Religion

[DarthTofu]

Suppose I can agree with you on that. There's a girl at my school who goes to every Church event, sings in the choir, and talks about religion and all that jazz, but I swear, the girl's mouth is like a non-flush toilet bowl crossed with a porta-potty. (IE she swears a lot, for those of you who would choose to interprit that wrong).

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

I don't know the preachers name. It was on the daily show at some point, meaning that they could have done voice over and just used footage so yeah. Still though, I'm sure that theres some out there who are thinking it... My point being is that whenever a huge tragedy occurs some religious group or another doesn't feel obligated to contribute because whatever happened was an act of Divine Justice, blah blah blah.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I think we'regetting onto some sensitive turf here people. Try and keep it friendly.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

Aye aye my Captain my Captain!

 

I'm not meaning to sound confrontational, I'm just responding with my views on religions so don't take any of what I say to heart.

[PsychoInfiltrator]

As long as you know not to judge Christiansas a whole-or any group, religious or otherwise-by a few people who say they are members-whether they are or not-I remain unoffended.

[DarthTofu]

As long as you know not to judge Christiansas a whole-or any group, religious or otherwise-by a few people who say they are members-whether they are or not-I remain unoffended.

 

Same goes for Atheists and all. I swear, I told a friend who didn't know that I was atheist and he said "huh? Then why don't you dress in black clothes and skulls and shit?" Yeah, he's a dumbass... Atheist and goth are two different things, buddy. So just saying, atheists aren't all cranky, mean people. moving into less sensative turf- what does everyone think of the guy who's trying to get "Under God" out of the pledge of alliegance?

[PsychoInfiltrator]

If I was American I'd fight him tooth and nail every step of the way. As it is, I support anyone who is.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

I think he's trying to get attention. Judaism worships one God. The Torah is all about one God. Christians worship one God. Methodists worship one God. Catholics worship one God. Satanists worship one God (Give or take.). The majority of religions worship one God unless I am mistaken and to remove the "Under God" bit from the pledge is being biased towards the minority of religions that don't worship one God. Either way you are being biased but it's safer to be biased with the majority.

 

...Just a thought, so don't condemn me.

[DarthTofu]

Well, being one of the minoritys, I'll say this. Picture that your standing in a school full of atheists. no one actually says the pledge, its simply said over an intercom during which everyone has their hands over their hearts. And instead of "Under God" the pledge now says "With our own true faith, for there is no god" what would you feel like? Sort of reversing the situation. Penty of people (fools in my opinion) claim that atheists should simply not say that part of the pledge. Got news for you, its still basically saying "HEy, look at all the Christians your surrounded by, ya mionority! Be a Catholic or Christian or you're a terrible person" at least, that's what I get. This is strictly my own opinion, I'm not trying to convert people to my ways, just stating my feelings on the matter. people feel that these words are fine becasue they are biased in their favor, so it doesn't seem like such a big deal. The same thing happened with slavery. Slaves were a minority, and wealthy land-owners saw the system as being all good and fine- the slaves, who didn't agree with the system and really had no voice dissagreed. While this isn't the same situation by any stretch of the imagination, I still feel that there is some lack of religous tollerance in the pledge.

 

Oh, yeah, and Aenivae, Satanists would probably find under god offensive. Ithink that they see the nation more as over Satan than under god. Though I could be wrong. Its sort of like saying that this nation is under Shiva (God of war and destruction) to a Hindu person... At least I think its Hindu...

[Darth_Rob]

Obviously, the founding fathers were deeply religious. Not only is the "under God" in the Pledge, but look at the US currency, where is always states "In God We Trust". This country was built by men who felt that God was on their side as they fought for their independence, and when they won it, they thanked God (seriously, how what were the chances of the rag-tag colonists defeating the mighty British empire, the strongest nation at the time?).

Things have changed today. The population of America is now very mixed in it's religious views. Some are Christian/Catholic, but now there many new faiths being represented that weren't here 250+ years ago. I feel that the Pledge is a historic representation of what the founding fathers fought for, and to alter it would be like a slap in the face to them. To me, the "under God" part is just honoring the beliefs of the people who fought and died to bring this country to life. As I stated earlier, I am beginning to lose my faith, but that does not mean I want to alter history.

[PsychoInfiltrator]

I think he's trying to get attention. Judaism worships one God. The Torah is all about one God. Christians worship one God. Methodists worship one God. Catholics worship one God. Satanists worship one God (Give or take.). The majority of religions worship one God unless I am mistaken and to remove the "Under God" bit from the pledge is being biased towards the minority of religions that don't worship one God. Either way you are being biased but it's safer to be biased with the majority.

 

...Just a thought, so don't condemn me.

 

Let me clarify a few things, just to make sure.

 

The Jewish Holy Book is the Torah, as as a matter of fact, the books of law in it are also in the Bible.

 

Catholics and Protestants are just groups of Christians whose secondary beliefs (regarding church and a few other things) are different. (Somewhat like Shi'ites and Sunni's. Somewhat)

In general, the Protestants are more biblical, but there are exceptions in both groups. Regardless, the best way to find out about Christianity is to read the Bible. Preferably more than one translation, and older translations are generally better. I could explain why in detail if someone wished it, but suffice to say it involves the fact tat most translations of the Bible are now published by decxidedly anti-Christian publishers who take verses and words out or twist them more and more as time goes on.

 

Methodists, AFAIK, consider themselves Christian and fall under Protestant. So do, incidentally, Presbyterians, Lutherans, (AFAIK) Mennonites and so on and so forth. Bible Churches and Community Churches and non-affiliated churches tend to be more Protestant than Catholic, and tend to have fewer non-Biblical stupid rules and customs.

 

Satanists worship Satan and as such they like 'Under God' alot less than atheists.

 

Actually, seeing as I'm Canadian, would somebody mind typing up the Pledge of Allegiance and psoting it cause I've never read it before.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

seriously, how what were the chances of the rag-tag colonists defeating the mighty British empire, the strongest nation at the time?

 

Well, not to burst your bubble, but at the time the British had just finished the Seven Years War which had their forces spread across the world, they were dealing with uprising in India, they were fighting the first First Anglo-Maratha War, which was draining much of Britiains manpower, they were offering limited support to the Russians in the Russo-Turkish war, and in 1779 the British were fighting against "natives" in the form of the Xhosas in South Africa. I'd say the chances of an entire colony rising up agains what ammounted to around 60,000 troops and winning (with the assitance of the French) were pretty good, especially if you consider that the British were also defending Canada (the US was angry that it didn't join as a colony, so they invaded). Just had to point that out...

[DarthTofu]

Obviously, the founding fathers were deeply religious. Not only is the "under God" in the Pledge, but look at the US currency, where is always states "In God We Trust". As I stated earlier, I am beginning to lose my faith, but that does not mean I want to alter history.

 

Uh, hate to break it to you, but that's wrong. The pledge was actually altered to include "Under god" during World War I (Or it could have been II... or Vietnam...) anyway, it was one of those wars. The president at the time felt that it could bond this nation. So, while this nation was founded by Christians, it was also founded by those with different views and beliefs. Also, as Thrawn stated, the British were having other issues at the time. In addition to this the colonists understood the lie of the land, greatly outnumbered the troops in some areas where the British were garrisoned, employed cut-throat strategies, and had the Valley Forge thing going (Lot's of drunk Brits). Not to be a jackass to anyone who's British, but they were set up very poorly to deal with a revolution at the time. In addition, seeing as the country was primarily pro-British, it was very difficult to pick out those causing trouble and organizing riots. Sorry, Rob, but you were way off.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

Wow Psycho... You seemed to have missed the " Just a thought, so don't condemn me" bit, which seems impossibly hard to accomplish since you inlcuded it in your quoting of me.

 

Honestly I couldn't care less what is in the pledge, so long as it includes swearing allegience to the country I'm fine with it, unless it's dramatic over the top bullshit, naturally.

 

Anyways, just another thought, so feel free to condemn me.

[Krytos]

Careful people - watch the langauge and flamming

[Jahled]

seriously, how what were the chances of the rag-tag colonists defeating the mighty British empire, the strongest nation at the time?

 

Well, not to burst your bubble, but at the time the British had just finished the Seven Years War which had their forces spread across the world, they were dealing with uprising in India, they were fighting the first First Anglo-Maratha War, which was draining much of Britiains manpower, they were offering limited support to the Russians in the Russo-Turkish war, and in 1779 the British were fighting against "natives" in the form of the Xhosas in South Africa. I'd say the chances of an entire colony rising up agains what ammounted to around 60,000 troops and winning (with the assitance of the French) were pretty good, especially if you consider that the British were also defending Canada (the US was angry that it didn't join as a colony, so they invaded). Just had to point that out...

 

Thrawn is correct. The Americans were aided by the French who controlled Louisiana not least and gave very practical military support. By the time of the Battle of Yorktown the French had ensured the British had lost command of the sea leaving Cornwallis short of reinforcements. I believe there were 7000 French troops along side the 8500 Americans at the siege of Yorktown.

[Darth_Rob]

My bad . Thanks for the history lesson

[DarthTofu]

Any time! I always have fun insulting people for stupid little errors that really don't matter much! And BTW Krytos, when you mentioned "Language" in this posting, what were you talking about? Aedvina was reffering to "Psycho" as in "PsychoInfiltrator". Or was it something else?

[PsychoInfiltrator]

Wow Psycho... You seemed to have missed the " Just a thought, so don't condemn me" bit, which seems impossibly hard to accomplish since you inlcuded it in your quoting of me.

 

Honestly I couldn't care less what is in the pledge, so long as it includes swearing allegience to the country I'm fine with it, unless it's dramatic over the top bullshit, naturally.

 

Anyways, just another thought, so feel free to condemn me.

 

I didn't condemn you last time, but if that's how 'constructive informing' is taken, maybe I should. But I won't. I will, however, request that in future all parties concerned do not automatically assume the worst about everything.

 

Oh, and BTW, its Psych not Psycho.

 

 

Oh, and I hate to break an awful lot of bubbles, but your good ol' Pledge of Allegiance was in existance long before it became such. And it was in existance long before it was changed to read Americans instead of my people. And it wasn't there at your Confederation. The original author of your Pledge resisted each and every (and their were many) alteration and use witohut asking until his death.

 

Well whaddayaknow, American history is just as boring as Canadian history.

[DarthTex]

PsychoInfiltrator wrote:

 

Well whaddayaknow, American history is just as boring as Canadian history.

 

 

Those who do not learn from history or condemned to repeat it

 

Or something along those lines. I don't remember who is the author.

[DarthTofu]

I think its doomed to repeat it... And what were you saying about the pledge, Psych... o? It used to be Canadian?

[Jahled]

http://www.johannhari.com/index.php

 

Good front page, read it. He's not some left wing radical, not a right wing shock-jock off on a rant. Just a very good journalist pointing out stuff about a crap religious institution.

 

I'm allergic to religion.

[PsychoInfiltrator]

I think its doomed to repeat it... And what were you saying about the pledge, Psych... o? It used to be Canadian?

No, it used to be a patriotic poem. There's nothing poetic about it.

 

Oh, and I never said that history sshouldn't be studied, History is one of my favorite things TO study. Its just that Canadian history is INDREDIBBLY boring, exempting the War of 1812. Stupid Proctor, Canada coulda owned a whole American state if he hadn't given up without a fight and lost Brock's legacy...

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

The one thing I resent most about the internet is how you can't hear voice tone. My response to you Psych was a sort of half-'arsed' (Courtesy to Krytos) sarcasm, hence the "Feel free to condemn me" bit at the end. Guess I'm not all that good at illustrating my sarcasm, but no worries mate. Or as a linguistically incorrect British person would put it 'Mait".

[PsychoInfiltrator]

I empathize with you on the tone of voice thing. Its ny impossilbe to say something without it being able to be construed as an insult. I've been having that same problem at SWRPGNetwork lately.