outspoken born again christian who supports school prayer wouldn't have a problem with a pledge to a nation under Satan.

So which is it going to be? Hypocrite or Liar? You mind if your kids pledge to Satan or not?

That's a lot of verbal venom from a guy who wants someone to be "gracious". I have already shown you that it isn't hypocritical to defend the rights of persons whose views you find personally detestable.
As you have just said, you inferred a meaning because I wasn't dancing to your tune in an fashion that was acceptable to you. You got mad. I got disgusted, which is a feat in itself.

NO, there is no reason for me to "graciously accept" such a change in the pledge. You are confusing a position on the establishment clause and a personal attitude, which are two very different things. Far from hypocritical, I submit, it is a reasonable position in a society where we must tolerate minority views while not being ruled by them. This is where you didn't understand my position. You can be a satanist, and I will fight for your religious freedom to be one. Whether I agree with your erroneous choice is irrelevant to the discussion. If you have sufficient numbers, you might even get congress to unofficially recognize that a majority of individuals believe in a faith in satan, although once again, satan is an individual, while we have not identified "god" for the purposes of the Pledge. That will be a problem for the satanists, to be sure.

In short, if a satanist hears the words "under God" and is offended, he has no redress as far as the official "establishment" of a US religion is concerned, as detailed in the first amendment. Your posit that "under satan" would be equivalent, equal, and opposite is incorrect. I would expect a lot of people to be upset if the pledge stated "under the God of Abraham" just as others might be upset if the pledge said "under satan", since both refer to specific religious characters. "Under god" is about as general an idea as you can get from a country that starts its legislative session with a prayer. What I find offensive is the reality that many others would see that assumption of equivalency as a logical position. Then again, we no longer teach critical thinking in public schools.

 

[beezlebozo]

http://www.religioustolerance.org

beezlebozo
clown from hell

incidentally, my forum name was lifted from Bill Hicks, a woefully underrated comedian who died in the early 90's - so don't read to much into that, either. Just playing devil's advocate. I'm signing off this one now, too. Fly safely.

Bill Hicks - Rant In E Minor

 

[Dieterly]

Doctrinally, satan is less than God, since He created him as an angel, and he rebelled against God, attempting to usurp his position.

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...

 

[LAZYB]

Dieterly,

Whoa, whoa, what happened to the Easter Bunny?

 

[TWA Dude]

Hope you don't think that everything was created in 6 days,

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]

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.

 

[aero99]

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.

 

[cherokee]

Feel free to look at the other 99% of threads if you don't like this thread. I think by the sheer volume of posts in this thread, it is apparent many people here want to discuss this issue.

 

[A Squared]

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.

 

[TurboS7]

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.

 

[Flyer]

[No message]

 

[Timebuilder]

"A clever quote, but applied without wisdom."
-unknown

It is always a mistake to accuse somone of having a particular predeliction or belief on a topic before you have any proof upon which to base your complaint.

Case: dismissed.