Pledge of allegiance at UConn games

[Icebear]

But for the clueless people who think it does, one could argue saying the nation is under God does in no way curse, swear, use witchcraft, lie or deceive. Nor does take God's name in vain. Doesn't speak irreverently of him, nor is an oath or vow to him.

The term vain means to use carelessly, recklessly, or uselessly as in a vanity. To use it without meaning or against its purpose, the name of God. That is the purpose as laid out in the catechisms. The name God with the capital G is the proper name per grammar and not the small g general term for divinity.

 

[HuskyNan]

The term vain means to use carelessly, recklessly, or uselessly. To use it without meaning or against its purpose, the name of God. That is the purpose as laid out in the catechisms. The name God with the capital G is the proper name per grammar and not the small g general term for divinity.

Right, like the tens of millions that say "Oh my God" to express surprise or the folks that say "Jeeesus" when disappointed, like when a receiver drops a forward pass. To use the Lord's name as part of our daily conversation, including by rote and without reverence, is taking His name in vain.

 

[Ruffian75]

Nan...who is the Avatar....Brian Jones as a teenager?

 

[HuskyNan]

Nan...who is the Avatar....Brian Jones as a teenager?

Darryl Hannah as Pris in Blade Runner.

 

[Ruffian75]

Darryl Hannah as Pris in Blade Runner.

I didn't recognize her without the patch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZuYfti-pE

 

[Icebear]

Right, like the tens of millions that say "Oh my God" to express surprise or the folks that say "Jeeesus" when disappointed, like when a receiver drops a forward pass. To use the Lord's name as part of our daily conversation, including by rote and without reverence, is taking His name in vain.

Precisely, and well said.

 

[I'maUConnFan]

Icebear said: ↑

Anytime you introduce God into something it is a relgious thing.​

Not this time. And only to the people who are clueless.

I think this is a case of someone not being able to see the forest for the trees. It requires taking a few steps back to see things from a broader perspective, but sometimes people feel that's not necessary, because they just can't believe/accept that they aren't seeing the whole thing already.

 

[ABachelor6CR]

I haven't heard any updated comments other than the initial press release. Something about he had heard it at some social function he attended and thought it would be a good idea to incorporate into the athletic events. I'd love to hear his take on how his proclamation has spawned the usual discussions (civil and cerebral here; not so much elsewhere) that has been prevalent in recent years (one comment on the ESPN board featured the ever popular "if you don't like it, move" - funny how it never occurs to people making this statement that no one is forcing *them* to stay in the US either). I did email the AD and state my views; we'll see if I get a response.

ABachelor: No one is being forced per se, but not being prone to displaying my national pride, I've found it awkward in the last 10 years not being part of the herd. There are a lot of self-appointed patriots who apparently think that if you don't take every chance to wave the flag, you don't belong in America, and worse still, a lot of them are not afraid to say so. I am not going to go to Gampel and give someone a disapproving look if they are saying the pledge, but I can guarantee that out of 10,000 people, at least one person is going to at least get The Look for NOT saying the pledge - and probably less than courteous treatment the rest of the evening. Plus, it's a sporting event - I look forward to the National Anthem (though some perfomances disappoint me), but I'm not there to take an oath.

You are correct, it should go both ways. If someone does not wish to participate in the pledge, they should be given the same consideration as those who do......and not made to feel Un-American for not doing it......

 

[ABachelor6CR]

Your use of "forced" and "must" in your opening sentence, torpedos your argument.

"Forced" in not my word but another posters, hence the quotations.......in order to be a good citizen the use of must is correct. One must be respectful of another's right to do or not to do something. The is no other choice......

 

[Icebear]

"Forced" in not my word but another posters, hence the quotations.......in order to be a good citizen the use of must is correct. One must be respectful of another's right to do or not to do something. The is no other choice......

Henry David Thoreau would disagree that force or concern for respect was an issue for rightly restraining moral behavior. He would consider the responsibility of civil disobedience against unjust government as sacrosanct and the highest moral order and as with Epicurious the truly moral person was to act against self interest risking imprisonment let alone stares. As an abolitionist this was one of his appeals to slave owners in calling for them to free the slaves. Many had defended slavery as necessary for the survival of the plantation system. Plus law not only provided for ownership of slaves but in some states forbade setting them free. Thoreau thought that his losing the respect of his neighbor was a meaningless price to pay when measured against the loss of freedom embodied in slavery or the cost to others in halting slavery. This was the point of his statement, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

I know that you are not suggesting that respect should not be necessary, but rather should extended to all. Thoreau would be leery of such social niceties as respect reducing the moral person's will to take right action out of politeness. He wrote the essay entitled "On Civil Disobedience" in response to William Paley's "Of the Duty of Civil Obedience."

An interesting part of our New England heritage.

 

[meyers7]

Icebear said: ↑

Anytime you introduce God into something it is a relgious thing.​

I think this is a case of someone not being able to see the forest for the trees. It requires taking a few steps back to see things from a broader perspective, but sometimes people feel that's not necessary, because they just can't believe/accept that they aren't seeing the whole thing already.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Icebear]

Exactly. Thank you.

And here I thought he was speaking of you. ;-)

 

[meyers7]

And here I thought he was speaking of you. ;-)

It's all in how you read it.

 

[Icebear]

It's all in how you read it.

Amen.

 

[I'maUConnFan]

And here I thought he was speaking of you. ;-)

And here she thought she was too.

 

[boontonbomber]

don't be surprised if,at some point, a fight breaks out.

 

[ctchamps]

I guess people would have to ask themselves something. What if this country becomes a Muslim majority. Would people still be as supportive as they are now about saying the Pledge of Allegiance if the words were one nation under Allah? If this idea remotely disturbs you then it demonstrates the value of the founding fathers intent of separating church and state.

Of course we have the current luxury of knowing this hypothetical pledge I'm suggesting is unlikely to happen in the near future if ever. So we can be gracious and say we'd support it. But I doubt if push came to shove, very many Christians would sit passively and allow this to happen.