Good question, and the most probable answer is "yes". Well, almost everyone .

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]

I think this statement right here is why no one understands why some of us feel that it should be removed.

 

I see your point however, we're obviously not one nation under god or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Again......I'm not goint to make a pledge unless I agree with every word. Your word only means something until the first time you break it.

 

I find threads of this ilk interesting because of the detours they take, because of the arguments made (both well-founded and not-so-well-founded), and because of the passions they uncover (both well-reasoned and ill-reasoned). Before I weigh in with my comments, please know that I am a Christian (which means that I have a strong, fundamental, innate understanding of faith), and that I am a mathematician (which means that I have a strong, fundamental, innate understanding of proof).

Here goes:

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and so on believe that there is a god (capitalized or not) or gods. This belief is based in part on faith ("the evidence of things not seen", Heb. 11:1), in part on perceived evidence interpreted to bolster their belief, and in part on history, tradition, training, and so on. Athiests believe that there is no god. This belief is based, at least in part, on a lack of proof that there is a god. (I don't say "conclusive proof" because, as a mathematician I interpret the word "proof" to mean "conclusive".) In their view, if there were a god, proof of his (no flames about pronouns, please) existance would be obvious. Agnostics believe that there may be a god, but that man is incapable of knowing whether or not there is. This belief is based in part on the same lack of proof on which the Athiests' belief relies.

Please be open-minded enough to realize that the lack of proof that something is true does not constitute proof that it is false. In the early 1930s Godel produced a theorem to the effect that in mathematics there must be true statements which are unprovable. (See Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, 1979.) As a simple example, Fermat wrote that the equation x^n + y^n = z^n has no non-trivial solutions when n > 2. So far, nobody has been able to prove that this statement is true, and nobody has given an example to show that it is false. Clearly either it is true ("there is a god") or else it is false ("there is no god"), but there is no proof either way. Are you free to believe what you want about this statement? Certainly. But if you believe it is true and someone else believes it is false, one of you is absolutely, undeniably, without question wrong. We simply don't know which.

The faithful frequently condemn the unfaithful for their beliefs; but the unfaithful are guilty of the same behavior. To label religious doctrine as a "fairy-tale" is to engage in the same sort of intolerance of which the religious are accused.

Religious people are, by and large, no more nor less moral than non-religious people. If you cite examples of religious people's immorality as hypocracy, please don't do it with an air of superiority. We are all hypocrites at one time or another; our actions contradict our professed beliefs.

History records many atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, but let us not forget the many atrocities which have been perpetrated without any ties to religion. People can be narrow-minded, misguided, or evil, whether or not they offer a religious justification for their actions. Their beliefs notwithstanding, people across the world are more alike than they are different; this is innate humanness, to be distinguished from learned behavior.

Among the religions of the world, Christianity can properly be called, in a sense, the least tolerant. Christ said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6, KJV). This says that all other religions are false. Period. No discussion, no debate. And this is undoubtedly the biggest problem with self-proclaimed Christians: they take it as a battle-cry in their zeal to force their beliefs on the world. They seem to forget that Christ also said "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" (Matt. 10:14, KJV). In other words, tell them the gospel, but if they don't want to believe, go elsewhere.

Christians are frequently attacked as being arrogant and condescending, a portrait which isn't helped by the license plate frames which read "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." Do not believe for an instant that Christians have done anything to earn the salvation they tout so highly; "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8, 9, KJV). This is a pair of verses all Christians know, but few put into practice.

If you believe that I am not passionate about my belief, please disabuse yourself of that misconception. My passion is clothed in resolution, not ranting; in steadfastness, not sarcasm; in compassion, not cursing. I am a Christian, which means that I believe that Jesus Christ was God in the form of a man, that he died to take away the curse of man's sin, that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and that by believing this my soul will be in heaven with Him after I've died. If you're interested in knowing more about what I believe and why I believe it, I will be happy to share more with you; if not, I will refrain from sharing it with you.

As for the original discussion this thread was to encourage, I believe that many people are too easily offended today, I believe that many people who are offended wrongly think that they have the right to quell the thing they find offensive, and that by doing so they are betraying the same intolerance they are trying to eliminate. I will be surprised if the panel's ruling on these two words is upheld by the court as a whole, I will be surprised if the decision isn't appealed to the California State Supreme Court, and I will be surprised if that body rules for the plaintiff. But whether I am surprised at any stage along the way or not, I believe it will not have a significant effect on my life, nor on the lives of those near me. We'll just have to wait and see.

My $.02. (OK, $.05--inflation.)

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]Religious people are, by and large, no more nor less moral than non-religious people.

 

Doesn't sound very Christian (or tolerant) to me.



"Or anything else" covers a lot of territory, more than is accurate, I suspect.

So doing something moderately mean-spirited is acceptable?

My point here is not to condemn anyone. I haven't made statements like those quoted above because I see how easy it is to overstate one's case; emphasis can lead to sanctimony, then to arrogance and condescention. (I'm not suggesting that either of these authors is remotely near these conditions. I've met one and he's genuinely nice; I've never met the other but have no reason to believe he's otherwise.) One has to be careful that one's zeal to promote one's position doesn't inadvertantly undermine that position. People's proclivity in that direction led to the development (and success) of Aikido. (Think about it.)

 

As the song says, "I'm proud to be an American." Those bounds have increased a bit. I'm proud to be a part of a forum that can take such a controversial topic, have people speak on both sides, and stay civil. Oh yes, and I'm a proud S2000 owner!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]I find threads of this ilk interesting because of the detours they take, because of the arguments made (both well-founded and not-so-well-founded), and because of the passions they uncover (both well-reasoned and ill-reasoned).

 

Hmph. Not at all what I was implying. I was responding to an earlier post that seemed to suggest that less Judeo-Christian belief = less morality. Maybe I misread it, but I was trying to show that's not the case. NOT that I'm a perfect human being and everybody should be like me. Please don't put words in my mouth? Thanks! (Yes, I've been mean-spirited before. )

 

ltweintz:

Your point is quite correct. However, not all Americans take that pledge quite so seriously - I honestly doubt that even 1/4 of the kids in schools REALLY take it that seriously. I know that when I was in school and I did our pledge (in Canada), I didn't really mean it - heck, I was a kid and was too busy thinking about the ball hockey game I was going to be in that day... I guess that's where I was coming from.

However, you can refuse to say the "under God" part and not change your vow/pledge at all. For those that would like to keep God in it, they can say it. For those that don't, they can just not say it - it doesn't change anything.

I just find this to be akin to grasping at straws. I hear and see tens and hundreds of things each day that offend me, but I don't run around saying that they go against my beliefs and should be taken down or not be said, etc, etc, do I? I see ads constantly that are absolutely perverted (in my opinion), but I couldn't do anything about them if I tried. If I can be bombarded with violence, sexual promiscuity, and skewed messages every day, can't an atheist put up with God being mentioned once a day? Is that too much to ask? I mean, seriously, is that too big of a requirement?