Christian as per Merriam Webster 1: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
By this definition, they are indeed Christian. You may have a disagreement with specific points about what it was Christ taught, but so do all Christian religions.
Well, I guess a teacher could UNLAWFULLY beat the child for not performing oral sex too, but being as we can only legislate the law...
Realistically, a teacher will be fired for breaching a childs constitutional rights to not say the pledge. It has happened, and it has gone to the Supreme court on at least 2 occassions.
No citizen is mandated to recite the pledge. The supreme court has upheld on more than one occasion that it is a constitutional right of the citizens of the US to choose not to recite any pledge.
"Congress shall make no law whatsoever with respect to religion."
I think you lack proper emphasis on the "esablishment" clause. Your paraphrase might better read:
"Congress shall make no law whatsoever with respect to sanctioning a religion, or restricting the rights of the people to practice any religion they damn well please."
Hence the debate as to whether the pledge "establishes" a state religion. Congress can make laws in regards to religion (tax benefits are common examples) but they cannot support one religion over another.
Most of your points can be attributed to any religion. Aside from the trinity doctrine, it almost sounds like you are talking about Catholics at times.
They teach their own history of their religion in many publications, and almost all of their own older publications are still available through their own organization (where it is feasible to keep it in print or in stock) so I don't see how they are "discouraged" from studying their own origins. They are told that their doctrins change over time as some of them are challanged and it is found that their reasonings don't hold up to scrutiny and therefore older publications may not contain the latest thinking on a subject, but that is alot different then forbidding them to look at older material (Hell, I'm not going to take a 1985 issue of Science magazine as doctrine either). If you look at their financials, they run on a shoestring budget of donations, so your accusation that they are a mind control organization after donations seems kind of farfetched. Of course there is SOME money involved; show me a religion that is run without money, or ANY organization for that matter.
I don't see doctrine changing over time as negative. People learn more accurate history and irreffutable science over time, and personally I see doctrine changing when it comes under close scrutiny as a positive sign.
Most Christian religions, and most religions in general believe themselves to have the "truth" otherwise they wouldn't be a religion, this really isn't a black spot on their reputation, nor does it seperate them from the mainstream. You acuse them of being a cult for believing in false doctrine, but it is only judged false by your own beliefs. They could just as easily call your religion a cult by that reasoning.
Your main beef with them seems to be in them rejecting the divinity of Christ. Fine, but this doesn't make them a cult. You want to call them non-christian because your definition of christianity is the belief in the divinity of Christ, then fine, they aren't Christian by your definition, but that is simple semantics. It doesn't make them a mind control cult. They call themselves christian by their definition because their definition is following the teachings of Christ, but hey, don't get your panties in a wad over conflicting definitions, it really does nothing for your argument.
So your arguement boils down to they are a cult because: 1) They interpret the bible differntly than you, just like every other biblically based religion. 2) They say you aren't really in their religion without regular church attendance. 3) They say you aren't really in their religion if you don't agree with their religions tenets. 4) They believe that they are believing what is true. 5) They evangalize to others that don't believe as they do.
Through this reasoning, YOUR religion is a religion, all other religions are a cult. I don't put much stock in this line of reasoning.
Show me examples of mass suicide, sanctioned child abuse, kidnapping and torture, animal cruelty, THEN we can start throwing derogatory terms like cult around, otherwise I respect their line of BS just as much as yours; as a religion.
Ahh. I see your point. The state ruled that the school must observe it, but the child is constitutionally protected in that she does not have to participate, and cannot be punished by the state for refusing to participate.
No, the Supreme Court of the US judged it was NOT compulsory years ago when Jehovah's Witnesses brought it before them citing religious reasons for not wanting to do so (idolatry)
It's not a pledge of allegence to our leaders, it's a pledge of allegence to our republic. If our leaders rip up the constitution that is the foundation of our republic one day, it is a pledge to incite civil war to put our republic back.
I pledge my allegiance to the flag... and to the Republic for which it stands.
That republic is the one outlined in the constitution. If that republic no longer exists one day, I will stand with my fellow Americans and incite civil war to put it back where it ought to be.
I never pledged my allegience to Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan... Only to my Republic, the United States of America.
There is definately something wrong with coercing someone to pledge their allegance, which is why the pledge IS NOT COMPULSORY. Nor should it ever be.
And no, I no longer have a flag on my car. I burned it when it became worn. My only method of respectfully destroying it. God forbid they take that right away and make me throw it in the trash.
Was it a lazy way to show support for my country? Perhapse, but only in the way that washing my hands is a lazy way of having good hygene. It's not all I'd do. God forbid I ever have to shoot somebody in the head who is threatening your freedoms, but I will if I have too. Until the opportunity arises, don't accuse me of being lazy because I haven't yet.
By that definition I would agree with you then, and my answer to your question as to where the source of my governments morality would change to:
A contract between the people and their elected representatives, i.e. the constitution, that restricts the rights of the government to govern the people outside of it's well laid boundaries.
Beyond that I don't think we need a higher power in any form IN THE GOVERNMENT. Governments are big enough juggernauts without asserting to them the "right to do Gods will" too. Let God and his followers do Gods will, and keep Ceasars nose out of it.
I don't mind if they expose. It's the ESTABLISHMENT that gets scary. If they want to quote Hemingway in a public building as a work of art, no body says anything. If they want to quote Jesus, everybody gets up in arms. I say relax.
Now as to the pledge, I think there is a strong case against keeping the "under god" clause, but it is borderline. I'm not sure exactly which side of the fence of "establishment" it falls, but in all reality, the pledge is a tradition. It's not compulsory, so it's got some "artistic leeway"
I would have to disagree strongly that the pledge ranks up there with those acts, namely in one strong point. It is not by any stretch of the imagination cumpulsory.
I agree that the patriot act is unconstitutional, and needs to be challanged. Flag Burning is a buch of malarkey. Not only is it a challenge to free speech rights, but how the hell am I supposed to respectfully dispose of a worn flag?!? Traditionally flags are burned out of respect as well as defiance.
My attitude is that, as a representative republic, the people are the controlling power. We have the final say on who will make laws and whether they are allowed to stay in office, and we control them via a constitution, and if the government ever rips up that paper and takes our rights, I hope we still have the guns around as protected by the constitution to go blow their heads off (our final and most powerful power over the government).
IANAJW, but what whould make them not a religion? What constitutes a cult?
Are they not a religion because they do not believe like you?
Are they a cult because they do not believe in Jesus as the almighty?
Because they don't screech in tounges and have revivals and handle poisonous snakes like you grandad in Mississippi? (OK, that was a bit inflammatory, just trying to guarauntee a response)
I don't call that morality, I call that protection of one individual from another that attempts to subdue his inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Morality is an individual choice. I choose not to lie to my girlfriend. I would not be violating her inalienable rights if I did so, so it's none of the governments business what I do here. If I choose to tie my girlfriend in the basement, then I am violating her rights and it is the governments job to protect her. Any government worth it's salt will protect these rights regardless of whether it is based in secular humanism, christanity, or satanism. I believe MY govenment should not push it's weight around above and beyond protecting these basic rights and start legislating my morality. Not because I don't have morals, but because it's not the governments place in society to do so. To ask the government to step into the people's lives at that level is asking a bull to come into a china shop to protect the glass.
The government of the United States of America is you (assuming you are a citizen), so earn some respect. Seperating yourself from it and then begging it to do something is why you see it as an oath of fealty instead of an oath of mutual support.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it would be Hydrogen Hydroxide, but we got your gist ;)
I for one welcome our new American overlords.
Well I, for one, welcome our Chinese overlords
Nope, it was me ;)
Dude, you sellin? Cuz I'm out.
It was faked
I will have too look them up. I have sources, but it will take me about a week to get them :P
Gah.. make me research....
Christian as per Merriam Webster
1: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
By this definition, they are indeed Christian. You may have a disagreement with specific points about what it was Christ taught, but so do all Christian religions.
Well, I guess a teacher could UNLAWFULLY beat the child for not performing oral sex too, but being as we can only legislate the law...
Realistically, a teacher will be fired for breaching a childs constitutional rights to not say the pledge. It has happened, and it has gone to the Supreme court on at least 2 occassions.
No citizen is mandated to recite the pledge. The supreme court has upheld on more than one occasion that it is a constitutional right of the citizens of the US to choose not to recite any pledge.
"Congress shall make no law whatsoever with respect to religion."
I think you lack proper emphasis on the "esablishment" clause. Your paraphrase might better read:
"Congress shall make no law whatsoever with respect to sanctioning a religion, or restricting the rights of the people to practice any religion they damn well please."
Hence the debate as to whether the pledge "establishes" a state religion. Congress can make laws in regards to religion (tax benefits are common examples) but they cannot support one religion over another.
Just a couple points.
Most of your points can be attributed to any religion. Aside from the trinity doctrine, it almost sounds like you are talking about Catholics at times.
They teach their own history of their religion in many publications, and almost all of their own older publications are still available through their own organization (where it is feasible to keep it in print or in stock) so I don't see how they are "discouraged" from studying their own origins. They are told that their doctrins change over time as some of them are challanged and it is found that their reasonings don't hold up to scrutiny and therefore older publications may not contain the latest thinking on a subject, but that is alot different then forbidding them to look at older material (Hell, I'm not going to take a 1985 issue of Science magazine as doctrine either). If you look at their financials, they run on a shoestring budget of donations, so your accusation that they are a mind control organization after donations seems kind of farfetched. Of course there is SOME money involved; show me a religion that is run without money, or ANY organization for that matter.
I don't see doctrine changing over time as negative. People learn more accurate history and irreffutable science over time, and personally I see doctrine changing when it comes under close scrutiny as a positive sign.
Most Christian religions, and most religions in general believe themselves to have the "truth" otherwise they wouldn't be a religion, this really isn't a black spot on their reputation, nor does it seperate them from the mainstream. You acuse them of being a cult for believing in false doctrine, but it is only judged false by your own beliefs. They could just as easily call your religion a cult by that reasoning.
Your main beef with them seems to be in them rejecting the divinity of Christ. Fine, but this doesn't make them a cult. You want to call them non-christian because your definition of christianity is the belief in the divinity of Christ, then fine, they aren't Christian by your definition, but that is simple semantics. It doesn't make them a mind control cult. They call themselves christian by their definition because their definition is following the teachings of Christ, but hey, don't get your panties in a wad over conflicting definitions, it really does nothing for your argument.
So your arguement boils down to they are a cult because:
1) They interpret the bible differntly than you, just like every other biblically based religion.
2) They say you aren't really in their religion without regular church attendance.
3) They say you aren't really in their religion if you don't agree with their religions tenets.
4) They believe that they are believing what is true.
5) They evangalize to others that don't believe as they do.
Through this reasoning, YOUR religion is a religion, all other religions are a cult. I don't put much stock in this line of reasoning.
Show me examples of mass suicide, sanctioned child abuse, kidnapping and torture, animal cruelty, THEN we can start throwing derogatory terms like cult around, otherwise I respect their line of BS just as much as yours; as a religion.
Ahh. I see your point. The state ruled that the school must observe it, but the child is constitutionally protected in that she does not have to participate, and cannot be punished by the state for refusing to participate.
No, the Supreme Court of the US judged it was NOT compulsory years ago when Jehovah's Witnesses brought it before them citing religious reasons for not wanting to do so (idolatry)
It's not a pledge of allegence to our leaders, it's a pledge of allegence to our republic. If our leaders rip up the constitution that is the foundation of our republic one day, it is a pledge to incite civil war to put our republic back.
Allegience isn't bad.
I pledge my allegiance to the flag... and to the Republic for which it stands.
That republic is the one outlined in the constitution. If that republic no longer exists one day, I will stand with my fellow Americans and incite civil war to put it back where it ought to be.
I never pledged my allegience to Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan... Only to my Republic, the United States of America.
There is definately something wrong with coercing someone to pledge their allegance, which is why the pledge IS NOT COMPULSORY. Nor should it ever be.
And no, I no longer have a flag on my car. I burned it when it became worn. My only method of respectfully destroying it. God forbid they take that right away and make me throw it in the trash.
Was it a lazy way to show support for my country? Perhapse, but only in the way that washing my hands is a lazy way of having good hygene. It's not all I'd do. God forbid I ever have to shoot somebody in the head who is threatening your freedoms, but I will if I have too. Until the opportunity arises, don't accuse me of being lazy because I haven't yet.
By that definition I would agree with you then, and my answer to your question as to where the source of my governments morality would change to:
A contract between the people and their elected representatives, i.e. the constitution, that restricts the rights of the government to govern the people outside of it's well laid boundaries.
Beyond that I don't think we need a higher power in any form IN THE GOVERNMENT. Governments are big enough juggernauts without asserting to them the "right to do Gods will" too. Let God and his followers do Gods will, and keep Ceasars nose out of it.
I don't mind if they expose. It's the ESTABLISHMENT that gets scary. If they want to quote Hemingway in a public building as a work of art, no body says anything. If they want to quote Jesus, everybody gets up in arms. I say relax.
Now as to the pledge, I think there is a strong case against keeping the "under god" clause, but it is borderline. I'm not sure exactly which side of the fence of "establishment" it falls, but in all reality, the pledge is a tradition. It's not compulsory, so it's got some "artistic leeway"
I would have to disagree strongly that the pledge ranks up there with those acts, namely in one strong point. It is not by any stretch of the imagination cumpulsory.
I agree that the patriot act is unconstitutional, and needs to be challanged.
Flag Burning is a buch of malarkey. Not only is it a challenge to free speech rights, but how the hell am I supposed to respectfully dispose of a worn flag?!? Traditionally flags are burned out of respect as well as defiance.
My attitude is that, as a representative republic, the people are the controlling power. We have the final say on who will make laws and whether they are allowed to stay in office, and we control them via a constitution, and if the government ever rips up that paper and takes our rights, I hope we still have the guns around as protected by the constitution to go blow their heads off (our final and most powerful power over the government).
Please expound, rather than accuse ;)
IANAJW, but what whould make them not a religion? What constitutes a cult?
Are they not a religion because they do not believe like you?
Are they a cult because they do not believe in Jesus as the almighty?
Because they don't screech in tounges and have revivals and handle poisonous snakes like you grandad in Mississippi? (OK, that was a bit inflammatory, just trying to guarauntee a response)
I don't call that morality, I call that protection of one individual from another that attempts to subdue his inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Morality is an individual choice. I choose not to lie to my girlfriend. I would not be violating her inalienable rights if I did so, so it's none of the governments business what I do here. If I choose to tie my girlfriend in the basement, then I am violating her rights and it is the governments job to protect her. Any government worth it's salt will protect these rights regardless of whether it is based in secular humanism, christanity, or satanism. I believe MY govenment should not push it's weight around above and beyond protecting these basic rights and start legislating my morality. Not because I don't have morals, but because it's not the governments place in society to do so. To ask the government to step into the people's lives at that level is asking a bull to come into a china shop to protect the glass.
Show me a forced proclamation of patriotism and I will show you a facist regime. There are no forced proclamations in this country.
I wish I had mod points. Very nicely put.
The government of the United States of America is you (assuming you are a citizen), so earn some respect. Seperating yourself from it and then begging it to do something is why you see it as an oath of fealty instead of an oath of mutual support.