Student Says Allah Instead of God in Pledge of Allegiance

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 108
Topic's author
#31
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@fauxlaw


"...our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and was wholly inadequate for the government of any other."' - John Adams

hey thats one of my favorite quotes!
I’m probably gonna give John too much credit, but in 100 years people such as yourselves will be quoting physicists about the “God particle.” Intelligent people often have to dumb down their language to appease. 

If you guys agree that non-religious people can do good and religious people can do bad, then it’s an irrelevant quote.
It’s truism that societies don’t last if people just do bad things. This is what true virtue signalling looks like.

#32
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh, ok...?

How does quotes from Jefferson (who advocated for a separation between state and religion) and Adams (who oversaw the unanimous ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli - "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion") support not so vague references to the Christian diety in our pledge?
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
rendering  the holy Christian bible written in English useless, pointless and redundant.
Nope, wrong again by complete misinterpretation.

Stop it.  You know that you ballsed up when you made your comment about one needing to understanding Greek ( you being student of Greek#28) to understand the context of the bible "because the bible in Greek is  far more contextual"#33 fauxlaw<<<< YOUR words not mine. 

When I raised the point that in that case that you had, in one sentence , rendered the bible in English completely redundant, pointless and useless, you then went into back peddle mode and  scrambled to invent some clap-trap  that as long as one " reads the bible with sincere heart and real intent, having faith in Christ and follows the clues, doing so, the truth of it will be revealed by the power of the Holy Ghost, and by that power, the truth of all things will be revealed." #29.
 Thereby contradicting your initial claim of having to be a student in ancient to understand the context of the bible . You are just full of shite.

 You are just another fake preacher attempting to gain the moral high-ground by claiming to be of some authority by spouting from you alleged position as  "High Priest" #36  .  






#34
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
...not so vague references to the Christian diety in our pledge?
My #23 post to Lemming:

Oh, how I wish y'all would stop depending on Wiki as a solitary source. Such as, following through with a source indicated in the text of your reference [8] to Eisenhower to discover that the reference to "under God," the inclusion to the pledge made in 1954 during Eisenhower's administration, was a reference, not to "a Christian God," as many people stipulate, without a clue what they're talking about, but to a "supreme being," which could be understood as generic to cover all worshipped divine entities by a diverse group of Americans.


One might also realize, contrary to allegations by whomever, that the nation was not established in 1619, on slavery, and not in 1776 by the Revolutionary war, but in 1788 on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, "...in order to form a more perfect union." The rest is fronted by people with noses pushed out of shape, who also don't know what they're talking about.

#35
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
@Stephen

More than one way to skin a cat, and you cannot find the cat.

I deny nothing I've said:

A knowledge of Greek and Hebrew can assist in understanding the Holy Bible better, by being able to read those languages. Period.

An act of faith to ask God in all sincerity what is true and not is a valid guide to understand all truth, not just the Holy Bible, but you refuse to engage it, so, believe what you will. Argue for your .imitations; they're yours and no one can remove them but you,  but you insist on carrying the baggage. So carry.
#36
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
...not so vague references to the Christian diety in our pledge?
My #23 post to Lemming:

Oh, how I wish y'all would stop depending on Wiki as a solitary source.
You're dodging of the core question of my post: 32. 



Besides that, I think it is fair to say "under God" is commonly understood as a reference to the Christian diety regardless of its original intent.... which, with a charitably broad evaluation, seems meant to reference the Abrahamic god. Look into Rev. George Docherty.
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
What, exactly, is the vague reference to a Christian God in the pledge, when the offering of the meaning of the addition of "under God" was to a "supreme being," and not the specified God of any religion? It is an utterly universal reference. So, what's your beef? Are you implying that we should understand it to be more specific, when it is as generic as can be? That's on you, bud.
#38
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
You can say 'under God' is a deistic reference, but in practice, it is understood with religious implications - and I think that is how it was intended.

The fact that dogmatic Christians get bent when a different ( vague) reference is used for a particular God gives away the game. "Allah" does the same work as "God" except, instead of Christian connotations, it has Islamic connotations. 

#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
And what I am saying is that the change to the Pledge to acknowledge God was no more than a generic reference to a freedom of religion; any religion. The 1A does not stipulate what deity to worship, and you full have the right to worship none. If the pledge offends you by the reference, "under God," don't say it. Is that a problem? And if someone else wants to say, "under [fill in a name]"  that should be fine, too. And if someone wants to not say any pledge, why not? Most of us want the pledge just as it is. Does the majority get to have its say, too?
#40
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
The fact that you capitalized god kinda proves his point - the capital "G" in the god of the pledge is specifically referring to the abrahamic gods, that is his "name" per say.  If would be like saying that a song that referenced a specific nickname of a person wasn't referring to that person because it didn't reference their specific name - its a faulty argument. 
#41
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
According to your god, Wiki [you cite it often enough to deserve deification],

Reverential capitalization is the practice of capitalizing religious words that refer to deities or divine beings in cases where the words would not otherwise have been capitalized. Pronouns are also particularly included in reverential capitalization
Seems to me, that still does not designate a specific supreme being, but generalized with the added reverence of capitalization serving the purpose of that reverence, to whichever god one individually refers,  without the use of a more specific name. Hence, Allah, which is nothing more than God, an honorific in Arabic, or Dieu in French,  ⨡⨡⨡ in ancient Egyptian...
#42
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
In America, whenever we capitilize the word god, we are referring to the abrahamic god of the bible. I don't use Wiki, have fun with the irrelevent source. 

When the noun god is used generically, especially in reference to a non-Biblical god, it is not capitalized.
English speakers also traditionally capitalize the pronoun He in reference to God. This remains a common practice among people of faith, but it is by no means obligatory.
In phrases like for God’s sake, by God, and thank God, the word is capitalized because it generally refers to the god of the Bible and treats the word as a name.
#43
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Although American, I do not think like most, or at least many Americans, so don't impose your platitudes on me. I look at it like driving, which, though I learned to drive here, I re-learned and have not stopped since, in Europe, specifically France. I re-learned to write, by hand, in France, and have not changed since. I maintain 24-hour clocks, and think that way, when I think of time at all, which I really consider non-existent blither. Politically, yes, I am American, but, even that is tempered by the Sermon on the Mount, to me the best political agenda ever written. Europe has dropped off the edge in that regard. Again, your platitudes work for you. Leave it at that.
#44
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,605
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Hmmm, one Nation under gods,  I like that.
#45
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
God was no more than a generic reference to a freedom of religion
Freedom of religion requires a government to be free of religion. A reference to a diety, any diety, disallows the option of no diety. Quite simply, "under God" does not represent religious freedom - it can't, and it is beyond absurd to pretend otherwise.

If the pledge offends you by the reference, "under God," don't say it.
I don't - how could I in good conscience say what I don't accept as true? ...and why should I? It is not necessary to believe in a god, much less that our nation is under one, to be an American.

On the other hand, a pledge without the phrase "under God" would include believers and non-believers alike making it more unifying than one with it. 

Does the majority get to have its say, too?
If the majority doesn't understand religious freedom and runs roughshod over the first amendment,  America will cease to be "America". So, I think a better question should be 'do dogmatists understand what they are advocating'?

Besides that, less than 50% of Americans belong to a church, synagogue, or mosque. The writing is on the wall, my friend. Just know, I will not force you to share my lack of belief in the name of patriotism when the shoe is on the other foot.
#46
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Freedom of religion requires a government to be free of religion.
No, wrong interpretation, and Everton v. Board of Ed (1947) stipulated it. That was a bussing issue, the complaint being that public school busses should not deliver parochial school children to their school. The court found that unconstitutional because it was a service to all children needing bussing to school, regardless of type. That extends to the pledge. James Madison remarked that rather than a wall, there was an intersection of religion and government where they both met public need.
#47
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Reece101
If you guys agree that non-religious people can do good and religious people can do bad, then it’s an irrelevant quote.
thats not at all what john was saying

he made it clear: america was made for a religious nation

plus religious people are more moral than non

look at franklin's quote too-"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” 

guess what- we dont have freedom because we arent moral


#48
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Freedom of religion requires a government to be free of religion.
No, wrong interpretation
Its not an interpretation - it is just simple logic. You can't advocate for equality of anything while also favoring one option over others. 
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Logic, notwithstanding, which, sometimes, cannot be justified by law, is overruled by law. On this matter, SCOTUS overrules your opinion.
#50
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
On this matter, SCOTUS overrules your opinion.
SCOTUS certainly does not overule logic. ;-)
Topic's author
#51
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
thats not at all what john was saying

he made it clear: america was made for a religious nation

He signed the Treaty of Tripoli which states, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

So which religion is it?

plus religious people are more moral than non

look at franklin's quote too-"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” 

It seems you consider virtue exclusive to religion. Franklin claimed to be a deist, he didn’t moralise religion. 

guess what- we dont have freedom because we arent moral
By your own standards are you saying you aren’t religious?
#52
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
I am an Arab Muslim, I can confirm.
#53
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
I completely agree.

America is a nation striving for freedom of belief and religion(even atheism, etc). By restricting theism to the very sentence the people pledge to the nation it goes against the core values of the nation.

As a Chinese person who went to school in the US, doing the pledge is basically forced, even if you aren't an American Citizen, and to me it felt like I am speaking of lies. To be fair, I don't know a lot about US laws, but nobody should ever force a person that isn't even an American citizen to pledge. 
#54
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
its not an interpretation - it is just simple logic. You can't advocate for equality of anything while also favoring one option over others.




 I think you can.  If secular philosophy is the basis of society, then all views including secular can be equal.  If in a Muslim world, it is the top dog, then all religions including its own can be equal. It really depends upon what you mean by equal? 

Equality beneath the law - is not the same as equality as our progressives would argue. Yet it is the only way to be truly equal in society. Everyone - needs to comply equally beneath the law.  

Otherwise you are suggesting that equality cannot exist on any level. 

#55
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Timid8967
'All ice cream is equally tasty and chocolate is the best'.   This is a logically incoherent statement -- Just like 'a government meant to uphold religious freedom can favor one religion over others'.
#56
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
I do not see a student saying "One nation under Allah," as an affront to conservatism.  Nor do I object to it.  
#57
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well, even theocracies have existed in history that were tolerant of other religions, upheld religious freedom. I 'think.
Yet valued their own more, promoted their own more.

Though personally, I'm of the opinion that America took more of a separation of church and state, in 'it's creation.
#58
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
@oromagi
@Theweakeredge
Yes it is - capital "G" god, specifically refers to the gods of the abrahamic religions, don't try to pull that semantic stuff. 
The word "God" with a capital "G" refers to monotheistic religions, generally; not Abrahamic religions, in particular, beyond the extent to which the God to which those who added that language to the pledge were referring was that of Christianity.  

That being said, I do not object to a student saying "One nation under Allah."  

Islam is, obviously, not a religion I subscribe to; nor do I agree with much of its theology.  But it is an Abrahamic religion to which many in this country belong.  And the word Allah means "God."  The word "Elohim," though not the English word for "God" would also be acceptable.

#59
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
'Being tolerant of' and 'accepting as an equal' are not the same thing.
#60
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@coal
Cool. I suppose you have no issue with "God damn it", either?