RE: Pledge of Allegiance in American Schools: ((Please Mirror))

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

You are right...a loving benevolent God does NOT commit genocide...people do.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 People? I didn't realize human civilization had the capacity to magically call forth enough water to "drown" itself in its complete entirety.

I suppose Hell isn't enough. I suppose horrendously drowning every father, mother, and baby is requisite? Pathetic.

I suppose Uzrah decided to commit suicide after steadying the Ark of the Covenant, as well; no, no. The Scriptures must be wrong, because it plainly states that God executed him for his "irrelevant act."

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - I haven't decided from your comments if you are angry at a god you don't believe in, or refuse to believe in an angry god.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 I'm pointing out flaws in the universal perception of God as an "omnibenevolent" guiding hand, which highlights human fault. Mankind's flawed, wrathful nature, anguish over its insignificance, and longing for a sense of purpose and justice to make sense of an indifferent reality all manifest themselves in "holy" works, such as the Bible and the Qur'an.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - Even if there weren't a God, I would continue to believe in Him, for I must have something greater to believe in than mere Man, who has the power to exert influence. A benevolent God allows the power of personal choice whether to develop a relationship with Him or not. A benevolent God provides the circumstances for us to attain to our best, as He determined us to be. A benevolent God sees all His creation as worthwhile...your disagreement makes Him no less benevolent, just sad.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 "Even if there weren't a God, I would continue to believe in him."

That, friend, is a dangerous line of thought. It's far better to embrace and work with the hard truth than a reassuring fable. We can make our own "glorious" cosmic purpose; we don't have to anguish forever at how insignificant we are. God belittles the eloquence, beauty, and awe of reality. And he's only a small part of mankind's primitive attempts to elevate his status and quell his curiosity.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 "A benevolent God allows the power of personal choice."

Certainly! That's why he'll toss you into a burning pit of fire for all eternity if you make the "wrong" choice. If, of course, you believe in Hell. Think about what "eternity" really means.

It's coercion. That's all it is. You'd do well to research the term "coercion" if you don't know what it is. It can't be sugar-coated. Coercion is the will of a benevolent God? Sounds more like a tyrannical, sick monster.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - You've made your choice. Why the complaining? I'll elect to follow a wisdom of physics which says you hurt others, you may get hurt. I follow a system of priorities which says all are equal and the weak are helped through difficulty. I ascribe to a social group which sees the goodness of God and aligns with that spiritual character that all may benefit. But those that throw out natural law, consider themselves above others and can't keep a promise? God nor I can connect with that.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 Complaining? I'm pointing something out, yet again.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the framers realized -- from plain, flat empirical evidence of theocratic track records -- that a theocratic or pseudo-theocratic system of government is prone to outright failure, corruption, or a subsequent chipping away of rights and civil liberties. The fragile beauty of American government is free speech and liberty unhindered by disgusting, dangerous, set-in-stone morality.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - Alright. In your Utopia, murder is not taught to be a "bad" thing for society. It is merely an "expression" of anger, frustration, poor choice, impetuousness, or merely a thrill. No one thinks twice about it. If it happens, it happens...oh, well.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 A dominant religion (Christianity, for instance) that's endorsed by both the majority of the public and the State (school, local / regional / national offices of government, and so on and so forth) is the equivalent of playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette. Every time an issue is raised, a public predisposed to religious bias, as well as religious lawmakers, may or may not introduce new, evermore restricting legislation to harm civil liberties.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 We should always have the "right" to criticize -- including religion, which should never be above criticism or otherwise especially privileged. I wouldn't want to lose such civil liberties because of State-based legislation with a religious predisposition and bias, personally.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - If it weren't for the laws established in the United States based on a Judeo-Christian precept, you would never have a chance to air your views, nor vote to have a voice in legislative matters through your chosen representatives. Your very criticisms would be squashed and "your views" would be considered insurrectionary. Judaism introduced the concept of equality in treatment of women, Christianity offered free trade and private ownership. You are barking at the wrong squirrel.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - It is apparent you have some history of studying the Bible. What you need to re-read is WHY the flood was sent in the first place. "The world was filled with violence"...not unlike current times, when parents kill their babies out of convenience, when gangs rob innocent elderly people, girls are gang-raped and people attacked "for a word". Uzrah screwed up by touching the Ark...the select priests were protected from the electrical surge by what they were instructed to wear.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 What? You're supposing that, without religion, mankind would never have been able to cultivate any other method by which equality could be introduced? I'm not religious, and I firmly believe in civil liberties because of an in-context, flexible moral philosophy. Religion, in spite of any potential benefits it has given humanity, is largely harmful. It serves to impede knowledge, foster fear and dependance, and cause much hatred or intolerance to many ideals.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 -Likewise, I would not want to be subject to your determinations as a juror if your moral compass is based on an in-context, flexible moral philosophy...if your personal situation found you upset with your partner for cheating, and the trial for which you sit is a criminal act in regards to an affair, does your morality swing to fit the personal feelings of the moment, the trial situation, or do you struggle with the dichotomies of your vacillating basis for choice?

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 Friend, what religion may have done (and I believe your statement regarding Judeo-Christianity's responsibility for societal freedoms is unsubstantiated hogwash, considering the actual nature of the context of the Bible's creation, which runs in contrast) is irrelevant, regardless. What matters is what's happening here and now, and what serves the best interests of humanity. What good is religion doing as opposed to what many atheists are doing out of brotherly love?

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - This is the rhetoric of those who believe the Bible was written by one individual. This is the pablum spewed into the open, waiting minds of those who disdain authority, clamor for chaos, froth against the fact they cannot understand socio-incorporeal matters and throw the entire system in the garbage because it requires civility and cooperation. I was an Atheist for 22 years...I discovered the lure of the world is false and empty. Atheism is a dead-end.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 Foundations, such as the Foundation Beyond Belief, are very charitable and generous. Atheists can be as humble (quite ironic, given how arrogant the concept of ready-made creationism is), as happy, and as loving as any religious affiliate. An in-context moral philosophy gave different ethnicities more civil liberties. An in-context moral philosophy freed slaves and destroyed abject slavery. The examples legion. Religion played little to no part in many of them.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Elena9525 - Your Atheism likewise requires a belief system, has it's esteemed messiahs and brings together those with a spiritual basis grounded in the practice of Atheism. It is likewise a religion, or "a man-made cultivated system of belief and practice".

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 Regarding gang-rape and gang-related violence... Well, that has existed throughout humanity's brief tenure on this planet. We've always been violent. It's in our very nature to be violent. However, nations such as Sweden (roughly 85% atheist and rising) have considerably lower crime and violence rates as opposed to most religious nations. We're making slow progress in combatting such violence with enlightenment and education, tolerance, and free exchange.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 Many examples of God personally killing his "children" exist.

Omnibenevolence is hardly compatible with the God of the Old Testament. No, no. I can't reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient God expressing primitive, dangerous, hateful emotions, such as anger.

[Elena9525]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 A loving, omnibenevolent God doesn't commit mass, horrific genocide (horribly drowning people and wiping out civilization? Pathetic. Why would he have to physically punish them on Earth? Is Hell not enough?), murder for innocent acts (Ark of the Covenant), or magically transfer burdens of sin -- which are fundamental responsibilities that people must take charge for -- to a fictional character destined to "ressurect" mere days after death.

[Farvai0]

Who are then "we"? "We" are well then the American people. But athiests dont belive in God, Niether do Buddists. So you can say "we" belive in God.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@Farvai0 -An Atheist certainly does believe in a god...it is either his career, money or influence.

[newloser]

This is rediculous. The religious are truly deluded if they think one has more rights than the other - if you speak to a christian he/she implies that it is their rights that are being impuned on - if you speak to a muslim - they have the same feelings. Here's a thought "GET OVER IT" - the world is too large and magnificent to be worrying about the rights to worship invisible authority figures. Enjoy life - oh - and thanks to our veterans, our true angels.

[demonscorpion88]

i do not pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth called a flag. i pledge my allegiance to my country, the republic and ideals in which it was founded. not the bastardized warmongering socially elitist "democracy" which has corrupted our country for the last 98 years

[cyberskelet0n]

"Why are Christians banned from praying in public and erecting religious displays on their holy days?"

They aren't. Post links to (unbiased) examples of this happening and then I'll say that the country you so wholeheartedly believe in is doing wrong to many people.

[cyberskelet0n]

Just as most people have a hard time understanding why people think that because 86% of Americans believe in God means that we should do away with "separation of Church and State."

It's in the Constitution. Isn't that what patriots believe in most?

If the answer is yes, then everything you've stated in this video is entirely invalid.

If you don't like that the Constitution gives rights to Americans who don't share your views, move to a Christian extremist country.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@cyberskelet0n - America IS a "Christian extremist country". Read the Magna Charta.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@cyberskelet0n - Could you tell me exactly where that statement is made in the Constitution?

[cyberskelet0n]

@ETHIOLOGIST1 The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@cyberskelet0n - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." was written to prohibit the determination of a State religion as this was the standard of the Church of England and its ruling directorates.

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." gives all Americans of legitimacy opportunity to hold office without a religious pre-requisite.

[ETHIOLOGIST1]

@cyberskelet0n - Neither of these addresses a "separation of Church and State" as you have been taught to comprehend it. If you want to know where that clause came from, look up "Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists".

[glholland]

Beautifully performed. Thank you for posting this.

[RESET1776]

2 true