True that you're not ignoring my point, you just don't see it.
While its hard to believe, much less understand, I can live with it...its so hard being right all the time;)

The state sponsoring what, in your words, should be an individual's choice seems, I don't know, wrong. I know you don't agree with that, but like you said, you're in the bible belt and I'm on the west coast...two different worlds.

Also, I always thought a key element of an argument was believing that it was correct. But again, thats MY opinion, not YOURS.

I thought it was interesting that 1 in 4 Americans is not Christian. Apparently I should have made that clear.

I have absolutely nothing against Jewish people, but you know what would be great? Start every school day by reciting "f**k the Jews". The Jews might object, but hey, they're the minority, and they don't have to say it if they don't want to, and hey, if I lived in Nazi Germany I wouldn't care. That would be fantastic.

whats fallible is ignoring the point

How exactly am I ignoring your point?

You : "but tell me that you wouldn't feel any pressure when all the children around you stand and chant "under buddha" instead?"

Me (in 2 different posts) : "If I lived in India, I wouldn't care, no"
"If it really bothers you, don't say the words Under God."

Your belief or non belief in God is a free choice. Nobody is forcing it on you. the Pledge of Allegiance is not forcing you to BELIEVE in God. If anything, it merely illustrates that a majority of the people in this country believe in God. I've seen several children in my wife's class say the Pledge, and NOT say the words "Under God" (obviously not many, since I live in the Bible Belt, but they are there.)

Nobody's ragging them about it or anything. Nobody's FORCING them to do so. In fact, there's one kid in a different class who refuses to say the Pledge at all. That's fine, then just stand and be quiet. But don't interfere with others who DO want to say it.

Continuing to endorse constitutionally prohibited state-sponsored religious indoctrination of children because you are not yet in the minority is a poor excuse for anything.

That's what YOU feel. Let's have the SCOTUS rule on the issue of constitutionality, shall we?

Try supporting the right thing because it is the right thing

In YOUR opinion. Which happens to vary from MINE. Standing on your little soapbox and bleating that YOU are right, therefore by definition everyone else is wrong doesn't do wonders for your perceived ability to carry an argument.

Here's your "Christian" nation:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%

That alone adds up to 76%, which I'd say pretty much means that at large, this is a Christian nation. Protestant is any kind of Christian denomination that doesn't adhere to the Catholic Church doctrine. It doesn't mean they don't believe in Jesus Christ.

Creston

Actually, Islam does believe in Jesus Christ. Just that he was another prophet. If you're going to say that the Jewish percentage includes Christians, then you have to say this one does as well.

In which case the % of the Christian Nation would only be higher, but saying Muslims are Christians doesn't match with the actual definition of a Christian, ie, believing in Christ as your savior.

Judaism is a bit of a tricky point. The Jews believe in the same God Christians do, and they believe in A savior. However, they don't believe that Christ was that savior. A Christian friend of mine says that although they don't believe in Christ, their belief in the Savior would still be enough to save them. (since it was enough for everyone in during the Old Testament days as well).
Personally I wouldn't count them as being Christians, perse.

Oh, and I think you'd find a large number of the "Protestent" faiths dispute whether or not Catholics and Mormons are really Christian. Heck, some of them dispute that any other faith is Christian.

True, but that doesn't really matter for an individual. Anyone can shout that everyone who believes something different is not a Christian, and is not going to be saved, and is going to burn in Hell, but in the end that's a PERSONAL choice, and it's only the PERSON who can make that choice.
I know quite a few Catholics who, while their Church doctrine would seem to indicate otherwise, they still believe they are saved through Jesus Christ. That makes them by definition a Christian.

As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, they used to believe that only 144.000 people were going to be saved (based on the 12000 people each from the 12 tribes found in Revelation), and that they needed to find those 144.000 people. Once their denomination became larger than 144.000 people, however, they had quite a big frackas over whether it made sense to keep trying to save people since the "quota" was already reached.
Most of them nowadays simply believe that they are saved through faith in Christ, but that they MUST save all their relatives and friends and neighbors as well, because otherwise God will have a reckoning with them with regards to any of that group who is unsaved.
Be that as it may, most of them (the few that I know anyways) are still Christians in the original sense of the word, ie, they believe in Christ as their savior.

The mormons are a bit peculiar, but I don't really know enough about it to be able to say one way or the other. I know a few who say they believe in Christ, which would make them a Christian, but there are some strange ideas floating around within Mormonism's inner circles that would definitely mean that the people who follow those ideas are not Christians.

But again, it's an individual's choice, and most of the dominant denominations within the US are Christian as such.


This comment was edited on Sep 15, 11:58.

Actually, Islam does believe in Jesus Christ. Just that he was another prophet. If you're going to say that the Jewish percentage includes Christians, then you have to say this one does as well

but being Christian means you accept that Jesus was the messiah, not just that he exisited. most aetheists i know will admit that Jesus exisited.

Oh, and I think you'd find a large number of the "Protestent" faiths dispute whether or not Catholics and Mormons are really Christian. Heck, some of them dispute that any other faith is Christian.

yes, and that's sad. i mean, let's face it - some Christians will be better than others and/or more right than others. that doesn't mean the rest of them "aren't Christian". i go with C.S. Lewis' definition of Christian: someone who accepts Christ as their savior. what they do beyond that is irrelevant to their classification.

Er, are you sure? I'd think those would be under the "Protestent" umbrella

you might be right... i'm not sure. i have talked with many witnesses and have read their own "manual" which says something about them not being any part of the rest of Chrisitianity... i guess it depends on how the poll-takers chose to place them

Muslim 1%
non-Christian

Actually, Islam does believe in Jesus Christ. Just that he was another prophet. If you're going to say that the Jewish percentage includes Christians, then you have to say this one does as well.

Oh, and I think you'd find a large number of the "Protestent" faiths dispute whether or not Catholics and Mormons are really Christian. Heck, some of them dispute that any other faith is Christian.

includes Chrisitian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses

Er, are you sure? I'd think those would be under the "Protestent" umbrella. I could be wrong though.

Here's your "Christian" nation:

Protestant 52%

Christians

Roman Catholic 24%

Christians

Mormon 2%

Christians

Jewish 1%

some jews are messianic, so this group includes Christians

Muslim 1%

non-Christian

other 10%

includes Chrisitian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses

none 10%

non-Christian.

yep - i'd say that sums up our "Christian nation" quite well.

This comment was edited on Sep 15, 11:09.

Actually the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islamacism are one and the same. So they're precisely equivalent statements. Oh, and Allah is merely Arabic for "God".

i'm aware of all that. i just don't buy what you are saying as a valid argument. being in a minority means having to go with the majority way more than you'd like. that's just life. each of us thinking humans are at times in the majority, and in the minority. you have to learn to cope with each position. so, saying "under Allah" in the U.S. is kind of absurd.

Falling back to "majority rules" is implicitly stating that minority rights are unimportant or less important.

not true. everyone is entitled to an opinion. i just see it as a disturbing trend that lawyers in this country have been giving so much power to every nutcase who starts yelling "unconstitutional!"

Oh, and as I stated yesterday -- I think the case is absurd. I'm not exactly a fan of the statement, but it's a foolish, foolish case that merely polarizes both sides.

didn't see what you said yesterday, so thanks for including this. at least we can both argee that the case is stupid, and causes more harm than good.

why is it that evolutionists insist that God has no part in evolution?

Because it's not a testable hypothesis. It may be true. It may not be. But if it is true then it is indistinguishable from random occurence, because that is the nature of the thing. How, exactly, would you setup an experiment to prove that God is meddling with evolution? It's the same as testing for the existence of God, and that's an inherently impossible thing (if you can prove otherwise, go for it! You'll revolutionize pretty much every aspect of human experience).

A lot of evolutionary biologists do believe in God. They may even personally believe that He influenced things. But, again, that's not testable and so it has no place in science.

The flip side is that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. What came before? No idea. No way to know. What occurs after? Ditto. Why are we here? I'd love to know myself.

The realm of faith and the realm of science are independant. One does not preclude the other.

Glad all the Christians have no problem with the "under god", but tell me that you wouldn't feel any pressure when all the children around you stand and chant "under buddha" instead?

If I lived in India, I wouldn't care, no. Doing such a thing in the US, where the majority is Christian is a fallible argument.

Creston


whats fallible is ignoring the point and pointing to majority rules as some kind of law. Continuing to endorse constitutionally prohibited state-sponsored religious indoctrination of children because you are not yet in the minority is a poor excuse for anything.

Try supporting the right thing because it is the right thing, not because it doesn't yet affect you. It does wonders for the digestion.

Here's your "Christian" nation:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

but, being Christian your argument follows that the current pledge states "under Christ" - and it doesn't.

Actually the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islamacism are one and the same. So they're precisely equivalent statements. Oh, and Allah is merely Arabic for "God".

But, based on your response, you would have an issue with it. The fact of the matter is that God, with a capital G, is the equivalent of "Christian God" in English. If you want to refer to a pandemic god then it should be a lower case g.

that's taking my statement a bit far, dontcha think?

It's showing the absurdity of it, yes. Falling back to "majority rules" is implicitly stating that minority rights are unimportant or less important. There's a long, long history in this country of why that's a very bad idea. Heck, the country was founded on those concepts. There's a reason the national (and most state) constitution was setup as a republic instead of a democracy (so yeah, I guess we are getting into that...).

I know you don't think that, so don't fall back on it as an argument


Oh, and as I stated yesterday -- I think the case is absurd. I'm not exactly a fan of the statement, but it's a foolish, foolish case that merely polarizes both sides.

There was a good episode of Birdman on a couple of weeks ago.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury the question before you today is a simply one. Besides pointing to traditional fossil forms or DNA polymorphisms or tonsils or domesticated animals or gene sequences or male nipples or common sense, how does one prove evolution?

Yep, I liked that episode.

The only problem is...all those things he said are not attributed to evolution. Why cant cartons get everything right?

“That's not a toy! “ –Frylock, “You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.” –MasterShake.

BTW -- you are promoting creationism, not ID, by referring to the missing link argument. ID inherently presumes the existence of intermediate evolutionary forms.

i believe that God created a universe in which evolution plays a role. i'm a proponent of I.D. because i don't like the way that evolution is becoming a replacement for God.

why is it that evolutionists insist that God has no part in evolution?

ID is no more ridiculous? Who created the creator? I have faith the aliens had a hand in it. I have faith I'll be proven ri...wait I don't NEED proof when I have faith, do I? Its a beautiful "argument". Even the devil can quote Scripture to suit his purpose..

As for the "missing link", here's a helpful FAQ for the evolution impaired:

"6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there
still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels
of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that
evolution does not teach that humans descended from
monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount
to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are
there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off
from established ones, when populations of organisms
become isolated from the main branch of their family
and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct.
The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter,
or it may become extinct."

Intelligent Design in no more of a ridiculous theory than Evolution

You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Evolution is provable, is tested, is (very important) disprovable, and (also important) can make predictions that can be proven or disproven.

ID does none of these.

you have faith in your 'missing link', and i'll have faith in a creator.

One does not preclude the other. And the "missing link" argument is bogus. Can you provide me your lineage back to Noah? Well, then by your own argument there's a missing link and you must not be human.

And yes, that's about as sensible as creationists whining about a missing link. BTW -- you are promoting creationism, not ID, by referring to the missing link argument. ID inherently presumes the existence of intermediate evolutionary forms.

Right there, you are suggesting that you are being asked to believe something if you're asked to say it.

yep, you are being *asked* to believe it. not forced, asked.

Do ya follow me, dude?

yep, i follow ya.

by the way, what's with the "tronny" thing?

so if it said "One nation, under Allah, indivisible..." would you have a problem with it? What about "under Yahweh"?

that wouldn't make any sense... not here in the U.S. anyway. but, being Christian your argument follows that the current pledge states "under Christ" - and it doesn't.

Yeah. Keep those minorities down! Damned blackies.

c'mon - that's taking my statement a bit far, dontcha think?


This comment was edited on Sep 15, 10:44.

Alright, tronny.

Cynips said: tron: so you wouldn't mind starting your every day with saying "There is no God" together with a bunch of people?

And you said: ...i would be very concerned if i was being asked to believe as only 10% believe.

Right there, you are suggesting that you are being asked to believe something if you're asked to say it.

Do ya follow me, dude?

since this is a democracy

Not really, thankfully. But let's not go down that path.

A much better question is -- so if it said "One nation, under Allah, indivisible..." would you have a problem with it? What about "under Yahweh"?

it is only recently, when every minority in america wants to force the rest of the world to change to accomodate them, that things like this have become an issue.

Yeah. Keep those minorities down! Damned blackies.

What? What'd I say?
This comment was edited on Sep 15, 10:40.

Yes. No evidence pointing towards evolution at all.

There was a good episode of Birdman on a couple of weeks ago.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury the question before you today is a simply one. Besides pointing to traditional fossil forms or DNA polymorphisms or tonsils or domesticated animals or gene sequences or male nipples or common sense, how does one prove evolution?

But it's perfectly alright to force the remaining 10% to believe what the majority believe?

who is forcing anyone to believe anything? the reason the "under God" thing was okay for so long is that the vast majority of people believe in a God and so have no problem saying it. it is only recently, when every minority in america wants to force the rest of the world to change to accomodate them, that things like this have become an issue.

What if 49% were Atheist, and 51% Christian? What if you were in that 10%?

and what if a giant squid ate my grandparent? lets not get into "what if".

but, there have been many times that my opinion was in the "10%" group (at work, in school, etc) and in those times i simply have to shut my mouth and go with the flow. you can't win them all.

This comment was edited on Sep 15, 10:40.

Glad all the Christians have no problem with the "under god", but tell me that you wouldn't feel any pressure when all the children around you stand and chant "under buddha" instead?

If I lived in India, I wouldn't care, no. Doing such a thing in the US, where the majority is Christian is a fallible argument.

Creston