{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/22/2014 7:15:06 AM
29
"Just don't say it." is an awful argument. It shouldn't be in the pledge at all. It implies that the US Government supports one religion over all others. Since God is capitilized, it becomes a proper noun referring to the Christian God. You cannot say it is a seperation of church and state, when your very pledge condones one religion in particular.
If you want to say it, go ahead, but it shouldn't be in the source template that every American child is indoctrinated with.
The Founding Fathers would be sickened with what America has become. News outlets aren't news, they are uneducated reporters doing opinion pieces on topics they having no business talking. We prize getting the correct answer in school over knowhing to get an answer. Our gun rights and militias have been severely restricted. We owe trillions in debt to foreign nations we aren't even allied with. We protect a nation because of it's religious beliefs, and we have to have lawsuits kver something that shouldn't have existed in the first place. All the people supporting it being in the pledge can't even comprehend the environment they support our government to run in.
English
-
You can't capitalize verbal communication because you can not actually see how the words are spelt. If I said out loud; there, they're, and their, you wouldn't know the difference, therefor "because the G is capitalized it is the Christian..." Is also an awful argument
-
由Jim the Admin编辑： 11/24/2014 3:37:28 AM[quote]You can't capitalize verbal communication because you can not actually see how the words are spelt. If I said out loud; there, they're, and their, you wouldn't know the difference,[/quote]Apparently context and the rules of English grammar do not help distinguish between the there's when you say them out loud. [quote][url=https://www.sos.wa.gov/flag/pledge.aspx]I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.[/url][/quote] What about not having a capitalized G? [quote]therefor "because the G is capitalized it is the Christian..." Is also an awful argument[/quote]If you actually knew about the historical context, you'd understand why that is valid. It may be referring to Jehovah, it most certainly isn't referring to Allah, and it is definitely referring to the "one true God" of the Christian religion. The KofC and Eisenhower knew their constituency and the constituency was being stirred by a rousing bout of patriotism and anti-communism.
-
Perhaps even that we have a pledge in the first place. But the inclusion of Under God in the pledge we already do have extends beyond PC, I feel. I feel we have a lot of current government functions that are contrary to the founding father's beliefs as they expressed them.
-
No, it couldn't. It means God, the christian God. Eisenhower chose "In God we trust" as our nation's motto. Eisenhower, who was a baptized Chrisitian. The KofC also pushed for "Under God" to be added to the pledge. Which he also endorsed to Congress It does not mean any God, because of the sentence's structure and also because of the historical context. Communists were athiest, Americans hate Communists and are good Christians.
-
Condones, but shouldnt support, this is a secular country, or was intended to be. Favoring christians started when they added that bit to the pledge and currency in the 50s, and its obvious how well christian opinions are represented in our gov now.
-
Is the definition of "support" do weak now that mentioning "God" counts as support? I can tell you right now that many Christians and other religious people are frankly upset with how the government is right now anyway haha
-
由Capiton Render编辑： 11/26/2014 12:44:47 PMHow are they upset, because the government isnt/is favoring their religious views when setting laws and legislation? Religion shouldnt be setting a precedent for how are laws are formed. Prime example is marriage. Religious pundit argue that marriage isnt a right and that it is a religious creation. Both are false, marriage has been around longer than written language and religion, it was a social contract to bind families for the purpose of survival, and not about love. It is a right,because married couples gain a myriad of government benefits, that when you restrict who can marry, you are creating a lesser class determined by what they have access to, therefore making them 'lesser' citizens.
-
[quote]God is capitalized in Islamic faith as well as Judaism. Also, the US "condones" [b]all[/b] religions. That's freedom of religion for ya.[/quote] Ignore the historical context and you sort of have a point, almost.
