Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

My idol Chris Crawford wrote an essay exploding the myth that this is a Christian nation. We may be a nation of (mostly) Christians, but we are not a Christian nation.

- Kef

One thing that bothers me is: if the US isn't a Christian nation, why does the Pledge of Allegiance call it "one nation under God"? Very odd...

The phrase "under God", while not without religious meaning, isn't necessarily Christian.

Central to early challenges were the Jehovah's Witnesses, a Christian denomination whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God.

A person can abstain from reciting a Pledge of Allegiance that they don't agree with

racerx_is_alive wrote:

A person can abstain from reciting a Pledge of Allegiance that they don't agree with

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Go to any small-town school in the South or Midwest and ask any second-grader what happens if they refuse to say the Pledge. If by some miracle they don't get punished by the teacher, they sure will be by the other kids.

Furthermore, ask them if they even know what the pledge means. I know nobody ever explained it to me; I'd recited it probably a thousand times before I ever it ever took on any more meaning to me than the alphabet song.

Same-sex marriage is both against my standards and morally wrong if you think about it.

If they really want the same rights as a married couple, one can get a sex change and get married.

morally wrong if you think about it

I have no problem with them being gay, but come ON. If they really want the same rights as a married couple, one can get a sex change and get married.

It is not the couple who needs to change here.

I am against gay marriages. A lot of people seem to be happy with just boy and girl marriages. I think two of the same genders getting married is just very strange and should never happen. Plus, they wouldn't be able to have kids.

Cheatcake, I haven't been on the forums much lately, so I don't really know who you are, but so far you seem to be little more than a common troll. Though if so, I wonder how you could last long enough to get your post count so high. What's going on here?

I really don't support it, because it does not fit with my ever-changing value system.

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:

I really don't support it, because it does not fit with my ever-changing value system.

Why not?

Upsilon wrote:

Why not?

Because it doesn't.

I'm not for gay marriage, but I was against banning it. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that it should be banned (Libertarian/Republican values I have).

I think these constitutional amendments won't be enough, though; they'll probably be declared unconstitutional. It's the Constitution with a capital "C" that counts.

furrykef wrote:

it's clear Bush does not want justices in office that will offer a balance to the American people, but ones that will serve his Evangelically-fueled goals.

Evangelically-fueled goals that a majority of the country seems to approve of, by about 7 times as much as they "approved" of Al Gore! Sorry, I have to play Devil's Advocate here. :sb:

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:00 am ]
Post subject:
I, too, detest the myth that the United States ever was a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson, as well as most of our founding fathers, were Deists. Deists believe in a God, a Creator, but a distant one who does not interact with his creation, a silent observer, if you will. As such, they believed that it was each individual's responsibility to live a life of virtue and goodness. Their morality was somewhat Christian, but not their theology (but then again, ol' TJ owned slaves and had numerous children by them). I also detest what the Puritans of New England did when they founded the Mass. colony. They began systematically persecuting people who were not Puritans, including other Christians. As a Lutheran, they would have lynched me if I lived there. I hate to think what they would have done to, say, a Wican. Oh, wait. Burning. I forgot. Now I have no problem with Christians voicing their political opinions. I've been known to do that on occasion myself. But this American Myth (that the US is now or ever was a "Christian" nation) fosters a sense in which patriotism becomes synonymous with religious faith. What happens then is that whatever the nation does (regardless of whether it is right or wrong, beneficial or destructive) is seen as divine will. For example, if we kill a bunch of Indians and force the rest into exile, then it must be God's will. Or for that matter, if we invade a foreign country with only minor provocation and bomb them back to the stone age (cough cough Iraq cough), then it must be God's will. Would I like to see the US become a Christian nation? Yes, but not politically. I don't want to see the Mass. colonies all over again. It won't happen by electing a president who will make it happen for us. "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and unto God that which is God's." It can AND MUST only happen when Christians do their God-given responsibility of baptizing and making disciples, not by passing new laws that alienate and divide people.

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:29 am ]
Post subject:
furrykef wrote: My idol Chris Crawford wrote an essay exploding the myth that this is a Christian nation. We may be a nation of (mostly) Christians, but we are not a Christian nation. - Kef I liked the essay. Not much I didn't already know, but he did a nice job of connecting the facts together into a very presentable argument. I checked out the rest of his site. Lots of good information about Desiderius Erasmus, who, despite his disagreements with Luther on theology (See "On The Bondage Of The Will"), is one of my heroes from the Reformation. "The Praise of Folly" is a great book.

Author:	furrykef [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:44 am ]
Post subject:
He's one heckuva game designer, too, which is why I (semi-jokingly) call him "my idol" -- he's the guy I look up to, but I'm not a total fanboy -- even though I was rather nervous and embarrassed when I talked to him on the phone. It's hard to find an argument he makes about anything that isn't entirely well-reasoned. I'm sure it happens sometimes (I've seen a few points he's made that I object to from time to time, but it's not often), but you have to be on your toes. - Kef

Author:	Upsilon [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:	"Can (a Christian) God be?" post coming soon, folk
One thing that bothers me is: if the US isn't a Christian nation, why does the Pledge of Allegiance call it "one nation under God"? Very odd...

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: "Can (a Christian) God be?" post coming soon,
Upsilon wrote: One thing that bothers me is: if the US isn't a Christian nation, why does the Pledge of Allegiance call it "one nation under God"? Very odd... Believe me, you're not the only person bothered by this. Even when I was in grade school this always seemed wrong to me, and I was still a Christian (and living in a very monoethnic community) back then. Actually, even without the religious bits the fact that children can be required to recite the Pledge gimme the McCarthy jibblies. I could dig up a blog post I wrote on the subject a long while ago, but I'm too lazy. Anyway, Wikipedia has some information on the California ruling. It's a shame that didn't turn out better.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Same-Sex Marriages http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=647	Page 7 of 23

Author:	Upsilon [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Personally, I find it interesting that a case which so many people feel so strongly about was dismissed as de minimis...

Author:	racerx_is_alive [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: "Can (a Christian) God be?" post coming soon,
Upsilon wrote: One thing that bothers me is: if the US isn't a Christian nation, why does the Pledge of Allegiance call it "one nation under God"? Very odd... The phrase "under God", while not without religious meaning, isn't necessarily Christian. It fits very well with the Deist roots of our founding fathers, as well as many religions. Here's your Pledge History: * 1892 to 1923: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." * 1923 to 1954: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." * 1954 to Present: "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." The "under God" was added to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship. The phrase "nation, under God" previously appeared in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and echoes the Declaration of Independence. On June 8, 1954, Congress adopted this change. I'm not butting in to argue one way or the other here. I just wanted to insert a bit of history (as to the why it's there now), and point out that "under God" isn't just a Christian phrase.

Author:	Upsilon [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:
No, but it is a theist term. And the USA isn't a theist country any more than it is a Christian country.

Author:	racerx_is_alive [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:
The entire pledge is exclusive to certain belief systems as well. From the wikipedia article: Quote: Central to early challenges were the Jehovah's Witnesses, a Christian denomination whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God. This was well before the "under God" phrase was ever added. The California law requiring students to recite the pledge (to me) seems unconstitutional based on this ruling by the Supreme Court. That other students can recite the pledge around them doesn't seem to be unconstitutional to me. I figure if I were to were to want to rid the government of the word "God" I would go after our money first. A person can abstain from reciting a Pledge of Allegiance that they don't agree with, but I'd like to see that same person avoid using money to protest the same point. I think he might have more solid ground going after that issue.

Author:	racerx_is_alive [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:
IJ wrote: racerx_is_alive wrote: A person can abstain from reciting a Pledge of Allegiance that they don't agree with I wouldn't be so sure about that. Go to any small-town school in the South or Midwest and ask any second-grader what happens if they refuse to say the Pledge. If by some miracle they don't get punished by the teacher, they sure will be by the other kids. I agree with you there. But according to the Supreme Court in 1943 it shouldn't be that way. And that's the best way this country has. Set a law (No one is required to recite the pledge, and no one can be punished for refusing to say it,) affix a punishment for breaking that law (I don't know about a recommended punishment for breaking it.) It seems that they need to do a better job of enforcing this law rather than changing the words again. Even if they change the words back to pre-1954, some people will still object to it. For that reason I think that they need to do a better job of educating teachers and students so that they know that reciting the pledge is voluntary and optional, and then perhaps at a state level set up a system for students to report when they are coerced to recite the pledge or salute the flag, and then assign appropriate consequences to those actions. Until then, this toothless law will be ignored by plenty of teachers all over the country. And as far as the kids doing the punishing at recess or after class, kids don't need the pledge to do that. I said the pledge every day through elementary school, but that didn't keep me from being shoved in garbage cans and being beat up on the playground regularly. Just the fact that I had decent grades and wore glasses was plenty of motivation.

Author:	furrykef [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:09 pm ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: Furthermore, ask them if they even know what the pledge means. I know nobody ever explained it to me; I'd recited it probably a thousand times before I ever it ever took on any more meaning to me than the alphabet song. This has always bothered me. A child (except for an exceptionally bright child) won't even know what words like "allegiance" and "indivisible" even mean, let alone be able to put them into context. By the time they're old/mature enough to care, they probably won't. By the way, an interesting little aside here, after the 9/11 attacks, we did the Pledge every morning. Then when we went after Afghanistan, I felt it the war a knee-jerk reaction that wasn't really justified (I still feel that way, just not to extremes anymore). So I lost faith in our country. I stopped reciting the Pledge, and then I refused to stand up for the flag as a protest. The principal told to take my protests elsewhere and if I wouldn't then I could get the heck out of the school. I darn nearly did just that, but my mother put extreme pressure on me not to do it. So I basically kept my head down and did as I was told, though cursing everybody in my mind as I did so. Yeah, I know refusing to stand up for the flag was extreme and unpatriotic. I didn't feel that it was a time for patriotism -- sure, most other people did, but I thought they were mad and I think I should be allowed to express that. It's not like I burned the flag. But with all this talk about preserving freedom that was going on, mine was still being repressed. Freedom is a bed of roses: it has its thorns, too. The most insulting thing about this is that I was told to stop what I was doing because it was working, you know? People noticed. Apparently it's fine to protest so long as nobody notices you... I always hated that principal (I only had to deal with her for my last year, thank goodness), and that pretty much capped it. I'm probably going to visit my old high school again sometime and when I do, I'll have to greatly restrain myself in order to not flip her off if I see her. Ugh. - Kef

Author:	osiris-kitty [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:31 am ]
Post subject:	...
Same-sex marriage is both against my standards and morally wrong if you think about it. I have no problem with them being gay, but come ON. If they really want the same rights as a married couple, one can get a sex change and get married.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ...
osiris-kitty wrote: Same-sex marriage is both against my standards and morally wrong if you think about it. "Morally wrong if you think about it"? If you hadn't noticed, we've spent quite a lot of time thinking about it already. And unless you're a certain brand of religious, it's not "morally wrong". We've been over this. Please read the thread before chiming in. Quote: If they really want the same rights as a married couple, one can get a sex change and get married. What does gay marriage have to do with sex-changes? A gay person has no more desire to change their sex than you do. But in order to recieve the same rights that everybody else has, you think they should have to undergo a series of surgical procedures first? I don't honestly don't get it. It's like I've stepped into the twilight zone.

Author:	furrykef [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: ...
osiris-kitty wrote: morally wrong if you think about it Morally wrong if I think about it? I have thought about it! What I think is morally wrong if anything is telling couples what they can and cannot do with each other. It's their business, not yours. Quote: I have no problem with them being gay, but come ON. If they really want the same rights as a married couple, one can get a sex change and get married. That's about the least sensitive thing I ever heard. Would you want a sex change just so you could marry someone? You're not considering their feelings at all. They love each other the way they are. They shouldn't have to surgically modify themselves just for extra legal rights. You might as well, at the risk of taking an analogy too far, claim that blacks should just bleach their skin if they want the same legal rights as whites. It is not the couple who needs to change here.

Page 7 of 23	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Brunswick Stu [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:
transsexuals can't get married. in the eyes of the government, they're still the gender they were born as.

Author:	Cheatcake [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:06 am ]
Post subject:
Shopiom wrote: I am against gay marriages. A lot of people seem to be happy with just boy and girl marriages. I think two of the same genders getting married is just very strange and should never happen. Plus, they wouldn't be able to have kids. Right you are, shoopim. I'm buying you a pizza!

Author:	furrykef [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:26 am ]
Post subject:
Cheatcake, I haven't been on the forums much lately, so I don't really know who you are, but so far you seem to be little more than a common troll. Though if so, I wonder how you could last long enough to get your post count so high. What's going on here?

Author:	Cheatcake [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:
furrykef wrote: Cheatcake, I haven't been on the forums much lately, so I don't really know who you are, but so far you seem to be little more than a common troll. Though if so, I wonder how you could last long enough to get your post count so high. What's going on here? I'm watching like 55 freakin' threads for replys! And I play the forum games.

Author:	fahooglewitz1077 [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:
I really don't support it, because it does not fit with my ever-changing value system. And that's what I go by. Ohio's Same-Sex Marriage Amendment was on the ballot today, as Issue 1.

Author:	Upsilon [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:
fahooglewitz1077 wrote: I really don't support it, because it does not fit with my ever-changing value system. Why not?

Author:	fahooglewitz1077 [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:
Upsilon wrote: fahooglewitz1077 wrote: I really don't support it, because it does not fit with my ever-changing value system. Why not? Because it doesn't. That's why I'm glad the Ohio Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage passed. Class Dismissed.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:
fahooglewitz1077 wrote: Upsilon wrote: Why not? Because it doesn't. Ah. I'm glad to see you have sound and thoughtful reasoning behind your views. I'ma go out on a limb here and guess that you have the sort of parents who, when you ask them "Why?" they just tell you "Because" and send you to your room if you don't think that's good enough.

Author:	StrongRad [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:
You know, I've been thinking about this ever since it became painfully clear that the constitutional amendmant in KY was gonna pass... I'm not for gay marriage, but I was against banning it. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that it should be banned (Libertarian/Republican values I have). I was against the federal ban, because I felt that issues such as this were best left up to the states, although if there are no reciprocity agreements between all states to recognize same sex marriages, it would be essentiall the same as a fed ban. I thought that the amendmant issues would fail, as most of them were worded poorly and were just too vague. Even though they've been voted on, some may not pass scrutiny under review. Kentucky's for example bans gay marriage, but also civil unions (which can affect straight couples as well.) The one thing to remember in this, though, when we think that religion is running our government is that this issue WAS put to the people, and the people decided they don't want gay marriage. It is a democracy, and the majority does get what they want (regardless of whether or not what they want is a good idea).. OK... Since I haven't slept since 0530 Eastern time yesterday, this probably came off a bit rambly... I tried to sleep a little earlier, but I decided I wanted to watch Kerry and Bush speak, and was afraid that, if I did take a nap I wouldn't wake up.. Now I know how Dan Rather feels.

Author:	furrykef [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:00 am ]
Post subject:
StrongRad wrote: I'm not for gay marriage, but I was against banning it. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that it should be banned (Libertarian/Republican values I have). I wish more people thought like that. Most people seem to think their opinion should be law. That bothers me, especially when the matter doesn't concern most of the people who are voting on it. I think these constitutional amendments won't be enough, though; they'll probably be declared unconstitutional. It's the Constitution with a capital "C" that counts.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:13 am ]
Post subject:
furrykef wrote: I think these constitutional amendments won't be enough, though; they'll probably be declared unconstitutional. It's the Constitution with a capital "C" that counts. If they're challenged in time, the current Supreme Court will probably declare them unconstitutional. However, with four justices retiring, I have absolutely no confidence that Bush will appoint justices that have the rights of all people in mind. You'll recall that Bush has already pledged to put justices in office that will reverse Roe v. Wade; whatever you feel about Roe v. Wade, it's clear Bush does not want justices in office that will offer a balance to the American people, but ones that will serve his Evangelically-fueled goals.

Author:	StrongRad [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:45 am ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: furrykef wrote: it's clear Bush does not want justices in office that will offer a balance to the American people, but ones that will serve his Evangelically-fueled goals. Evangelically-fueled goals that a majority of the country seems to approve of, by about 7 times as much as they "approved" of Al Gore! Sorry, I have to play Devil's Advocate here. Personally, I would like to see Roe V. Wade sent out to pasture, I don't see it as a right so much as murder... (It's not like legalized marijuana or gay marriage. Those don't hurt ANYONE. Abortion kills a living "human") and before I get flamed about being a zealot, I had objections to abortion long before I cared about religion.

Author:	furrykef [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:38 am ]
Post subject:
StrongRad wrote: Evangelically-fueled goals that a majority of the country seems to approve of, by about 7 times as much as they "approved" of Al Gore! Sorry, I have to play Devil's Advocate here. I'd like to point out that our system isn't always supposed to serve the majority, but also protect minority opinions.