NBC omits "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Wow....

@Commando said:

So since I know there are a few Atheists who post here, does it offend you at all when people say "Under God" in the pledge?

I'm not offended by it at all, but I don't think NBC left it out so as not to offend atheists. I'm pretty sure it was left out so as not to offend people that don't worship a Christian god, which is what the writers of the pledge were referring to. I still feel that it should be left out because not everyone (especially 1st generation immigrants) should feel obligated to pledge allegiance to a christian state before they can be considered an American, since reciting the pledge is the last thing that someone must do to become a naturalized citizen. The US isn't even supposed to be a christian nation in the first place. In fact, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state, which is why some people feel that the pledge should be revised.

meh

@Commando said:

@bonorbitz said:

When God is proven to exist, then I'll be fine with putting that line back in there.

So you're saying the Big Bang Theory should be proven before they take it out?

uh, hasn't it been proven?

wait! it says big bang THEORY, which means it is not fact YET. so there

I have to imagine that if you're offended at all by this, you're not doing it right.

How surprising a website full of "atheists" who bash anything and everything that has to do with religion don't mind the change.  My opinion, NBC like most media are a bunch of morons.  If you need to save time and are concerned about offending people here is a protip, just omit the whole thing.  It isn't like the viewers at home are going to know you left it out.  Truth is most of the people whining about the under god part still wouldn't want to hear the pledge or say it regardless of whether or not that part was taken out.  And PS guys who clearly know jack about religion, almost every religious group on the planet uses or recognizes the word "God" not just Christians so please stop trying to single them out.

@Commando said:

@bonorbitz said:

When God is proven to exist, then I'll be fine with putting that line back in there.

So you're saying the Big Bang Theory should be proven before they take it out?

uh, hasn't it been proven?

wait! it says big bang THEORY, which means it is not fact YET. so there

Seems like everyday, slowly but surely, we get one step closer to getting rid of religion. Fuck yes.

Good job, NBC.

@bushpusherr said:

@Laketown said:

@Commando said:

@bonorbitz said:

When God is proven to exist, then I'll be fine with putting that line back in there.

So you're saying the Big Bang Theory should be proven before they take it out?

uh, hasn't it been proven?

wait! it says big bang THEORY, which means it is not fact YET. so there

You do realize that gravity is still "just" a theory right (as well as germ theory, thermodynamics, etc)? If that shakes your confidence at all, why don't you step outside and jump, see if you fall into the sky. The word theory in the scientific community does not mean to same thing as it does in normal, every day dialect.

Well gravity is something that can be proven/disproven some day. The "Big Bang Theory" is something that will never be proven or disproven. It will always remain a theory, until if/when the "Big Crunch" occurs.

Why would they say the Pledge of Allegiance like it's a fricking elementary school classroom and not sing the Star Spangled Banner like normal sporting events do? 

@Commando:

Gravity isn't a theory, its a law.

Anyways, most people still get caught up on the difference between a theory outside of science, versus the usage of a theory in science.

When people outside of science say theory, they are thinking hypothesis.

In science a theory is the second highest level a hypothesis can reach. It requires multiple internal and external review and proof of function.

The Big Bang as a model has had enough "proof" in terms of calculated physics to test it as a theory. But science accepts that all things are fallible.

@bushpusherr said:

You do realize that gravity is still "just" a theory right (as well as germ theory, thermodynamics, etc)? If that shakes your confidence at all, why don't you step outside and jump, see if you fall into the sky. The word theory in the scientific community does not mean to same thing as it does in normal, every day dialect.

Well gravity is something that can be proven/disproven some day. The "Big Bang Theory" is something that will never be proven or disproven. It will always remain a theory, until if/when the "Big Crunch" occurs.

Seems like everyday, slowly but surely, we get one step closer to getting rid of religion. Fuck yes.

@antikorper:

Silly you, I do believe you have a typo in your post. You should have said "One step close to Secularism." That is the idea of government separate from religion.

Socialism, you see, is a political ideology that states the means of production in a society should be jointly owned by all of a nations people.

I know, its an easy mistake, both starting with the letter "S" and such, but be sure to not make the same mistake in the future. You wouldn't want people to think you were some kind of moron or anything.

@AmandaRenee480 said:

@oatz said:

It blows my mind that teenagers/young adults who browse the Internet and post on video game forums somehow are still religious.

Because? I'm 22, a Christian and like video games and use the internet. I don't see how that wouldn't make me religious. I just try to be careful of what I look at and don't look at.

Good thinking. Otherwise you might accidentally stumble upon the truth or something.

@Zithe said:

@AmandaRenee480 said:

@oatz said:

It blows my mind that teenagers/young adults who browse the Internet and post on video game forums somehow are still religious.

Because? I'm 22, a Christian and like video games and use the internet. I don't see how that wouldn't make me religious. I just try to be careful of what I look at and don't look at.

Good thinking. Otherwise you might accidentally stumble upon the truth or something.

Keep this crap out of here k? Make another thread if you want to dispute religion or scientific theories.

@Commando said:

@Zithe said:

@AmandaRenee480 said:

@oatz said:

It blows my mind that teenagers/young adults who browse the Internet and post on video game forums somehow are still religious.

Because? I'm 22, a Christian and like video games and use the internet. I don't see how that wouldn't make me religious. I just try to be careful of what I look at and don't look at.

Good thinking. Otherwise you might accidentally stumble upon the truth or something.

Keep this crap out of here k? Make another thread if you want to dispute religion or scientific theories.

Word. People can believe in what they want to believe in. Keep that bullshit out of here.

@ElBarto said:

If you leave it in Atheists just cry about spaghetti monsters and fairy tails, if you take it out Christians complain about not respecting religions and the "sanctity" of the country and the pledge. 

So the appropriate course of action is to not mention it all all; not endorse any position.  Atheists/Secularists don't want to pledge to read "and under no Gods...", they are calling for a neutral position, not one that reinforces theirs.

All this religion talk. Listen guys, there is only one universal truth:

War Never Changes.

There's only one God though. And the US was undoubtedly founded upon Biblical principles. I think it's a shame that this kind of thing is happening more and more.  

Gravity is not a theory, it's as much of a theory as the theory that we exist at all.

But as to the original question, sure its part of the pledge of alliegance, but its also a statement that many people find aggrovating or even offensive to hear. As the pledge was written to represent all Americans, not just those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Also as for letting people believing what they want... There are numerous problems with 'letting' people believe what they want, but theres no need to extrapolate.

@AmandaRenee480 said:

There's only one God though. And the US was undoubtedly founded upon Biblical principles. I think it's a shame that this kind of thing is happening more and more.

Amanda, it is a common misconception, but the United States was not founded on any judeo-christian ideology. In fact, the founders, who were mostly Deists (belief in a creator who has no direct influence on peoples life) as well as a hodgepodge of atheists, agnostics and other (with a few Christians thrown in there for good measure.)

Nowhere in the the Constitution will you find any reference to God (capital G, it talks about divine providence, but that is a deist term) Jesus or Christianity. In fact it only references religion when talking prohibiting the exclusion of religion.

To even hammer the point in more, the founders were not vague in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli:

... The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Most people get the whole "Christian nation" idea due to the origins of the British Colonies, who were all Puritan Christians. But a lot changes in a few hundred years. You can still see the division between the founding of the country and the founding of the colonies by simply examining many New England Constitutions. Much of them were just minor tweaks to the already existing charters, and are soaked heavily in Christian ideology. the nation itself, though, is not.

@antikorper:

Silly you, I do believe you have a typo in your post. You should have said "One step close to Secularism." That is the idea of government separate from religion.

Socialism, you see, is a political ideology that states the means of production in a society should be jointly owned by all of a nations people.

I know, its an easy mistake, both starting with the letter "S" and such, but be sure to not make the same mistake in the future. You wouldn't want people to think you were some kind of moron or anything.

@antikorper: You are incorrect. What you are referencing is Communism, not Socialism.

@AmandaRenee480 said:

There's only one God though. And the US was undoubtedly founded upon Biblical principles. I think it's a shame that this kind of thing is happening more and more.

Amanda, it is a common misconception, but the United States was not founded on any judeo-christian ideology. In fact, the founders, who were mostly Deists (belief in a creator who has no direct influence on peoples life) as well as a hodgepodge of atheists, agnostics and other (with a few Christians thrown in there for good measure.)

No where in the the constitution will you find any reference to God (capital G, it talks about divine providence, but that is a deist term) Jesus or Christianity. In fact it only references religion when talking prohibiting the exclusion of religion.

To even hammer the point in more, the founders were not vague in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli:

... The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Most people get the whole "Christian nation" idea due to the origins of the British Colonies, who were all Puritan Christians. But a lot changes in a few hundred years. You can still see the division between the founding of the country and the founding of the colonies by simply examining many New England Constitutions. Much of them were just minor tweaks to the already existing charters, and are soaked heavily in Christian ideology. the nation itself, though, is not.

All this religion talk. Listen guys, there is only one universal truth:

War Never Changes.

@bushpusherr said:

@ElBarto said:

If you leave it in Atheists just cry about spaghetti monsters and fairy tails, if you take it out Christians complain about not respecting religions and the "sanctity" of the country and the pledge. 

So the appropriate course of action is to not mention it all all; not endorse any position.  Atheists/Secularists don't want to pledge to read "and under no Gods...", they are calling for a neutral position, not one that reinforces theirs.

It's too late for that though.  The only thing that can be done is to get rid of the pledge entirely and if you tried that then the patriots of the nation would go bonkers.All I was pointing out was that no matter what happens people are going to bitch about it because it doesn't fit their views.

They were right in leaving the god part out. Separation of church and state all the way.

@TomA said:

The religious part of the pledge is nice. It was made by religious people and it's only goal was to try and publicly state that they wanted the country to be well taken care of by God. If you're not religious than you don't have to agree with it. It shouldnt offend anybody. This just lends to the fact that non religious people persecute people much more than most religious people do, even though that's one of the main reasons alot of people say they are atheist.

BHAHAHAH ah man, that was good. thanks.

Pledging allegiance to a country is weird anyway.

@powerpc127 said:

@Commando said:

So since I know there are a few Atheists who post here, does it offend you at all when people say "Under God" in the pledge?

I'm not offended by it at all, but I don't think NBC left it out so as not to offend atheists. I'm pretty sure it was left out so as not to offend people that don't worship a Christian god, which is what the writers of the pledge were referring to. I still feel that it should be left out because not everyone (especially 1st generation immigrants) should feel obligated to pledge allegiance to a christian state before they can be considered an American, since reciting the pledge is the last thing that someone must do to become a naturalized citizen. The US isn't even supposed to be a christian nation in the first place. In fact, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state, which is why some people feel that the pledge should be revised.

There's only one God though. And the US was undoubtedly founded upon Biblical principles. I think it's a shame that this kind of thing is happening more and more.  

@oatz said: 

It blows my mind that teenagers/young adults who browse the Internet and post on video game forums somehow are still religious.

Because? I'm 22, a Christian and like video games and use the internet. I don't see how that wouldn't make me religious. I just try to be careful of what I look at and don't look at. 

@oatz: I know a metric ton of Christians, they run the gambit. Some avoid what you would called "evidence" because it is subversive and blasphemes God. To view that type of stuff, actually is a sin. Others actively hunt out that information to learn and self-examine from. Some of it, through introspection, strengthens their faith.

On the flip side, I know plenty of Atheists and Agnostics. Probably more than Christians. I never see them going to sites online, written by Christians, attempting to prove their faith. They stay in a small circle, never leaping out. they are also careful at avoiding opposing viewpoints that are on equal ground intellectually. Sure they pick on the low-hanging fruit, it makes them feel good, but I see them quickly steer away from a mind equal to theirs.

Ultimately, Atheists and Christians, most anyways, seem to be the same side of the coin. They both deal with absolutes, and often ignore all things contradictory to ensure nothing shatters their viewpoint.

Glass Houses. :T

'Of note: "under God" was not in the original pledge from 1892, which read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The words "under God" were not added to the pledge until 1954, when President Eisenhower signed Congressional legislation to that effect into law.'
 
So... you make a pledge, and complain when someone alters it to a original version.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I

@AmandaRenee480 said:

@powerpc127 said:

@Commando said:

So since I know there are a few Atheists who post here, does it offend you at all when people say "Under God" in the pledge?

I'm not offended by it at all, but I don't think NBC left it out so as not to offend atheists. I'm pretty sure it was left out so as not to offend people that don't worship a Christian god, which is what the writers of the pledge were referring to. I still feel that it should be left out because not everyone (especially 1st generation immigrants) should feel obligated to pledge allegiance to a christian state before they can be considered an American, since reciting the pledge is the last thing that someone must do to become a naturalized citizen. The US isn't even supposed to be a christian nation in the first place. In fact, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state, which is why some people feel that the pledge should be revised.

There's only one God though. And the US was undoubtedly founded upon Biblical principles. I think it's a shame that this kind of thing is happening more and more.  

@oatz said: 

It blows my mind that teenagers/young adults who browse the Internet and post on video game forums somehow are still religious.

Because? I'm 22, a Christian and like video games and use the internet. I don't see how that wouldn't make me religious. I just try to be careful of what I look at and don't look at. 

One can wonder why a person would do that to themselves. You don't think it's like locking your mind in a box? Having so much evidence around you yet avoiding it because of something you were taught as a child?

@mrv321: To add on. The national motto "In God We Trust" didn't exist until 1956.

Both the addition of God on money and oath were an attempt by congress to distinguish ourselves from the "godless Soviets," since Communism does not endorse religious segregation of society.

The whole "under god" line was added by the Knights of Columbus in the 1950's.  Apparently, they were afraid of the growing unfaithfulness of the American people ( go figure).  If it was added basically on demand, it should also be removed. 

@mrv321: To add on. The national motto "In God We Trust" didn't exist until 1956.

Both the addition of God on money and oath were an attempt by congress to distinguish ourselves from the "godless Soviets," since Communism does not endorse religious segregation of society.

@allworkandlowpay said:

@oatz: I know a metric ton of Christians, they run the gambit. Some avoid what you would called "evidence" because it is subversive and blasphemes God. To view that type of stuff, actually is a sin. Others actively hunt out that information to learn and self-examine from. Some of it, through introspection, strengthens their faith.

On the flip side, I know plenty of Atheists and Agnostics. Probably more than Christians. I never see them going to sites online, written by Christians, attempting to prove their faith. They stay in a small circle, never leaping out. they are also careful at avoiding opposing viewpoints that are on equal ground intellectually. Sure they pick on the low-hanging fruit, it makes them feel good, but I see them quickly steer away from a mind equal to theirs.

Ultimately, Atheists and Christians, most anyways, seem to be the same side of the coin. They both deal with absolutes, and often ignore all things contradictory to ensure nothing shatters their viewpoint.

Glass Houses. :T

Atheists do not always deal in absolutes. I, as an atheist, can accept that there may be a God. I have no doubt about my beliefs, but am rational about the meaning of knowledge. Theists do always deal in absolutes, so well done for at least recognising a distinction.

Your view of "equal minds" seems to contradict your statement about "low hanging fruit". I regard this as an implied insult.

From your comments, I'd guess you have some faith.

As many have affirmed, mentions of "under God" and "In God We Trust" were adopted during Eisenhower's reign in the 1950s. I would add that the propagation of religion and its coalescing into American national identity was an enterprise of the Republican Party to keep the populace spellbound and docile in the face of the "threat" of Communism, and the embellishment of such a threat supported that purpose. It served as a means of union for the people, instilled greater piety and patriotism, and also deflected attention from the illicit affairs of the privileged elite to the external menace of the Soviet ideal.
 
America is the only country on Earth with secular ideals ingrained deeply into its constitution. Your founding fathers inaugurated your great nation on paradigms such as the separation of church and state. Yet, decades on, the staple American citizen decries desecration of their cultural identity if not bequeathed the federally-allocated allowance of admission of religious dogmatism. I'm not attacking religion as a whole; under your right to the freedom of speech and expression one can assuredly practise and preach whatever supernatural ideology they subscribe to. My point is that there's nothing at all fundamentally American about pronouncements of adherence to Judeo-Christian doctrine; it's merely a political tool crowbarred into your national consciousness which has sadly stuck.

@ChristianConservativeVinny said:

@homewrecker said:

@tplarkin7 said:

The broadcast networks are out of touch. They have been that way since the 70s. Every decade gets worse and worse. Pretty soon they'll sing a pledge of allegiance to Satan. I agree with Twitchey. NBC is a private company. If they want to dabble in voodoo and smear mayonnaise all over their bodies, they're free to do that. I'll just flip over to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

I...what?

lol lookit dis slow-ass mofugga not knowin what trollin is I'm actually surprised more people didn't respond to that post since this ENTIRE site is so terrible at distinguishing troll posts from posts made in earnest.

I didn't think it was someone genuinely against NBC, I just thought that they were speaking using a lot of irony and I didn't know what point they were trying to make.

@diz said:

I, as an atheist, can accept that there may be a God.

Wouldn't this statement make you agnostic, not an atheist?

@diz said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

@oatz: I know a metric ton of Christians, they run the gambit. Some avoid what you would called "evidence" because it is subversive and blasphemes God. To view that type of stuff, actually is a sin. Others actively hunt out that information to learn and self-examine from. Some of it, through introspection, strengthens their faith.

On the flip side, I know plenty of Atheists and Agnostics. Probably more than Christians. I never see them going to sites online, written by Christians, attempting to prove their faith. They stay in a small circle, never leaping out. they are also careful at avoiding opposing viewpoints that are on equal ground intellectually. Sure they pick on the low-hanging fruit, it makes them feel good, but I see them quickly steer away from a mind equal to theirs.

Ultimately, Atheists and Christians, most anyways, seem to be the same side of the coin. They both deal with absolutes, and often ignore all things contradictory to ensure nothing shatters their viewpoint.

Glass Houses. :T

Atheists do not always deal in absolutes. I, as an atheist, can accept that there may be a God. I have no doubt about my beliefs, but am rational about the meaning of knowledge. Theists do always deal in absolutes, so well done for at least recognising a distinction.

Your view of "equal minds" seems to contradict your statement about "low hanging fruit". I regard this as an implied insult.

From your comments, I'd guess you have some faith.

I actually have faith in nothing. I simply don't deal in absolutes. There could be a god, they could not be, I do not know, and it seems rather irrelevant in the grand scheme. I find most Atheists today are "capital A" atheists. It has been morphed into a religion upon itself, a religion of antithesis and antagonism.

As for how you find equal minds and low hanging fruit an implied insult, I'd like for you to elaborate. I'll elaborate my comment further to see if it clarifies.

If you spend time watching capital "A" Atheists operate on the web, they do hit and run tactics. They, like many Christians on the web, when not staying in their circle, will band together and attack the weakest point of the antithesis ideology. If confronted with a person who can defend their viewpoint with an equal intellectual rigor, most capital "A" Atheists will flee. Whether they see it as too much work to fight, or maybe they are afraid of the conflict, I don't know, but usually on the web it's a big fish eats little fish scenario. Hence the low-hanging fruit. That isn't an absolute, of course. There are plenty of atheists who debate on equal intellectual grounds.

As for absolutes. Certainly a Christian always deals in absolutes. But Atheists do as well.

My worry is that atheism has been taken over as of late by this radical capital "A" type Atheism, which is far more anti-theism and atheism. It seems dangerous to me, since it simply replaces one aggressive absolute with another. There is no difference in my mind between someone saying "I'm right, there is a god, and anybody who says otherwise is wrong," than there is someone saying "I'm right, there is no god, and anybody who says otherwise is wrong." Both lead to superiority complexes, a lack of moral plurality, and dealings with dangerous absolutes.

But I digress.

I'd like to know how the low hanging fruit was an insult.

@bonorbitz said:

@diz said:

I, as an atheist, can accept that there may be a God.

Wouldn't this statement make you agnostic, not an atheist?

I don't think so: agnosticism is about claims to knowledge, whereas atheism is specifically about belief in God.

I am therefore an agnostic atheist and think the reasoning for my lack of a belief in God is a direct result of my inability to accept absolute claims to knowledge.

Such definitions of atheism and agnosticism are not new, or unique to me.

I think America needs to get over religion, it's starting to but not nearly fast enough.
 
The media is overreacting, but then again when does the media not overreact?

@diz:

From the Free Dictionary online:

ag·nos·ti·cism

n.1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

a·the·ism

n.1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

atheism, by definition, requires an absolute affirment.

Good for them, that part should never have been in there to begin with

@allworkandlowpay:

There are multiple forms of atheist. Mainly, gnostic and agnostic atheism. Both believe that there is no god, but a agnostic atheist (like myself) does not claim to know that that belief is correct, while a gnostic one does.

@allworkandlowpay said:

@diz:

From the Free Dictionary online:

ag·nos·ti·cism

n.1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

a·the·ism

n.1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

atheism, by definition, requires an absolute affirment.

Ya beat me to it. I was thinking you really can't say "agnostic atheist" because you can't be both. If you're open to the possibility, then you're agnostic; simple as that.

I'm definitely agnostic. I think there's something else beyond this world as we know it, but I don't know if it involves single or multiple deities. Actually, I doubt it quite a bit.

@bonorbitz said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

@diz:

From the Free Dictionary online:

ag·nos·ti·cism

n.1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

a·the·ism

n.1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

atheism, by definition, requires an absolute affirment.

Ya beat me to it. I was thinking you really can't say "agnostic atheist" because you can't be both. If you're open to the possibility, then you're agnostic; simple as that.

I'm definitely agnostic. I think there's something else beyond this world as we know it, but I don't know if it involves single or multiple deities. Actually, I doubt it quite a bit.

Hey guys, I'm an atheist Catholic.

Oh my god, I don't care!