Fox News to Atheists: You don't have to live here

[Thundercrack85]

I think the pledge is silly, but if it's secular, then I don't mind it. It doesn't discriminate. But the under God part needs to go.

Should atheists pick their battles carefully? Yes. However, when kids get taught this stuff from first grade in public schools, that they should pledge allegiance to a god, that I find extremely troublesome.

To say no to school-led prayer, but accept that, is just ridiculous.

Either schools are secular, or they are not.

 

[Breogan]

I have to wonder what people would do and say if instead of "In God We Trust", money had "In Allah We Trust" or "In Odin We Trust" on it instead.

Or if instead we had

In Gods we trust

and

One Nation Under Gods

Recognizing there are several religions and their gods, or to include polytheists.

The Christians would create such a crap storm- how dare our kids be forced to acknowledge other gods! There's only one!
Really? That's not for the state to decide though is it.
If you told them your kids can "just skip over that part" what's the big deal?
They would be completely offended, and say their kids were being indoctrinated into endorsing other religions, and demand Gods be removed from the money and pledge immediately!. And beg for it to return to the original.

The original pledge said nothing about it, it was neutral.

Money printed before 1954, no "In God We Trust"

 

[chaseter]

Why is it even in the pledge? Answer that. Why are students being encouraged, if not forced to even recite a pledge with a deity in it?

Why is it on the money? That became national policy in the late 1950's. Also when they made "In God We Trust" the national motto... tradition be damned.

Are you really going to pretend that the capitalized god they're referring to any god besides the one in the Christian bible? The state can no show any religion preference, that much has been established by the Supreme Court.

Keep religion out of the class rooms. One day, it might not be your religion or your god.

Who are you talking to? Because none of that was in response to anything I said.

 

[chaseter]

Because the power of the constitution is a social construct that only exists if you enforce it.

But the word God on our money doesn't contradict the constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

God on money doesn't violate the constitution, hinge freedoms and liberties, or establish any sort of law regarding an establishment of religion. There is no legal recourse period. The only way it will be changed is when it is voted to be changed and a majority supports it.

Otherwise, we can get super stupid here and put "In God(s) or no God(s) or Possible God(s) We Trust" so that we can please everyone.




Having God in the pledge was done in a highly xenophobic time of our country and no one is forced to say the pledge so I don't see the problem here but I sympathize with the people who think it should be more inclusive. The default could be god and you can say or not say whatever you want. I don't care.

In my opinion, neither of those are an issue and it's just people with a lot of time and money on their hands throwing a fit. If it impaired personal liberties and freedoms then I would agree. There are much bigger issues for atheists right now that what it says on money.

 

[Teelie]

I know where the atheists can go, Quebec! They'll just have to learn French and become politely Canadian yet somehow rudely French at the same time.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I know where the atheists can go, Quebec! They'll just have to learn French and become politely Canadian yet somehow rudely French at the same time.

If you are an English-speaking American, and you emigrate to Quebec, even Montreal, and you have children, your children will not be allowed to attend an English-language public school. You will be forced to either have them go to a French-speaking school or pay for private school. I'm not kidding.

 

[NickNitro]

I'm sorry but I feel like people are arguing this **** just to argue. This is by far the most ridiculous atheist vs non atheist argument I've heard to date.

It's not like schools are whipping children if they don't bend a knee and pray to Jesus or Ala or Odin or whatever the hell you want. The comments like "why should we endure! why should we just skip saying God and have to endure hearing the very word spoken from other classmates!"

It's a solution, you skip over saying Under God. It's that simple. Take 2 seconds out of your day to skip 3 words in a phrase you'll say up to about the age of 18 yrs old (its not like your boss makes you say the pledge before you sit down at your cubicle).

 

[Dr.]

The (American) legal principle that supports various “god statements” by government is something called “ceremonial deism.” By this reckoning, certain practices are just homages to tradition and history - which, in a modern context, should be interpreted as poetic metaphor. Since “god” is not defined, it can represent all faiths or even no faith (in the pantheistic sense).

The problem with this is that the vast majority of people who would defend “In God We Trust” (etc.) aren’t deists or pantheists. Moreover, they’re likely to take offense at any notion of god as non-literal or metaphoric. As far as they’re concerned, government sanction of “god statements” is government endorsement of (Christian) theism.

Actual deists, of course, don’t believe in a god who takes particular notice of humans - much less American patriotism or ceremony.

 

[Teelie]

Good statement. It's the kind of logic I try to think of when these kinds of protests/debates/arguments come up. As someone else said, had it been implied God here was anything but a Christian God, there would be less resistence to removing the phrase but as it stands, Christians see it as an "attack" on their faith when it is merely removing a faith from interfering with government... which they ironically want to have no part of in their religious teachings.

 

[Hotwire]

The (American) legal principle that supports various “god statements” by government is something called “ceremonial deism.” By this reckoning, certain practices are just homages to tradition and history - which, in a modern context, should be interpreted as poetic metaphor. Since “god” is not defined, it can represent all faiths or even no faith (in the pantheistic sense).

The problem with this is that the vast majority of people who would defend “In God We Trust” (etc.) aren’t deists or pantheists. Moreover, they’re likely to take offense at any notion of god as non-literal or metaphoric. As far as they’re concerned, government sanction of “god statements” is government endorsement of (Christian) theism.

Actual deists, of course, don’t believe in a god who takes particular notice of humans - much less American patriotism or ceremony.

Fantastic!

 

[redhawk23]

I'm sorry but I feel like people are arguing this **** just to argue. This is by far the most ridiculous atheist vs non atheist argument I've heard to date.

It's not like schools are whipping children if they don't bend a knee and pray to Jesus or Ala or Odin or whatever the hell you want. The comments like "why should we endure! why should we just skip saying God and have to endure hearing the very word spoken from other classmates!"

It's a solution, you skip over saying Under God. It's that simple. Take 2 seconds out of your day to skip 3 words in a phrase you'll say up to about the age of 18 yrs old (its not like your boss makes you say the pledge before you sit down at your cubicle).

Again, why is the line in the pledge to begin with?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

You guys... it's important to realize that Fox News is fiction. With characters, plot and their own brand of heroes and villains. The people on the show aren't even as gung ho as they seem about these topics. They are paid to act like they are. And these topics are rarely (if ever) real news.

They do it to sell their channel. The weak-minded continue tuning in because they know Fox will always have the same opinion. And that opinion will be anti-gay, anti-Obama, pro-white christian "american."

When you accept that, you tend to care a lot less about the crap that floods from Fox News. And instead it's like watching Jersey Shore. No one watches Jersey Shore because it's anywhere near the realm of legitimate intellectual stimulation.

 

[redhawk23]

The funny thing is imagining their response thrown back at them for any of their crowd's complaints.

"Our taxes are too high!"

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE HERE.

"Don't regulate our guns!"

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE HERE.

Ridiculous of course.

 

[NickNitro]

Yeah, its not like Fox hasn't been known to swing as far right as humanly possible while still trying to declare their "even and unbiased views". They are fear mongers who clearly have no remorse for others views.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Christians see it as an "attack" on their faith when it is merely removing a faith from interfering with government...

How exactly does any of this interfere with government? How does a generic "In God we Trust" interfere? How does a cross at a soldiers' cemetery "interfere" with government? How does a church displaying a manger scene in December "interfere" with government?

If atheist groups actually cared about religion interfering with government, then why are they so silent on Sharia law being used in US courts? Why do people believe it is OK to allow the religious laws of one religion to be considered, and in some examples supersede US law, but these same people lose their minds when seeing a cross in a park?

Let's all be honest here: Many Christians feel that they're being attacked, singled out, etc because they ARE. On a global scale, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

In the US, it has become politically correct by the majority to try and silence christian thought and expression while mostly leaving other religions to go about their ways, under the guise of defending the (criminally misunderstood) separation of church and state, when in reality it is nothing more than attacking one group's freedom of expression - everything from fining people holding bible studies in their homes; to arresting people for handing out christian pamphlets; suspending students for holding private conversations about Christianity and/or bringing their bibles to school; universities refusing admittance of students who come from christian high schools; chaplains being fired for including "Jesus" in their prayers...

There is no valid ability to deny the fact that there exists an increasingly hostility and intolerant mindset towards religion - specifically Christianity in the USA; the great irony being that the most vocal groups fighting against christian/religious belief and expression are doing so under the banner of "tolerance" and "acceptance". completely ignoring the fact that their own beliefs and actions are just as intolerant. I'm not saying that other faiths and ideologies do not face oppression in this country, but the anti-christian movement is definitely one of the largest, most organized and politically backed.

While it deals with the UK, this is a pretty good article about the truth of a growing hypocritical, anti-christian ideology. Before you role your eyes, the person claiming this is British Cabinet Member Sayeeda Warsi - a Muslim:

"...It all hinges on a basic misconception: That to create equality and space for minorities we need to erase our religious heritage."

"You cannot and should not extract these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...im-minister-calls-Christians-stand-faith.html

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Claiming that Christians are some hugely oppressed demographic in American society gets a big ol' "lol" and "wtf" from me.

 

[Teelie]

You guys... it's important to realize that Fox News is fiction. With characters, plot and their own brand of heroes and villains. The people on the show aren't even as gung ho as they seem about these topics. They are paid to act like they are. And these topics are rarely (if ever) real news.

They do it to sell their channel. The weak-minded continue tuning in because they know Fox will always have the same opinion. And that opinion will be anti-gay, anti-Obama, pro-white christian "american."

When you accept that, you tend to care a lot less about the crap that floods from Fox News. And instead it's like watching Jersey Shore. No one watches Jersey Shore because it's anywhere near the realm of legitimate intellectual stimulation.

I know all that and I don't take them seriously even if they report legitimate but otherwise unnotable news. The reason I posted it is the woman said that if you don't like "under God" you can just leave the country. It struck me as both hilarious and sad that someone would say that with a serious tone even if they are paid to exaggerate their views.

 

[Teelie]

How exactly does any of this interfere with government? How does a generic "In God we Trust" interfere? How does a cross at a soldiers' cemetery "interfere" with government? How does a church displaying a manger scene in December "interfere" with government?

If atheist groups actually cared about religion interfering with government, then why are they so silent on Sharia law being used in US courts? Why do people believe it is OK to allow the religious laws of one religion to be considered, and in some examples supersede US law, but these same people lose their minds when seeing a cross in a park?

Let's all be honest here: Many Christians feel that they're being attacked, singled out, etc because they ARE. On a global scale, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

In the US, it has become politically correct by the majority to try and silence christian thought and expression while mostly leaving other religions to go about their ways, under the guise of defending the (criminally misunderstood) separation of church and state, when in reality it is nothing more than attacking one group's freedom of expression - everything from fining people holding bible studies in their homes; to arresting people for handing out christian pamphlets; suspending students for holding private conversations about Christianity and/or bringing their bibles to school; universities refusing admittance of students who come from christian high schools; chaplains being fired for including "Jesus" in their prayers...

There is no valid ability to deny the fact that there exists an increasingly hostility and intolerant mindset towards religion - specifically Christianity in the USA; the great irony being that the most vocal groups fighting against christian/religious belief and expression are doing so under the banner of "tolerance" and "acceptance". completely ignoring the fact that their own beliefs and actions are just as intolerant. I'm not saying that other faiths and ideologies do not face oppression in this country, but the anti-christian movement is definitely one of the largest, most organized and politically backed.

While it deals with the UK, this is a pretty good article about the truth of a growing hypocritical, anti-christian ideology. Before you role your eyes, the person claiming this is British Cabinet Member Sayeeda Warsi - a Muslim:

"...It all hinges on a basic misconception: That to create equality and space for minorities we need to erase our religious heritage."

"You cannot and should not extract these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...im-minister-calls-Christians-stand-faith.html

This... I don't even know where to begin debunking at.
All I have is this:

 

[redhawk23]

How exactly does any of this interfere with government? How does a generic "In God we Trust" interfere? How does a cross at a soldiers' cemetery "interfere" with government? How does a church displaying a manger scene in December "interfere" with government?

If atheist groups actually cared about religion interfering with government, then why are they so silent on Sharia law being used in US courts? Why do people believe it is OK to allow the religious laws of one religion to be considered, and in some examples supersede US law, but these same people lose their minds when seeing a cross in a park?

Let's all be honest here: Many Christians feel that they're being attacked, singled out, etc because they ARE. On a global scale, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

In the US, it has become politically correct by the majority to try and silence christian thought and expression while mostly leaving other religions to go about their ways, under the guise of defending the (criminally misunderstood) separation of church and state, when in reality it is nothing more than attacking one group's freedom of expression - everything from fining people holding bible studies in their homes; to arresting people for handing out christian pamphlets; suspending students for holding private conversations about Christianity and/or bringing their bibles to school; universities refusing admittance of students who come from christian high schools; chaplains being fired for including "Jesus" in their prayers...

The question at hand is why should "In God We Trust" be used as our national motto? Why should it be displayed upon one of the most common and widespread representations of our country and our influence?

Churches can display whatever they want on their own property. It becomes a problem when it is outside courthouses or on municipal property or using public funds.

Please point to one real example of people being arrested for giving out Christian pamphlets.

It is hilarious to see Christians bemoaning Sharia law, and then try to shape policy to context-free understandings of Leviticus.

The bit about the universities often has to do with the accreditation of the high schools in question as well as the quality of education they offer in certain subjects (This is also a growing concerns with schools in states that allow for religious influence to gut their science curricula in public schools).

Challenging the longstanding hegemonic power of the dominant group within society hardly qualifies as persecution.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

If you're an atheist and it bothers you then just don't say those three words on the off chance you have to recite the pledge.

 

[redhawk23]

Now as for the actual persecution of Christians, outside of the "West" this actually is a concern, particularly in a number of Muslim countries. During the Arab Spring protests in Egypt for example, several different rallies transformed into excuses to beat Coptics. Similar occurrences have taken place in Syria involving the rebels there. In several other countries, Christians and other non-Muslims face many challenges in their communities and from local laws. Such situations are EXACTLY the reason people here in the United States wish to keep religious affiliation out our laws and out of official mottos and mission statements of our country.

 

[redhawk23]

If you're an atheist and it bothers you then just don't say those three words on the off chance you have to recite the pledge.

Again, why should they be in the pledge at all? They weren't there before, why should they be?

 

[Bat-Mite]

I'm sorry but I feel like people are arguing this **** just to argue. This is by far the most ridiculous atheist vs non atheist argument I've heard to date.

It's not like schools are whipping children if they don't bend a knee and pray to Jesus or Ala or Odin or whatever the hell you want. The comments like "why should we endure! why should we just skip saying God and have to endure hearing the very word spoken from other classmates!"

It's a solution, you skip over saying Under God. It's that simple. Take 2 seconds out of your day to skip 3 words in a phrase you'll say up to about the age of 18 yrs old (its not like your boss makes you say the pledge before you sit down at your cubicle).

The ridiculous thing about it is that those words were added into the pledge in the first place. A child shouldn't HAVE to skip over mentioning a god in the pledge. It shouldn't be something that they're ever pressured into in the first place. If you have an actually compelling argument as to why those words should stay, give it; instead, all I've seen is that it should stay (just because) and anyone who doesn't like it needs to sit down and shut up. If people took that defeatist attitude in the 60's, kids would still be forced to say prayers to a god that they don't believe in. Being pressured into saying a pledge involving the deity isn't much better.

 

[Teelie]

Now as for the actual persecution of Christians, outside of the "West" this actually is a concern, particularly in a number of Muslim countries. During the Arab Spring protests in Egypt for example, several different rallies transformed into excuses to beat Coptics. Similar occurrences have taken place in Syria involving the rebels there. In several other countries, Christians and other non-Muslims face many challenges in their communities and from local laws. Such situations are EXACTLY the reason people here in the United States wish to keep religious affiliation out our laws and out of official mottos and mission statements of our country.

Let's flip this around, shall we? Replace outside western countries with inside western countries, make it Christian countries, then talk about discrimination against Muslims and virtually anyone not Christian and see what you get. A mirror. Such is why when I hear Christians complaining of being attacked in a North American or European country I have to wonder what they think is happening to Muslims in their community, or Jews, or Sikhs, Buddhists, anyone not them.

 

[Breogan]

You don't have to live here....?

Testimony of Native American when forced by puritans to covert Christianity, to live on his own land.

"When they said the devil was my God, I was angry, because I was proud. I loved to pray to many Gods..."

we can get super stupid here and put "In God(s)"

Explain why recognizing many gods is "stupid"? But only one god smart?

Tradition!?

we can get super stupid .....so that we can please everyone.I don't care.

The default could be god and you can say or not say whatever you want. I don't care.

If you don't care, , how about we remove it since it wasn't either on the original pledge or money, and it becomes a none issue.
What exactly are you defending?

Tradition!?