NY Times article links to the Boneyard

[Icebear]

The interesting conclusion I get from this board and the football board, which also discussed this issue, is that everyone has one common belief. That belief is that our personal conclusion, whatever that might be, is sacrosanct. The best we can get is "I'll accommodate your opinion, but you are wrong".

It seems like we acknowledge multiple gods. I came to this conclusion because of the way we argue our points of view. These arguments have led me to believe we are all claiming to be "G-d" even if we don't believe in one. And whether we admit it or not, those of us who believe in a Deity struggle to disassociate the I from that Being. Since none of us agrees with anyone else about everything that exists, the only conclusion seems that there are multiple gods. This explains why we have a "Jewish God", a "Christian God" a "Muslim God" and so on.

Now there are some gods with more power and some with less. But it appears to me we are all gods in our own minds whether we admit it or not.

This particular god, believes there is a Divine Power. I just have my own opinions about this Being. And the best I can say about all the rest of you is you all seem nice but are out of touch with my reality.

Luther referred to our God as that to which we look as our highest good. In our society today self certainly can fill that bill. Probably as you say for most if not all of us. In Genesis and the chapter story of creation involving Adam, Eve, and servant shapes the nature of sin as self will over against God's will. So your thoughts all all consistent with that and would imply the reality of for all. Just some thoughts paralleling your observations on our human nature.

People's views can, also, be seen fitting the molds of factionalism or denominationalism and defenses of certain points upon which they understand the whole house of cards of belief to hinge.

The balance and fairness of the discussion has actually been quite remarkable given the passion this topic has for many.

 

[meyers7]

Not really when you are rejecting the very purpose stated by those who campaigned (Knights of Columbus) for its inclusion and deny that it is specifically the Christian God they had in mind. What is illogical is to expect the Roman Catholic Church to have campaigned any god other than God as they confess. Sen. Joe McCarthy was Roman Catholic and a member of the Knights of Columbus.

I never said the KofC or RCC were intelligent. They can (and have) certainly make a non-intelligent (more PC?) argument.

Even worse if that was their purpose, they failed. Because it doesn't pledge to any church's faiths or beliefs. AGAIN it is a pledge to the flag and the republic.

This is not rocket science here. Heck it's not even janitorial science. Read the pledge, it says what it is pledging allegiance to. If you want a "Godly" pledge do the Pledge to the Christian Flag.

 

[Icebear]

I never said the KofC or RCC were intelligent. They can (and have) certainly make a non-intelligent (more PC?) argument.

Even worse if that was their purpose, they failed. Because it doesn't pledge to any church's faiths or beliefs. AGAIN it is a pledge to the flag and the republic.

This is not rocket science here. Heck it's not even janitorial science. Read the pledge, it says what it is pledging allegiance to. If you want a "Godly" pledge do the Pledge to the Christian Flag.

And that national pledge makes a confession of the national relationship to God and that is a statement of faith. It is an unnecessary inclusion which divides instead of joins which is the very purpose of the Pledge and one for which it was well suited for over 6 decades.

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

But it doesn't. It just doesn't.

Ughhh this is frustrating.

How is it not a reference specifically to the christian god? Being that christian groups insisted on their gods inclusion in the pledge, they sure were not considering the Jews or muslims, and certainly not any asian gods, budda etc. Again how is this not an overt reference to the christian god ? I'm not trying to bust your chops, I am though wondering how you would come to the conclusion that it is not a reference specifically to christianity. You certainly do not need to answer if you feel inclined not to.

 

[Kibitzer]

The thought occurred to me that God should be permitted the luxury of enjoying the game(s) without being interrupted by customer service calls.

 

[Icebear]

How is it not a reference specifically to the christian god? Being that christian groups insisted on their gods inclusion in the pledge, they sure were not considering the Jews or muslims, and certainly not any asian gods, budda etc. Again how is this not an overt reference to the christian god ? I'm not trying to bust your chops, I am though wondering how you would come to the conclusion that it is not a reference specifically to christianity. You certainly do not need to answer if you feel inclined not to.

I would be inclined to say the Judeo-Christian God since there is one God but different doctrine between those two traditions. Some would even acknowledge Allah to be the same God what is clear, however, is that it is not paganism, Hinduism or any other religion or philosophy having multiple gods or no god.

Kib, your response reminds me of the scene in God Almighty when Jim Carey can't block out all the prayers of the masses as he fulfills God's role in the movie.

 

[HuskyNan]

Even worse if that was their purpose, they failed. Because it doesn't pledge to any church's faiths or beliefs. AGAIN it is a pledge to the flag and the republic.

This is not rocket science here. Heck it's not even janitorial science. Read the pledge, it says what it is pledging allegiance to. If you want a "Godly" pledge do the Pledge to the Christian Flag.

I will try once more -

The pledge of allegiance existed for decades without the phrase "under God". At that point, the pledge was to the flag and the Republic. In the 1950's, the Knights of Columbus lobbied to add "under God" for religious reasons, which was resisted by the government for a while. However, anti-Communist sentiments of the day convinced Eisenhower and Congress to add "under God" to prove the U.S. wasn't Godless like Communist countries. Therefore, the phrase was added specifically to show the United States citizens' fealty to God.

I don't know how you can read Eisenhower's quotes and say that the phrase wasn't intended to be religious in nature, I really can't.

 

[pinotbear]

The thought occurred to me that God should be permitted the luxury of enjoying the game(s) without being interrupted by customer service calls.

why did a scene from "Bruce Almighty" just pop into my head? +1, Kibitzer!

 

[meyers7]

The thought occurred to me that God should be permitted the luxury of enjoying the game(s) without being interrupted by customer service calls.

Brilliant line Kibitzer.

 

[meyers7]

And that national pledge makes a confession of the national relationship to God

Not necessarily. It says that this republic is under God (or under a creator if you will). Doesn't necessarily say this is a Judo-Christian nation. Doesn't say that there is a relationship to God. Doesn't say that we are under God's care. Some people may interpret it that way???

One may or may not believe there is a God above all nations. One may or may not believe there is justice and liberty for all (all though again people don't seem to have a problem with this). One would have a tougher time with indivisible since we tried that once and failed. (Although some could easily say we are a divided nation at least in political, social, etc terms, if not physically).

It is an unnecessary inclusion which divides instead of joins which is the very purpose of the Pledge and one for which it was well suited for over 6 decades.

Agreed.

 

[meyers7]

Well, I don't believe in God, meyers, and to me, adding "God" makes the pledge an implicit and explicit statement of belief in something I don't believe in.

And that is your interpretation/perception which is fine.

Sometimes I say just the non-God section.

Which is an excellent idea. One I would advocate people use. Or don't do the pledge at all.

 

[meyers7]

How is it not a reference specifically to the christian god? Being that christian groups insisted on their gods inclusion in the pledge, they sure were not considering the Jews or muslims, and certainly not any asian gods, budda etc. Again how is this not an overt reference to the christian god ? I'm not trying to bust your chops, I am though wondering how you would come to the conclusion that it is not a reference specifically to christianity. You certainly do not need to answer if you feel inclined not to.

Well first I was not talking about the christian god or which god is is referring to. I was saying "it just doesn't" affirm a faith in god (any god).

Now people can interpret whichever god they chose it to reference. Or just a creator in general. While it may reflect a lot of people's belief of a Christian god, it doesn't necessarily inherently. Only people's perception does that.

 

[meyers7]

I will try once more -

The pledge of allegiance existed for decades without the phrase "under God". At that point, the pledge was to the flag and the Republic. In the 1950's, the Knights of Columbus lobbied to add "under God" for religious reasons, which was resisted by the government for a while. However, anti-Communist sentiments of the day convinced Eisenhower and Congress to add "under God" to prove the U.S. wasn't Godless like Communist countries. Therefore, the phrase was added specifically to show the United States citizens' fealty to God.

I don't know how you can read Eisenhower's quotes and say that the phrase wasn't intended to be religious in nature, I really can't.

I'll try this once more myself. Please just type out the phrase in the Pledge where it says "I pledge allegiance to God." Or "I pledge allegiance to religion" (any religion, let alone a specific one).Or "I pledge allegiance to a faith". (I realize I will be waiting awhile. )

Doesn't matter what was intended, it matters what is reality (it is what it is ). And in reality there is no pledge to any god or religion or faith. Only to the flag and the republic, of which most of us on here belong.

 

[Icebear]

I'll try this once more myself. Please just type out the phrase in the Pledge where it says "I pledge allegiance to God." Or "I pledge allegiance to religion" (any religion, let alone a specific one).Or "I pledge allegiance to a faith". (I realize I will be waiting awhile. )

Doesn't matter what was intended, it matters what is reality (it is what it is ). And in reality there is no pledge to any god or religion or faith. Only to the flag and the republic, of which most of us on here belong.

So given your argument then the pledge really has no meaning whatsoever since the words "under God" can be dismissed so easily as having none of the meaning they were intended to have upon their insertion and as accorded to them in the historical record. Logically, if there is no meaning in these words "under God" at all then there is no reasonable purpose or meaning in using any of the words in the Pledge since they can be freely changed in their meaning and have no reality or permanence and have no possible means by which to unify the nation under a pledge of allegiance.

 

[HuskyNan]

Doesn't matter what was intended, it matters what is reality (it is what it is ). And in reality there is no pledge to any god or religion or faith. Only to the flag and the republic, of which most of us on here belong.

Well, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Many people do think that what was intended matters, while you don't. I don't know that this disparate point of views can be reconciled so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I will add this bit of info, though. As part of my MBA coursework, I took several marketing classes. A very important point was presented a few times - perception is reality. If people perceive something to be true, it becomes for them their reality. Your perception is that Congress' intentions don't matter when considering the "under God" phrase in the pledge, therefore your reality is that the Pledge of Allegiance is secular. However, others' reality is that by deliberately adding the phrase "under God", the Pledge was changed from a secular pledge to a religious one.

 

[ctchamps]

I would be inclined to say the Judeo-Christian God since there is one God but different doctrine between those two traditions. Some would even acknowledge Allah to be the same God what is clear, however, is that it is not paganism, Hinduism or any other religion or philosophy having multiple gods or no god.

Kib, your response reminds me of the scene in God Almighty when Jim Carey can't block out all the prayers of the masses as he fulfills God's role in the movie.

On an intellectual level, some people delineate between doctrines and God and conclude that the differences in the doctrines are human constructs about God that remain different because of an inability to find a resolution - that there may be an inaccuracy in the doctrine they align with as well as in the doctrines they don't align with. On an intellectual level this group believes that there may be a lack of understanding, or our misunderstanding, or a lack of all knowing about God that has led to these differences in doctrines and is the basis for the uncertainty about any doctrine but not about God. This group takes the position of humility about the doctrine it aligns itself with and believes the same God exists amongst all the doctrines. And this group believes God is more flexible about things then the members of the various groups are claiming.

But on a pragmatic level, I think there is only a small percentage of believers who can incorporate this intellectual process into the core of their being. The overwhelming majority of devout worshipers associates doctrine with God and believes thinking otherwise demonstrates a lack of reverence to God. This group believes the doctrine they align with is accurate and inviolate and the other doctrines to be false or inaccurate. With each group taking this position the result is a "fragmentation" of God or the human "creation" of new "Gods".

The consequence of this certainty of "their faith" is the tension that has existed between the believers of the various doctrines throughout history. This tension has resulted in acts of hostility between the different groups under the banner of their "respective Gods".

In addition, people who are upset with the consequences of these tensions, have assigned the tension to God as opposed to the potential for flawed doctrines that may be different than God. And as people become more free to express themselves, this has led into a rebellion not against the various human doctrines but against God itself.

 

[meyers7]

So given your argument then the pledge really has no meaning whatsoever since the words "under God" can be dismissed so easily as having none of the meaning they were intended to have upon their insertion and as accorded to them in the historical record. Logically, if there is no meaning in these words "under God" at all then there is no reasonable purpose or meaning in using any of the words in the Pledge since they can be freely changed in their meaning and have no reality or permanence and have no possible means by which to unify the nation under a pledge of allegiance.

Well seeing as how "The Pledge" has been changed already numerous times throughout history intended to affect whatever/whoever's current "political" (i.e. read NOT religious) agenda, then .....sure.

How about we just do the pledge? "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands." (assuming for some reason we want or need a pledge at all)

 

[meyers7]

Well, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Many people do think that what was intended matters, while you don't. I don't know that this disparate point of views can be reconciled so we'll have to agree to disagree.

That's fine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. As you have noted, I do have problems with people making "non-intelligent" arguments for their disagreements. ( e.g. I don't like water because it's too dry, or I don't like potato chips because they are too healthy, or I don't like to recite the pledge because I don't think we should be forced to pledge allegiance to God.) It's just one of my pet peeves.

As for intentions, hmmm. Let's say I intend to build a road from Springfield to Hartford. I state these intentions and then build a road from Boston to Springfield. What good where my intentions if they don't become reality?

"Defense of Fort McHenry" was intended to be a poem. But the reality is now, it's a national anthem. Intentions are "all well and good" (or not in some cases), but reality is reality.

UCONN women intended to win a national championship last year, do we have our eighth championship?

I will add this bit of info, though. As part of my MBA coursework, I took several marketing classes. A very important point was presented a few times - perception is reality. If people perceive something to be true, it becomes for them their reality. Your perception is that Congress' intentions don't matter when considering the "under God" phrase in the pledge, therefore your reality is that the Pledge of Allegiance is secular. However, others' reality is that by deliberately adding the phrase "under God", the Pledge was changed from a secular pledge to a religious one.

While all that is true, when marketing and a few other things. Reality is actually reality. People will perceive things many different ways, but there is only one reality. No matter how much one perceives a god, and no matter how much one perceives there is no god, neither one affect the reality of whether there is a god or not.

 

[Icebear]

Well seeing as how "The Pledge" has been changed already numerous times throughout history intended to affect whatever/whoever's current "political" (i.e. read NOT religious) agenda, then .....sure.

How about we just do the pledge? "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands." (assuming for some reason we want or need a pledge at all)

Exactly.

 

[HuskyNan]

While all that is true, when marketing and a few other things. Reality is actually reality. People will perceive things many different ways, but there is only one reality.

We disagree heartily on this. There are billion of shades of grey in billions of topics. Pick one, any one. Like this:

Player X (pick one - Heather Buck, Meghan Simmons, anyone) is a very good basketball player.

A fan's perception of Player X is his reality and he sees a very good basketball player. That's his reality. Your reality may be different. Just because the two of you don't agree doesn't mean that one of you is wrong, just that you define "very good basketball player" differently.

Vive le difference. It's what makes life interesting.

 

[meyers7]

We disagree heartily on this. There are billion of shades of grey in billions of topics. Pick one, any one. Like this:

I guess you are a "relative" person, where there is no right or wrong, is or isn't, truth or untruth. Things only exist as we perceive them. Black is not black, white is not white, unless perceived by someone that way. There is no reality, only perception.

For instance your child grabs a cookie before dinner after you have told them "no, what til after dinner". You question them,"I told you no cookies before dinner, why are you eating a cookie?" Your child answers, "I am not eating a cookie, that is your perception, not mine." Now what? There is no reality of them eating a cookie, there's only your word against there's, two different perceptions. You'll have to agree to disagree.

Player X (pick one - Heather Buck, Meghan Simmons, anyone) is a very good basketball player.

A fan's perception of Player X is his reality and he sees a very good basketball player. That's his reality. Your reality may be different. Just because the two of you don't agree doesn't mean that one of you is wrong, just that you define "very good basketball player" differently.

This on the other hand is an opinion. There are differences between facts and opinions. Though maybe not in your grey world.

We are not offering opinions on whether this is a good or bad pledge. We are discussing the fact that nowhere in the pledge does it say anyone pledges allegiance to any god or religion. That is a black and white fact, no matter how grey one perceives it. (because no one has yet shown me where it says "I pledge allegiance to god, or any religion)

Vive le difference. It's what makes life interesting.

It certainly does. And things are not different because we perceive them to be (because we can perceive different things to be the same), they are different because they are in reality, different.

 

[Sonny44]

Tradition!
God Bless America by Kate Smith every New York Yankee home game for the 7th inning stretch.

 

[Icebear]

We are not offering opinions on whether this is a good or bad pledge. We are discussing the fact that nowhere in the pledge does it say anyone pledges allegiance to any god or religion. That is a black and white fact, no matter how grey one perceives it. (because no one has yet shown me where it says "I pledge allegiance to god, or any religion)

It is a pledge that states specifically that this nation is under God. While I agree with that as a Christian and and pastor I do not believe that it has a place in a statement of national fealty. (That is my right as a person of faith.) It is, especially, risky and objectionable in a country where today we have political candidates running who would be glad to change this nation into a theocracy. Now more than ever it is important to object this divisive confession.

 

[Kibitzer]

Tradition!
God Bless America by Kate Smith every New York Yankee home game for the 7th inning stretch.

The 7th Inning Stretch was/is a tradition. That Yankee Stadium rite is a contrivance of Yankee management that is a weak impersonation of the National Anthem as dugouts are emptied and the congregants follow the script by removing their hats and placing their hands on their hearts to remind the viewing audience that Yankee fans are the very most patriotic fans in captivity.
The ultimate level of silliness occurred a couple years ago when a cop cited a guy who had the temerity (or necessity) to leave his seat and head for the men's room as this ritual took place.

 

[meyers7]

It is a pledge that states specifically that this nation is under God.

Ok and again, where does it say we pledge allegiance to any god or religion? Somebody please just show me.