#11 by ParaTed2k Friday, September 16, 2005 I have yet to find one supporter of the "Under God" statement added in 1954 to tell me how they would feel if "Under Allah" was in the pledge Actually, when a Muslim says it, they are saying "Under Allah". My copy of The Holy Qur'an reads "God" in the english language column of every page that refers to Allah.

That still did not answer my question though. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are spinning the topic of the Question. Would you have a problem saying "Under Allah"?

I have two Muslim friends and had one professor that all say that the word "God" is the Christian God. They also find that using the word "god" would also be offensive to their beliefs. Because if you’re going to pray to Allah, then say his name properly and not use a generic what could be a pagan name. When I have been at their house or work during prayer time I have never heard them say God, only Allah. Both my friends only speak English too.

---Lee1776 I'll ask again, as I did over on Modman's thread: how about "under ~~a~~ God"? There's no offense in that statement, unless you're in the atheist minority.

Yes, I do find it offensive. Yes, I am a member of the atheist minority. I normally don't wear my beliefs on my shoulder, because ones beliefs should be their own and I don’t try to force my faith into other people brains by requiring them to recite a god or the God. But you would be surprise at how much negative reaction/pressure you get from religious people when they find out that I am an atheist. I was a practicing Catholic until I changed my faiths, and I never received as even close to as much prejudice or looks of discust from people before my change. Do you have a problem with speaking to an Atheist? I have more morals then most of the religious people I know, and I did not get that from a Church or a Book. I got it from my family and from with in myself.

Just out of research for yourself, be a devils advocate and tell a group of people that you’re talking to that you’re an Atheist and see what reaction you get.

To BakerStreet:

Ah, yes, EoIC returns to let us all know that we don't know anything. How wonderful that you are so enlightened. Just how does that happen, do you think?

It happens through more than ten years of post-graduate study in the field of political philosophy. Ignorance is not a sin - but the arrogance of ignorance is. The depth of your lack of understanding of the most basic issues of civility and citizenship astounds me. You are, without a doubt, that fool who would have done better to keep silence and be thought a fool, rather than opening his mouth and proving himself a fool beyond all doubt.

How about some fish and bread while you are enlightening us?

Personally, I'd prefer to let you starve. It's a cheap way of cleansing the gene pool.

I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you.

lol... feel free, and I'll grant it all the esteem it deserves.

Personally, I'd prefer to let you starve. It's a cheap way of cleansing the gene pool. I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you.

Personally,I'd be careful how hard you step on this one Simon. Bakerstreet has a rather large following and it is not an undeserved one.

My first reaction to hearing the news of this federal judge's ruling was that I would like to take him out back and put a bullet in him. Then I realized that I was thinking like a terrorist.

I begrudgingly have to admit that the judge was correct in his ruling.

I will say this though, I find it amusing that the "anit-pledge" people are using our own constitution to institute minority rule.

If I moved to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or any other middle eastern country and they had an "under Allah" pledge, I would more than likely just have to live with it, move away or get my head chopped off. I guess that's what makes our country so much better. Two sets of parents in California can change the laws for hundreds of thousands of other parents for the sake of not offending them.

God Bless The USA!!! You gotta love it

Whatever else that body politic is under it is most definitely under and subject to the State, whose only interest in the body of citizens is in whether or not they obey the law. As a private man a citizen may believe what he wishes. As a public man he must obey and uphold the law, and he must express in his life those principles which the term 'citizen' expresses. Once you grasp these simple principles all the aggression, malice and confusion is drawn from the foolish and self-serving 'debate' between 'Left' and 'Right'.

Actually, I would say that the State's primary interest in the average citizen is that they pay their taxes and keep the State operating. As well, that they vote for whomever is currently referred to as the "State" so that they may remain in office another few years. In fact, one of the most important duties of a citizen is to vote into office, people who will represent their ideals and create laws to reflect those ideals.

I have provided you a link to the citizenship oath.

Link

Now maybe you skipped class the day they taught the citizenship oath during your ten years of post-graduate study because I simply don’t know where you are coming from. Now I certainly don't have ten years of post-graduate study under my belt, but I am well versed in reading and writing and I just can't find a reference to obeying the law in this oath. I see that I am to take up arms to defend the law if necessary. Perhaps you went to school in Canada where indeed they do specifically mention the necessity of observing the laws of Canada.

Link

It happens through more than ten years of post-graduate study in the field of political philosophy

If you spent 10 years in post-graduate study of philosophy, then I would guess your job in some way or another is to think. In that case, I would surmise you are highly over paid. While you put together a nice sounding dribble of words that require most people without 10 years of post-graduate school to pull out a dictionary for translation, you really make almost no point other than that you are better educated than the average citizen and you therefore consider your point of view to be the mightier and ergo, the correct one.

Simon responded in kind. Your concern is touching, drmiler, but more than a trifle condescending. My Husband is a big boy and he can take care of himself, even against the likes of Big Bad Baker and his band of followers.

I don't see how you would think my statement was condescending. All it is, is a personal "observation". In "NO" way am I assuming an air of superiority by saying it. Which is what the word means. If anything, Simon's reply #14 was a lot more condescending than anything I said. In #14 he takes the previous statemnt apart bit by bit and basically said the person didn't know a lot. " The only passage in the above assorted bag of tawdry prejudice, partisan spleen,
". He then proceeds to say the rest of the people who comented on the thread don't either: "For those who don't understand the intersection of civics and religion (which would be all of you who have so far commented) let me put that issue plainly ". So who was being condescending? If that post was not affecting an air of superiority then I don't know what is.

I don't see how you would think my statement was condescending. All it is, is a personal "observation". In "NO" way am I assuming an air of superiority by saying it. Which is what the word means.

No, no drmiler, whip is right. You are certainly condescening when compared to the vaulted emporer. You really should try to be more humble like he, for example:

For those who don't understand the intersection of civics and religion (which would be all of you who have so far commented) let me put that issue plainly -

or better yet:

It happens through more than ten years of post-graduate study in the field of political philosophy. Ignorance is not a sin - but the arrogance of ignorance is. The depth of your lack of understanding of the most basic issues of civility and citizenship astounds me. You are, without a doubt, that fool who would have done better to keep silence and be thought a fool, rather than opening his mouth and proving himself a fool beyond all doubt.

And here's the epitomy of humility:

Personally, I'd prefer to let you starve. It's a cheap way of cleansing the gene pool. I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you.

So really drmiler, please try to be a little more civil and let's not be so condescending to the ever humble emperor.

Now maybe you skipped class the day they taught the citizenship oath during your ten years of post-graduate study because I simply don’t know where you are coming from. Now I certainly don't have ten years of post-graduate study under my belt, but I am well versed in reading and writing and I just can't find a reference to obeying the law in this oath. I see that I am to take up arms to defend the law if necessary. Perhaps you went to school in Canada where indeed they do specifically mention the necessity of observing the laws of Canada.

Sorry dude but you missed it.

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; Or this section: that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America

Just what do you think those highlighteed portions mean?

I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you

Yep, the same as we'll do to you.

You should fear Him, then, if that's the case.

I fear GOd about as much as I do the Easter Bunny... and I wouldn't want government policy to be set according to a fear of either mythological creature. Frankly I prefer reason.

Sorry dude but you missed it.

All your highlights fail to show me the word obey, which is what the esteemed emperor claims.

Anyways, you are engaging in semantics. I was merely saying that the Emperor's claim that the States only concern is that we obey it's laws is false and more so that in reality, they are much more concerned with whether or not we pay our taxes and vote for them. Very simple.

Anyways, you are engaging in semantics. I was merely saying that the Emperor's claim that the States only concern is that we obey it's laws is false and more so that in reality, they are much more concerned with whether or not we pay our taxes and vote for them. Very simple.

Here's more proof of that by way of a link to the official FBI website:

Link

Total number of FBI employees: 28,576.

Total special agents: 12,156.

Total support professionals: 16,420, including more than 1,300 analysts and more than 1,000 information technology experts.

Wow, that's 28,576 federal agents there to make sure we obey the laws. Well let's look at the IRS (by the way, much harder to find this data):

Link

How bout compared to the gargantuan size of the FBI at 28,576; let's try on 115,000 for size. But there is reason for rejoice, they are talking about lowering the IRS work force down to 85,000. Then they'll be only three times as big as the FBI rather that four.

You're so afraid that God might actually be a part of daily life. Why?

It is not God in daily life as much as it is the ilk of Robinson and Falwell telling us what He thinks.

re: "Why do so many fear God's involvement in government?" I don't think people really do. So far, God hasn't offered to be involved in government. I think it has something to do with all that "free will" stuff.

I think most people fear people who CLAIM to be representing God in government, with no valid credentials to that effect...