Flag priorities....

[CaptainHaplo]

So I have my own thoughts on this - but I am interested to see how the rest of this community sees things.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/29472787/shelby-church-to-fly-christian-flag-over-american-flag

Feel free to vote and share your views, but remember the rules of this forum and respect them.

[Oberon]

To paraphrase Star Trek V

What does God need with a flag?

[Rockstar]

I think you could add three more choices to the poll.

#1 Take it down. Its against the law.

The laws relating to the flag of the United States of America are found in detail in the United States Code. Title 4, Chapter 1 pertains to the flag and seal, seat of Government and the States; Title 18, Chapter 33 pertains to crimes and criminal procedures; Title 36, Chapter 10 pertains to patriotic customs and observances. These laws were supplemented by Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations. No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United State of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy.

#2 Take it down. Render unto ceasar what is his and obey his law.

#3 If anyone is hearing voices in their head they should seek professional help

[CaptainHaplo]

Rockstar.

Note that the USC you quote uses the word "should", not "shall". So some would state that it is voluntary.

It also references Naval services - so it could be argued that it is not relevant to civilian use.

Also note that some would argue that the USC - if applicable to civilians - is a violation of free speech rights as well, and thus an unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable ordinance.

I am not saying how I do or do not see it - I am simply stating these are arguments that are already out there.

[August]

I think you could add three more choices to the poll.

#1 Take it down. Its against the law.

Sorry but what they are doing is not against the law. Haplo is right.

[Betonov]

I went with d) since the Church was never low in hypocracy and being butthurt when their priviliges are bein threatened.

I would go with: they should fly only the christian flag anyway, since they don't pay taxes.

[vienna]

As in most of these cases, a bit of historical facts are in order rather than sectarian/political posturing:

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-man-who-wrote-the-pledge-of-allegiance-93907224/?no-ist=&page=2

In these sort of discussions over such things as the Pledge, the National Anthem, etc., part of the problem is the perception by an alarming percentage of the population that those icons of American culture were born at the same time as the Nation, that the founders were somehow involved in the creation or design of what we see now a sacred national custom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole situation roughly parallels the Ten Commandments: there it is, the 'writ of God' yet it has been so degraded and filtered through various social, political, and avarice-based motivations, what the masses believe is the word, is not. So too with the US cultural heritage; the Constitution is exactly what is written, the Bill of Rights is as written, the further amendments are as they are written. The Pledge should have stayed as originally written, but was filtered for political expediency based on the motivations of religious groups seeking a greater primacy over the lives of others. This move to impose a fractional will over the whole flies directly in the face of what is written down by those who created this nation. The modification of the Pledge stands not as an act of patriotism, but as an act of defilement to the precepts that formed this nation and an insult to those who wrote the Constitution...


<O>

[razark]

It's their flagpole. They can fly whatever they want, however they want.


Edit:
And the poll is missing the option "I take no stance on whether it is right or not."

[Rockstar]

Well, if it isnt illegal then it should be. :arrgh!:

btw, from what I've dug up. 'Should' means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

The way I see it, spirits and ghosts telling people how to display the flag of the United States of America isnt what I would consider a valid reason.

Now, if on the otherhand 'may' was used in the wording it would truly be considered an optional rule. But it doesnt, so they should take it down and display it IAW U.S. Code and seek professional help. :D

[AngusJS]

There should be a fifth option - "Yes, it's their right to do whatever with their property as long as it couldn't harm others."

They can fly whatever flags whichever way they want for whatever reason - I don't care.

I do care that they are so up in arms about a group of Americans, who have been subject to intense discrimination for millennia, finally being treated equally before the law (in this area, at least). That pastor can claim whatever he wants, but it's pretty clear he doesn't actually like liberty or justice when it conflicts with his Bronze Age dogma.

[Aktungbby]

Well, if it isnt illegal then it should be. :arrgh!:

btw, from what I've dug up. 'Should' means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

The way I see it, spirits and ghosts telling people how to display the flag of the United States of America isnt what I would consider a valid reason.

Now, if on the otherhand 'may' was used in the wording it would truly be considered an optional rule. But it doesnt, so they should take it down and display it IAW U.S. Code and seek professional help. :D

Well just to fan the flame a little:shifty:: the Pledge of Allegiance does say say "one nation under God..." Therefore throwing in so-called free speech and its offshoot, Freedom of Religion implications... the perspective of a church banner - a spiritual or holy ghost agenda reflection over a 'temporal' political banner..."Old Glory", in this instance, is not entirely unreasonable on the establishment's own flagpole. The Supreme Court ruled in the 70's that having the flag stitched to the seat of one's pants was permissible freedom of speech. Sheriff Smith vs Valerie Goguen: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/415/415.US.566.72-1254.html (https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/415/415.US.566.72-1254.html) And later dealt with outright flag-burning as an 'expressive form' of free speech Texas vs Johnson:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/491/397.html (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/491/397.html) Clearly, upon a given pole, priority of allegiance is an expressive form of free speech in a political context; I, Aktung,:doh: concur with Justices Powell and Brennan (respectively:shifty:). Case dismissed.:hmph:

[Sailor Steve]

the Pledge of Allegiance does say say "one nation under God..."
Only in our lifetime. The original pledge, written in 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

The "under God" part wasn't added until 1954, and was a reaction to "Godless Communism".

[Nippelspanner]

^
Thanks for clearing that up Steve, I didn't know that.
Who knows, maybe this will backfire for the church in the end when some more 'realistic' people in the government may get the idea that getting rid of the added "under God" sentence might be the best, after all we can see what happens when you grant religion too much power or privileges, they (like everyone else of course) get cocky and greedy and get funny (I think ridiculously stupid) ideas like in the OP.

From my point of view, religion must not have any say or influence in politics.

[Aktungbby]

Only in our lifetime. The original pledge, written in 1892:


http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm)

The "under God" part wasn't added until 1954, and was a reaction to "Godless Communism". DAMN! :stare: thanks Steve Louis Albert Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution) gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.
I am going to follow suit since that appears to be the 'modus operendi' and insert the word 'Socialist' in front of the word: "Republic" to render a more appreciative pledge now that I'm collecting Social Security. My bride is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution...we'll discuss my award...when it's convenient....after she takes her customary half! :doh:

[razark]

I am going to follow suit since that appears to be the 'modus operendi' and insert the word 'Socialist' in front of the word: "Republic" to render a more appreciative pledge...

Well, the Pledge was written by a socialist.

[NeonSamurai]

the Pledge of Allegiance does say say "one nation under God..."

Only in our lifetime. The original pledge, written in 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

The "under God" part wasn't added until 1954, and was a reaction to "Godless Communism".

Yep, I can think of more than a few of the US founding fathers that would be rather upset with that change. But I'm sure there would be a whole lot of other things they would be even more upset with.


Other than the church thing, I'm kind of indifferent. I had no idea though that there was such a thing as a 'Christian' flag :doh:. But I guess it is only used in a handful of countries. Why do I get the feeling some guy just decided one day that this would be the flag for 'all' Christians--of course without actually asking anyone else...

[vienna]

I had honestly never heard of the "Christian Flag" until this matter came up and I began to wonder if the flag was a recent creation meant to counter the "Rainbow Flag; apparently, the flag has been around for a long time and even has it's own pledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Flag

The Christian Flag Pledge was written in 1908, according to references I have found online, and bears an almost identical wordage to the US Flag Pledge; since the US Flag Pledge was written in 1892, I think a good case can be made for a charge of plagiarism...

Hey, isn't there a Commandment or two against that sort of thing?...


<O>

[vienna]

A little more info on the Presidential Oath:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_Stat es

Some interesting info in there; the bible-thumpers were trying to insinuate themselves as the 'true national religion' as far back as the Founding Fathers. Personally, I have always thought it would be much more proper and appropriate for a President to be sworn in with his hand on a copy of the US Constitution, if he was going to put his hand on any thing at all. After all, there is no mention of God anywhere in the Constitution other than the pro forma "year of our lord" before the date of ratification. For a bunch of very much God-fearing men the modern Christian revisionists would have us believe as a means of bolstering their current arguments regarding so many things they try to co-opt, those Founding Fathers seem to have gone taken a great deal of care and caution to avoid any explicit or inferred religious stance....


<O>

[CCIP]

Thanks for some of the informative background here, Steve and vienna :yeah:

Now, I'm not an expert on Baptist theology specifically, but it also strikes me that there might be some religious issue with "God told me stuff so I'm doing it". Although I suppose in general, Evangelical Christianity does stress this idea of personal contact with God, but I didn't think that it was accepted as basis for making decisions like this, especially by such a major denomination. At least my hunch is that this could also be theologically incorrect.

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, I can think of more than a few of the US founding fathers that would be rather upset with that change. But I'm sure there would be a whole lot of other things they would be even more upset with.
As I've gotten older I've become more unhappy with the Pledge itself. I can understand taking an oath to uphold certain principles as a part of induction into National Service, whether it's an office or the military, but I find myself believing less and less in loyalty oaths of any kind. I don't need to prove myself to anybody else.

[Betonov]

Other than the church thing, I'm kind of indifferent. I had no idea though that there was such a thing as a 'Christian' flag :doh:. But I guess it is only used in a handful of countries. Why do I get the feeling some guy just decided one day that this would be the flag for 'all' Christians--of course without actually asking anyone else...

In half of Europe and Latin America this must be the ''christian''flag

http://communio.stblogs.org/Holy%20See.jpg


As I've gotten older I've become more unhappy with the Pledge itself. I can understand taking an oath to uphold certain principles as a part of induction into National Service, whether it's an office or the military, but I find myself believing less and less in loyalty oaths of any kind. I don't need to prove myself to anybody else.

I've reached that ''zen'' at 29 :O:
We don't have a pledge though, but I share the reluctance to being unconditionally loyal to the country.

[Schroeder]

As I've gotten older I've become more unhappy with the Pledge itself. I can understand taking an oath to uphold certain principles as a part of induction into National Service, whether it's an office or the military, but I find myself believing less and less in loyalty oaths of any kind. I don't need to prove myself to anybody else.
Is that the same pledge that a lot of students have to say every morning before school starts? I always wondered what that was about, I mean is there a law that says that US pledges expire after 24 hours and have to be renewed? :doh:

[Aktungbby]

Thanks for some of the informative background here, Steve and vienna :yeah:

:sign_yeah: :agree: :yeah:

[Dowly]

I mean is there a law that says that US pledges expire after 24 hours and have to be renewed? :doh:
Dont be silly, of course there is no such law. :doh:

There is, however a law that makes you an unpatriotic ISIS hugging commie if you don't make your patriotism known at least once a day. :yep:

[Nippelspanner]

There is, however a law that makes you an unpatriotic ISIS and tree-hugging commie-faggit-nazi if you don't make your patriotism known at least once a day. :yep:
Fixed. :D

[Sailor Steve]

There is, however a law that makes you an unpatriotic ISIS hugging commie if you don't make your patriotism known at least once a day. :yep:
Talk about being silly. Of course it doesn't make you anything. It just reveals your true evil inner nature. :O:

[Aktungbby]

In half of Europe and Latin America this must be the ''christian''flag

http://communio.stblogs.org/Holy%20See.jpg




Actually:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Flag_of_the_Vatican_City.svg/500px-Flag_of_the_Vatican_City.svg.png
<+]:¬) or +O=-) https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/49/ef/b7/49efb797e590a54e39b984832f8c68d5.jpg

[Aktungbby]

Talk about being silly. Of course it doesn't make you anything. It just reveals your true evil inner nature. :O:

Or your true loving inner nature: Interesting story: [/URL][URL="http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/lone-man-refusing-nazi-salute-1936/"]http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/lone-man-refusing-nazi-salute-1936/ (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hZEnJ587Dug/U3ap7GQM9KI/AAAAAAAAJFc/B_F8kgmpgCs/s1600/A+lone+man+refusing+to+do+the+Nazi+salute,+1936.jp g) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hZEnJ587Dug/U3ap7GQM9KI/AAAAAAAAJFc/B_F8kgmpgCs/s1600/A+lone+man+refusing+to+do+the+Nazi+salute,+1936.jp g (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hZEnJ587Dug/U3ap7GQM9KI/AAAAAAAAJFc/B_F8kgmpgCs/s1600/A+lone+man+refusing+to+do+the+Nazi+salute,+1936.jp g)

[NeonSamurai]

As I've gotten older I've become more unhappy with the Pledge itself. I can understand taking an oath to uphold certain principles as a part of induction into National Service, whether it's an office or the military, but I find myself believing less and less in loyalty oaths of any kind. I don't need to prove myself to anybody else.

Oaths are pretty meaningless, as people break them all the time. Those that would not break their oath(s) are already bound by their sense of duty, so they probably would follow their feelings of duty even without an oath.

But some people find it helpful to repeat such things to reinforce or refresh their sense of duty.

Of course it is also really easy to pervert concepts of duty, especially when mixed with a strong sense of nationalism.

[Armistead]

Flags, symbols, religion, etc., have always been used to control people, sometimes for good, some times for bad, but it's a means of making people pledge to something more than themselves. IMO, the majority of this BS should be done away with, our only pledge to the constitution.

We follow a constitution and political figures still swear on bibles or we have to place our hands on bibles in courts and swear to tell the truth.

People that know our founding fathers know they basically hated any concept of religion in govt. Yes, they knew culturally they had to play the religion card or be ran out of office and many today try to use these statements as they founded our nation on religion, namely one. Heck, it still is done today by most politicians as they say "God bless America" or any other numerous statements while they plot their next crooked scheme.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/

[Wolferz]

If you wish to fly the American flag, it should be done so with proper flag etiquette. (no flag of any kind flying above it).
It's not a requirement that a church fly the flag at all so, if they wish to display their own banner, it should fly solo and leave old glory folded up in the closet.:hmmm:

[vienna]

Flags, symbols, religion, etc., have always been used to control people, sometimes for good, some times for bad, but it's a means of making people pledge to something more than themselves. IMO, the majority of this BS should be done away with, our only pledge to the constitution.

We follow a constitution and political figures still swear on bibles or we have to place our hands on bibles in courts and swear to tell the truth.

People that know our founding fathers know they basically hated any concept of religion in govt. Yes, they knew culturally they had to play the religion card or be ran out of office and many today try to use these statements as they founded our nation on religion, namely one. Heck, it still is done today by most politicians as they say "God bless America" or any other numerous statements while they plot their next crooked scheme.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/


Thanks, Armistead, for the link. I now have new ammo for any arguments with the Thumpers... :up:

I think Paul Simon said it best for a lot of us growing up, attending US schools, and saying the Pledge every school day:

In my little town
I grew up believing
God keeps his eye on us all
And He used to lean upon me
As I pledged allegiance to the wall...

(My Little Town)

I think a lot of us pledged "allegiance to the wall" in the sense the act was a pro forma exercise which, after prolonged repetition, becomes devoid of any real meaning, simply one more morning routine to get over with before getting on with the real work of the day. I, personally, came to a very early conclusion regarding the words "under God" while still in grade school. I would simply stay silent during the time the phrase came along, and still do so. This did not sit well with one particular teacher in my last year of school, seeing as she was a nun and I was in a Catholic school. She made an issue of it, but backed off when I asked if it was not true there existed a Catholic doctrine against making oaths outside of the Church, so-called secular oaths...

Some years back I was called for jury duty and, since I had never served before and only had TV depictions as my guide, was wondering what would happen if, when taking the oath as a juror, I refused to say "So help me God". Fortunately, the procedures had changed and the phrase had been dropped. It does seem rather absurd to assume a person will be any more honest or truthful merely because they utter a few words about God. It's almost like the phrases are akin to Wonder Woman's Golden Lasso that compelled an evildoer to tell the truth...


Heck, it still is done today by most politicians as they say "God bless America" or any other numerous statements while they plot their next crooked scheme.
I agree with the observation. Think of how many sanctimonious politicians professing such high minded "Christian Values" have been found with their hands in the till, involved in highly questionable if not illegal activities, or caught with their pants down. If such activities are the result of God-fearing 'adherence' to the "Word", then, perhaps, government , and the people they govern are the better off without their input and/or inclusion...

<O>

[August]

It does seem rather absurd to assume a person will be any more honest or truthful merely because they utter a few words about God.

It's not absurd at all to a person who believes in God but then again those people are all just "thumpers" to you right? Seems to me that you and those sanctimonious politicians you mention have a lot in common.

[Sailor Steve]

I think Vienna's point was a very good one. Is a person going to be more honest because he uses those four words, or any less honest because he doesn't?

On the other hand Jesus himself enjoins us to not take oaths at all.

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

[vienna]

It's not absurd at all to a person who believes in God but then again those people are all just "thumpers" to you right? Seems to me that you and those sanctimonious politicians you mention have a lot in common.

Not at all. I bear no malice towards people of faith. Just as in politics, where there are varying beliefs in the proper secular manner of conducting Caesar's business, so are there in religious matters. Mark Twain once observed that man was the only creature with the one true religion; in fact, several of them. It seems there is no possible way to truly discern an absolute "true faith" and whatever tenets or morality it may encompass. There is a popular maxim, while in social groups, one should avoid the subjects of politics and religion. The same stricture should perhaps be applied to matters of state. Why, in fact, I do believe there was something about separating state and church in some document written by some people who are considered very wise, indeed...

I have known and discussed some of these matters with ministers, priests, rabbis and other clergy over the years and have found them and their views to be honest and sincere and I value the time spent with them; I tend to believe they represent the greater majority of those of faith. The ranting's of those such as the TV evangelists who tend to imply one cannot be a true American patriot if one does not believe as they do (you know, their particular version of the "true faith") are the ones I refer to as "Thumpers". Their insistence of imposing their wills on the whole of the population is repugnant and actually flies in the face of the teachings they so deeply claim to espouse. One wonders if Christ were to come to America today, what would he make of the "spokesmen" of his Word?...

I once read an interview given by Keith Richards. He was in a studio and the late, great sax player, Bobby Keys, was also in the studio. Keys was, at the time, a newly minted "born-again" Christian, and, as Keith would give his answers to the interviewer, interject a "Praise the Lord" or "God Bless", loudly. After a while Keith snapped at Keys to shut up. Keys was hurt and said to Keith, "Don't you love God?" Keith responded "I love God, I hate preachers". For some of us, it is the same: we have no animus towards any deity, we just find their representatives very often annoying and meddlesome..

[EDIT] I finished this after Steve posted his reply above. The stricture against oaths I mentioned was one the Catholic Church has in its dogma. The Biblical quote from Steve adds a pan-Christian view on the matter...


<O>

[August]

I think Vienna's point was a very good one. Is a person going to be more honest because he uses those four words, or any less honest because he doesn't?

If the person believes in the God he is swearing to then I'd say yes. At least that is the hope.

On the other hand Jesus himself enjoins us to not take oaths at all.

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

I guess neither of us were listening to him when we took our oath of enlistment then right?

[Rockstar]

I think Vienna's point was a very good one. Is a person going to be more honest because he uses those four words, or any less honest because he doesn't?

On the other hand Jesus himself enjoins us to not take oaths at all.

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

Well that depends on which text you read. In Shem Tov's Hebrew text of the book of Matthew 5:33-37. It was written Jesus said not to swear by anything 'falsely'. Which, unlike the Greek text would not contradict Torah.

Deuteronomy 10:20, "YHWH your God you shall fear, and Him shall you worship, and to him shall you cling, and in His name shall you swear."

Leviticus 19:12 And you shall not swear by my name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am YHWH.

[vienna]

My word, August, did you violate the explicit words of Christ when you enlisted? How does one atone for such a violation and affront? I'm afraid there may be a rather warm place in store for you... :)

Let's be honest about those strictures on those forms of oaths; they are fundamentally fungible. Depending on what flavor of religion one subscribes to, there are always various "dispensations" created, not by the actual words of scriptures, by the clergy as a means of avoiding potential conflict with the secular interests or, sometimes, to mitigate lapses in doctrinal logic. The main point s that any secular oath or allegiance is neither damaged nor enhanced by the appending of a religious element. Nor is the veracity or lack thereof of a person affected by a religious element; after all, Nixon swore his Presidential oath on a bible, said "So help me God", and there is little doubt it had no effect at all on his criminal activities in office. The same applies to all the other politicians, public officials, military personnel, and other who have taken 'solemn and sacred' oaths and then defiled those oaths. The religious element is superfluous and serves no purpose other than to help certain religious and/or political interests try to maintain influence when, often, logic and reason fails them in their purposes...


<O>

[Sailor Steve]

If the person believes in the God he is swearing to then I'd say yes. At least that is the hope.
I see it the same as with the Pledge. A true patriot may be willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but he doesn't really need it. An imposter will recite it willingly because he wants to look like a true patriot. A true Christian will gladly say "So help me God", but he doesn't really need to. Someone trying to look more honest will recite the words to help his case. How does someone else tell the difference? The words are just words, and like all words can be used for any purpose.

I guess neither of us were listening to him whe we took our oath of enlistment then right?
Putting aside the fact that I wasn't a believer at that time...

I think it would have been a case of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. How badly would I really want to join up? Would a true believer swear fealty to anyone other than his God? There's a lot of soul-searching there for someone who claims that God comes before everything else.

Well that depends on which text you read. In Shem Tov's Hebrew text of the book of Matthew 5:33-37. It was written Jesus said not to swear by anything 'falsely'. Which, unlike the Greek text would not contradict Torah.
None of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Since the book you cite was written in 1385 changes to the Gospel can only be counted as "after the fact" and are altered to meet the beliefs of the translator. That makes them invalid as proof for a discussion of the original text. A better argument might be to question how much of the quotations in the Gospels were said by Jesus at all.

Deuteronomy 10:20, "YHWH your God you shall fear, and Him shall you worship, and to him shall you cling, and in His name shall you swear."

Leviticus 19:12 And you shall not swear by my name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am YHWH.
The problem there is that in the Matthew passages following the Beatitudes Jesus is specifically addressing and contravening those Old Testament quotes, following the fashion of "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

When he says not to swear an oath at all, that is what Christians have to judge their actions by, not by what a later source claims he said or by an Old Testament quote.

[Oberon]

One could argue that the very definition of hell is a warzone. :hmmm:

To recall an old poem:

"And When he gets to heaven, To Saint Peter he will tell; One more Soldier reporting, sir. I've served my time in Hell!"

[Wolferz]

Be in the world not of the world.

[August]

I see it the same as with the Pledge. A true patriot may be willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but he doesn't really need it. An imposter will recite it willingly because he wants to look like a true patriot. A true Christian will gladly say "So help me God", but he doesn't really need to. Someone trying to look more honest will recite the words to help his case. How does someone else tell the difference? The words are just words, and like all words can be used for any purpose.

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.

[Rockstar]

None of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Since the book you cite was written in 1385 changes to the Gospel can only be counted as "after the fact" and are altered to meet the beliefs of the translator. That makes them invalid as proof for a discussion of the original text. A better argument might be to question how much of the quotations in the Gospels were said by Jesus at all.

Umm I dont think thats not true.

Shem Tovs text is unlike the Byzantine Greek texts today, of his day or any other known Greek text. If he had made a fresh translation it would have rendered one of those forms. In regards to theology the Hebrew text never identify Jesus as messiah or divine. Shem Tov's comments scattered throughout the Hebrew text suggest he did not create it.

Stylistically the Hebrew text is saturated with word puns, word connections, and alliterations strongly suggesting Hebrew language originality. There is some evidence that suggests the Greek texts we have today were translated from original Hebrew source. Not the other way around. Jerome, Eusebius, Origen and Epiphanes allude to it in their writings. Papias came right out and said it. "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each (Greeks) interpreted them the best he could"

So I will stand by what I said: It depends which book of Matthew you read as to what Jesus supposedly said. Christians simply tend to go with the Greek texts because they dont have a clue a Hebrew version exists.


The problem there is that in the Matthew passages following the Beatitudes Jesus is specifically addressing and contravening those Old Testament quotes, following the fashion of "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

Honestly I dont think he is contravening any Old Testement texts rather he is supporting them. But thats another topic. and this one has the beginnings of a derailement :)

One of my sources was from George Howard's (University of Georgia) the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

[Aktungbby]

CCIP: Thanks for some of the informative background here, Steve and Vienna...and Rockstar
Rockstar: Christians simply tend to go with the Greek texts because they don't have a clue a Hebrew version exists.

Indeed! it's all Greek to me!:shucks:

[vienna]

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.

Quite right about oaths, in general. Here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-of-oaths-and-books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/04/where_did_we_get_our_oath.html

All the oaths of office etc., are really not binding and have little or no legal repercussions. An oath in court or before a legislative or administrative inquiry, however, is a codified legal procedure with serious ramifications of charges of perjury. That said, how often have we seen persons stand before a court or Congress, knowingly lie their asses off and not suffer one bit penalty? Think of all the tobacco industry execs who swore they knew nothing about the dangers of smoking all the while their office files were full of data substantiating those very same dangers; think of all the defense contractors, lobbyists, and other who wove tales out of whole cloth and never saw the inside of a court on charges of perjury. Some even boast about their perjury: Oliver North lied to Congress while in full Marine uniform (still a sore point to many of his fellow Marine officers), violating not only the oath he swore before his testimony, but, also, the oath he swore as a Marine. He gleefully boasted about lying and how he had gotten away with it and did so with no remorse much as those others I indicated above perjured themselves and showed no remorse. The problem of the oath being meaningless lies not in the oath in many cases, but in the fact there are no repercussions for violating an oath...

On the subject of oaths and religious underpinnings, there have been many cases of Christian evangelist who have engaged in questionable and illegal activities, sworn they were not guilty, and then were proven they were, in fact, very much guilty. The very public "mea culpa" followed by the pleas for forgiveness have been played out many, many times over the years. And let's not forget the whole priest sex scandals where the highest clergy of the Catholic Church have perjured themselves in criminal investigations, but they, like their evangelist brethren, have tried to shield themselves behind a façade of piety. Perhaps, if there was a little more rendering unto Caesar, there would be less of their shenanigans...


<O>

[August]

The problem of the oath being meaningless lies not in the oath in many cases, but in the fact there are no repercussions for violating an oath...

One might say that to a believer invoking the name of God when telling a lie has repercussions that go beyond the grave.

On the subject of oaths and religious underpinnings, there have been many cases of Christian evangelist who have engaged in questionable and illegal activities, sworn they were not guilty, and then were proven they were, in fact, very much guilty. The very public "mea culpa" followed by the pleas for forgiveness have been played out many, many times over the years. And let's not forget the whole priest sex scandals where the highest clergy of the Catholic Church have perjured themselves in criminal investigations, but they, like their evangelist brethren, have tried to shield themselves behind a façade of piety. Perhaps, if there was a little more rendering unto Caesar, there would be less of their shenanigans...I'm sure you can find examples of all sorts of dishonorable behavior if you look hard enough but that's hardly confined to evangelists. They're just fallible humans like the rest of us and even if they don't sometimes live up to the ideals they espouse it doesn't make those ideals any less worth trying to live up to.

[Sailor Steve]

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.
That's a valid question. Why are there oaths and pledges? I believe that an oath, whether it's the oath of enlistment, or oath of office, or the Boy Scout oath, serves mainly to remind the individual of the purpose of the organization he is joining, and what he's there for.

The question we're addressing was whether adding "...so help me God" makes the oath-taker more honest. I don't see how it can.

Shem Tovs text is unlike the Byzantine Greek texts today, of his day or any other known Greek text. If he had made a fresh translation it would have rendered one of those forms. In regards to theology the Hebrew text never identify Jesus as messiah or divine. Shem Tov's comments scattered throughout the Hebrew text suggest he did not create it.
This reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Jefferson disallowed the existence of miracles, and cut up the New Testament to reflect that. I can never read his version without asking the question "But how do we know what we can safely remove, add, or change? There is no outside evidence that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the texts, so removing just the miracles is just cherry-picking what you don't like."

There is some evidence that suggests the Greek texts we have today were translated from original Hebrew source. Not the other way around. Jerome, Eusebius, Origen and Epiphanes allude to it in their writings. Papias came right out and said it. "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each (Greeks) interpreted them the best he could" If that's the case, then nothing in any of the Gospels can be taken as fact. We might as well use the Gospel of Judas.

The point I was trying to make is that modern Christians largely also support their country of origin, and support taking oaths of allegiance without thinking about it. Since the Gospels we have are the ones they put their faith in, I would argue that they are the ones that count.

[Armistead]

None of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Since the book you cite was written in 1385 changes to the Gospel can only be counted as "after the fact" and are altered to meet the beliefs of the translator. That makes them invalid as proof for a discussion of the original text. A better argument might be to question how much of the quotations in the Gospels were said by Jesus at all.




Most of the NT was written by highly educated Greeks decades after Christ. There are no known Aramaic gospels. They are anonymous, the names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were added much later by Irenaeus. There were possible 100's of different good news letters spread out among the nations and many like the greeks came up with their own based on passed down oral traditions and stories. They often differed greatly. Numerous NT books are pseudepigraphical works. As you know, books, letters, and later bibles were highly chosen and edited to fit the doctrine of the period. Almost all biblical factual scholars admit, if an original exist, we could never get back to it to know. But we do know the gospel story greatly evolved from Christ being maybe a great teacher guru of the day to God himself later.

[August]

The question we're addressing was whether adding "...so help me God" makes the oath-taker more honest. I don't see how it can.

See my previous post. To a believer in God, and it's not just Christians we're talking about here, invoking their Deity when making a false statement carries with it the extra repercussion of eternal damnation or at least invites some other negative divine reaction. That ought to have at least some effect on a believer. I do agree however that Atheists and liars probably don't need to be saying anything about God at all when taking an oath.

[Platapus]

Here is an interesting historical tidbit

As late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia excluded the testimony of those professing a disbelief in God, and, in a dozen or so additional states, the testimony of nonbelievers was subject to attack on the ground that one's credibility was impaired by irreligion or a lack of belief in a deity.

[Armistead]

See my previous post. To a believer in God, and it's not just Christians we're talking about here, invoking their Deity when making a false statement carries with it the extra repercussion of eternal damnation or at least invites some other negative divine reaction. That ought to have at least some effect on a believer. I do agree however that Atheists and liars probably don't need to be saying anything about God at all when taking an oath.

This is why almost all religions came up with a doctrine of terrible eternal torture. This is why great philosophers helped define and scope doctrines for numerous religions and agreed total fear of the afterlife punishment keeps people morally in line and under religious rule. Even Christianity itself hardly embraced eternal hell in the sense it's taught today, except for some outer branches, but under the Roman church, it became a set doctrine as language was redefined once again to make it like all the torturous pagan hell's that existed previously.

Once you have the themes indoctrinated into the public, you add them into the legal system for even more control of the uneducated masses. This actually has proven to have much positive effect in early civilizations where class played such a role and the masses were poor. It kept them in fearful compliance, ready to war and accepting of their place in society, because the divine books said so.

You would think in America where we have separation of Church&State we wouldn't be using such in govt in this modern age. But even most agnostic Politicians still silently agree to the good use of it.

[NeonSamurai]

This reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Jefferson disallowed the existence of miracles, and cut up the New Testament to reflect that. I can never read his version without asking the question "But how do we know what we can safely remove, add, or change? There is no outside evidence that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the texts, so removing just the miracles is just cherry-picking what you don't like."

People are forever engaging in cherry picking what they like. Heck the entire Bible (including all of the versions and variations) is nothing but cherry picking.

It's a huge problem in science too with researchers cherry picking their data or methodology, and how they construct their reports with all the generally meaningless references and citations, in addition to how they choose to interpret their 'results'.

We only like to pay attention to what we like, and can go to great lengths to convince ourselves of the truth of our actions as we quietly sometimes subconsiously discard that which disagrees with our position.

See my previous post. To a believer in God, and it's not just Christians we're talking about here, invoking their Deity when making a false statement carries with it the extra repercussion of eternal damnation or at least invites some other negative divine reaction. That ought to have at least some effect on a believer. I do agree however that Atheists and liars probably don't need to be saying anything about God at all when taking an oath.

I doubt that a truly devout person would be making false statements even without making an oath. However, the number of truly devout people in the world is very very small indeed! For the rest of us, we are all very good at relativisting our actions and excusing ourselves as we fall into the delusion that we did the wrong thing for the right reason.

Of course then you have all those self professing true believers, who are utter frauds. The are the ones that thump their books at others; ceaselessly they criticize, condemn, and castigate everyone else while loudly proclaiming their own moral and religious righteousness, piety, and humility. I'm quite certain they would have no fear of ever suffering eternal damnation while lying through their teeth, because they are such moral and righteous individuals and god would understand their righteous intents. It's all lip-service after all.

Here is an interesting historical tidbit

As late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia excluded the testimony of those professing a disbelief in God, and, in a dozen or so additional states, the testimony of nonbelievers was subject to attack on the ground that one's credibility was impaired by irreligion or a lack of belief in a deity.

That still goes on a lot, though not so much in the US any more. It still bewilders me when people espouse the belief that morality can only come from religion (usually only their brand of it of course). It is entirely possible to be a very moral person, and divest yourself entirely of religion or even spirituality, just as one can be very spiritual with out being religious.

[vienna]

One might say that to a believer invoking the name of God when telling a lie has repercussions that go beyond the grave.

I'm sure you can find examples of all sorts of dishonorable behavior if you look hard enough but that's hardly confined to evangelists. They're just fallible humans like the rest of us and even if they don't sometimes live up to the ideals they espouse it doesn't make those ideals any less worth trying to live up to.

Repercussions beyond the grave are of little effect in the real, secular world and the addition of a religious element does nothing to determine the veracity, or lack thereof, of an attester in legal proceedings. We might just as well have a witness cross their heart and hope to die or "pinkie swear" before giving testimony or taking an oath; it would have just as much effect and import in real secular life as a religious component...

You are correct: the actions of weak, deceitful individuals do not invalidate the ideals to which they supposedly adhered and demanded others so adhere. This does not dismiss them from any responsibilities for their actions and those who defend them do nothing but cheapen and dilute those high ideals. Again, if there were actual real world repercussions for such actions, there would probably be less instances of such actions...

But we are not discussing the ideals, but, rather, the imposition of a religious element upon secular concerns, which is proscribed by the Constitution, regardless of the adaption and co-opting done in response to very much unnecessary religious prodding. Does "In God We Trust" make the real world value of our currency any greater or less than t would be if the words weren't there? I'm sure the Wall Street money lenders couldn't care less what it said on our currency as long as the money was good. It is a fact that those words were never an official part of our original currency and the inclusion of those words were made due to a religious and not legal expediency. The Constitution does not provide for mottoes, sayings, or any other wording on our currency. In fact, much of the US currency has only recently, in historical terms had the phrase added. Since the founding of the US, the words were in spotty use, sometimes dropped entirely, and it wasn't until 1957 the words were adopted as the official motto of the US in response to Commie hunting frenzies sweeping the nation. Those word, like "Under God", were never a part of the original design and founding of this great nation and are, if SCOTUS ever had the courage to actually address the question, unconstitutional...


http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx



<O>

[August]

Repercussions beyond the grave are of little effect in the real, secular world and the addition of a religious element does nothing to determine the veracity, or lack thereof, of an attester in legal proceedings. We might just as well have a witness cross their heart and hope to die or "pinkie swear" before giving testimony or taking an oath; it would have just as much effect and import in real secular life as a religious component...

You see the world through Atheist eyes and I understand that to you swearing to God is no different a pinky swear but don't make the mistake of thinking that a person of faith would feel the same about it.

You are correct: the actions of weak, deceitful individuals do not invalidate the ideals to which they supposedly adhered and demanded others so adhere. This does not dismiss them from any responsibilities for their actions and those who defend them do nothing but cheapen and dilute those high ideals. Again, if there were actual real world repercussions for such actions, there would probably be less instances of such actions...

Of course it doesn't excuse the deceitful but those who defend them do so for many reasons, not the least of which is because Atheists tend to use language that includes their whole group. "Thumpers", "religious nuts", "holy rollers" and similar disparaging terms are never applied to just a few TV evangelists but to the entire religion. So it's easy to understand why some might get defensive in the face of constant and mean spirited attacks upon their cherished beliefs.

While society thinks of itself as more inclusive these days it really is just more inclusive of certain things and far less inclusive of many others. If it gets the religious people on board I have no problem with allowing "In God We Trust" on our currency. They are after all still 70% of the population. BTW neither do I have a problem with letting the south retain some minor connection with their confederate history with the occasional display of the stars and bars or by naming a few military bases after their famous generals.

[Platapus]

That still goes on a lot, though not so much in the US any more. It still bewilders me when people espouse the belief that morality can only come from religion (usually only their brand of it of course). It is entirely possible to be a very moral person, and divest yourself entirely of religion or even spirituality, just as one can be very spiritual with out being religious.

It does raise up an interesting question: Who is more altruistic?

A theist who does good things and expects/wishes for a reward in heaven
An atheist who does good things and does not expect any post life reward? :hmmm:

I remember one person at work trying to convince people that the concept of doing good and battling evil started with Christianity. Yikes!

Any guesses on what religion this person at work was? Anyone? Buelier? :D

[Sailor Steve]

Atheists tend to use language that includes their whole group. "Thumpers", "religious nuts", "holy rollers" and similar disparaging terms are never applied to just a few TV evangelists but to the entire religion.
You use that phrase on "Atheists". Did you notice that your paragraph does exactly the same thing, lumping all non-believers into a single group?

So it's easy to understand why some might get defensive in the face of constant and mean spirited attacks upon their cherished beliefs. And those same constant and mean-spirited attacks have been made by certain (not all) religious types against non-believers since the attacks on Jefferson accusing him of being an atheist (which he wasn't), and probably long before that.

While society thinks of itself as more inclusive these days it really is just more inclusive of certain things and far less inclusive of many others. If it gets the religious people on board I have no problem with allowing "In God We Trust" on our currency. They are after all still 70% of the population. Are 70% of Americans Conservative Evangelical Protestants? I have heard the same people who claim Christian solidarity when talking about "Christian America" deride Catholics as not really being Christians. I've heard those same people dismiss others who believe in God but support freedom of choice as "Liberal Christians". Evangelical Christians like to talk about America being founded as a Christian country, but in fact then, as today, people claiming to be religious where highly disparate and actually believed many different things.

This is also "cherry-picking". There are "religious" people who also dislike having religious slogans on our money. While the statement itself may seem innocuous enough, if you ask any Evangelical Christian he'll tell you it doesn't mean some nebulous supreme being but the God of the Christian Bible specifically.

BTW neither do I have a problem with letting the south retain some minor connection with their confederate history with the occasional display of the stars and bars or by naming a few military bases after their famous generals.In front of your own house? On your own property? Neither do I. In front of State buildings, which supposedly represent the whole population? I'm of two minds. On the one hand if it were my state I'd be trying to get it removed. On the other, if other states choose to keep flying the Stars & Bars I consider that to be their business, decided in-house and locally. They can bend to pressure, but should not be forced by outside influences to one action or another.

Just the same as I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not, even though I'm personally against it. Freedom is a tricky question, but it has to be honored in all circumstances.

[vienna]

You see the world through Atheist eyes and I understand that to you swearing to God is no different a pinky swear but don't make the mistake of thinking that a person of faith would feel the same about it.

Of course it doesn't excuse the deceitful but those who defend them do so for many reasons, not the least of which is because Atheists tend to use language that includes their whole group. "Thumpers", "religious nuts", "holy rollers" and similar disparaging terms are never applied to just a few TV evangelists but to the entire religion. So it's easy to understand why some might get defensive in the face of constant and mean spirited attacks upon their cherished beliefs.

While society thinks of itself as more inclusive these days it really is just more inclusive of certain things and far less inclusive of many others. If it gets the religious people on board I have no problem with allowing "In God We Trust" on our currency. They are after all still 70% of the population. BTW neither do I have a problem with letting the south retain some minor connection with their confederate history with the occasional display of the stars and bars or by naming a few military bases after their famous generals.

You seem to have a penchant for assigning labels to people, particularly if they don't agree with you, without actually knowing much or anything at all about them or their real beliefs. Don't agree with your politics? Must be a leftist liberal. Don't agree with your religion? Must be an atheist. You don't know me well enough to label me an atheist, agnostic, or any other -ist or -tic. Perhaps it may surprise you that, when younger, I gave serious thought to joining the Jesuits? You have complained in the past of other posters putting words in your mouth; I have a similar dislike and would suggest you do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Catchy phrase, that; I wonder who first said it?...

Since I am not an atheist, I guess I'm not painting all of those of faith as "Thumpers", "religious nuts", "holy rollers", just those who try to impose their particular brand of hypocrisy and self-serving upon those who are honestly reverent and respectful of their faith and the faith of others. Yes, 70% of the population may be Christian, but the vast majority of those are not represented by nor endorse the rabid ravings of the few, much as with many matters in life...

To say "similar disparaging terms are never applied to just a few TV evangelists but to the entire religion" is in itself a broad sweeping statement; the word "never" is exclusive and does not allow for those, like myself, who respect those who are also respectful of other's beliefs and who do not color all on the actions of a few. It is another of your penchants: to paint with a broad and sloppy brush...

I would like to see one thing: myself and a number of other posters in this thread have provided solid annotations, citations, and references dealing with the issue of the topic. So far, all you have come up with is rhetoric and bellicose frippery. Let's have a specific, tangible argument from you. You know, facts...


It does raise up an interesting question: Who is more altruistic?

A theist who does good things and expects/wishes for a reward in heaven
An atheist who does good things and does not expect any post life reward? :hmmm:

I remember one person at work trying to convince people that the concept of doing good and battling evil started with Christianity. Yikes!

Any guesses on what religion this person at work was? Anyone? Buelier? :D

When I was still in Catholic school, the same subject came up during a religion class regarding original sin and baptism. In Catholicism, as in a lot of other Christian faiths, a person cannot be given entrance to heaven unless they are properly baptized. This concerned me and I posed a question to our teacher, a nun: Suppose there is a place on earth, say a remote island, and the people there have no contact with the outside world. The island is populated by people who have developed a code of conduct virtually identical to basic Christian tenet as found in the Ten Commandments. Let's take the case of one islander, who has, in his or her life, adhered to those tenets and, except, for not being baptized into the Catholic religion, has lived an exemplary life that would have merited entrance to heaven. Does a just and merciful God, who created that person and seemingly intended for that person to live in such isolation, does God deny a very worthy soul eternal rewards merely because a protocol unavailable to the soul was not followed? Does the soul languish in limbo or, perhaps, is otherwise 'punished' for circumstance divinely designed and beyond his ability to change or observe? I never did get a straight answer to that question...

(...and, yes, I was a bit of a pain to the nuns and priests with my questions...)...


<O>

[August]

Are 70% of Americans Conservative Evangelical Protestants? I have heard the same people who claim Christian solidarity when talking about "Christian America" deride Catholics as not really being Christians. I've heard those same people dismiss others who believe in God but support freedom of choice as "Liberal Christians". Evangelical Christians like to talk about America being founded as a Christian country, but in fact then, as today, people claiming to be religious where highly disparate and actually believed many different things.

Heh from what I read Protestants can hate each other as much as anyone else. Reminds me of an Emo Phillips routine.

There are "religious" people who also dislike having religious slogans on our money. While the statement itself may seem innocuous enough, if you ask any Evangelical Christian he'll tell you it doesn't mean some nebulous supreme being but the God of the Christian Bible specifically.

So? They aren't usually the ones ragging on the concept of religion itself.

In front of your own house? On your own property? Neither do I. In front of State buildings, which supposedly represent the whole population? I'm of two minds. On the one hand if it were my state I'd be trying to get it removed. On the other, if other states choose to keep flying the Stars & Bars I consider that to be their business, decided in-house and locally. They can bend to pressure, but should not be forced by outside influences to one action or another.

I pretty much agree although it's outside pressure that is mainly driving the current attempts to destroy all vestiges of the confederacy now apparently including town monuments and even the little flags that decorate the graves of their war dead on Memorial Day. It's this kind of over reach which increases resistance to even the small step of removing it from statehouse flag poles. I guess it's kinda like how the Federal Government use of troops to suppress the south solidified resistance even among southerners personally opposed to slavery.

I sometimes wonder what today's race relations would have been like if slavery had been allowed to die the economic death it was headed toward anyways instead of the earlier end that generated over a hundred years of racial hatred and tension.

Just the same as I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not, even though I'm personally against it. Freedom is a tricky question, but it has to be honored in all circumstances.

Exactly.

[Betonov]

When I was still in Catholic school...

When I was in sunday school, the same question arose. And about still born babies.
Our priest answered that God opens the heavenly door to all those that lived pure even if for only 5min and that the Bible has loopholes and contradictions that God himself sorts out.
He also pointed out there are non-christians more christian than some christians and that we should beware using the name of the Lord for doing sins.

It's a strange day on Earth when the Catholics talk more sense than anyone else.

[August]

You don't know me well enough to label me an atheist, agnostic, or any other -ist or -tic.

My apologies. I don't keep records on people, all I have to go on is the way you write and it has led me to the assumption that you were an Atheist. If you say that's not true then it's not but you should know you come off as one in your posts, at least the way it looks to me.

[mapuc]

Maybe not the right place

Yesterday on the news-Danish, I saw a clip from a official building in USA where this flag was taken down. About 2-3 minutes later it was the sports news-Albania was given 3 points and they showed some clip from this "famous match" between Albania and Serbia.

I saw a drone with a flag and some football player trying to..do something..then all went in chaos, players was fighting a.s.o

Then I thought- It's incredible what flag can do to people.

Markus

[vienna]

My apologies. I don't keep records on people, all I have to go on is the way you write and it has led me to the assumption that you were an Atheist. If you say that's not true then it's not but you should know you come off as one in your posts, at least the way it looks to me.


Well, you know what they say about assumptions... :D


<O>

[vienna]

When I was in sunday school, the same question arose. And about still born babies.
Our priest answered that God opens the heavenly door to all those that lived pure even if for only 5min and that the Bible has loopholes and contradictions that God himself sorts out.
He also pointed out there are non-christians more christian than some christians and that we should beware using the name of the Lord for doing sins.

It's a strange day on Earth when the Catholics talk more sense than anyone else.

From what I recall, Slovenia has a large Catholic population. (A young lady I worked with, though born in the US, had family in Slovenia and always spoke highly of the country and it beauty). When I went to Catholic school, it was from the mid 50s to 1966. The Church was just getting into the whole Ecumenical Council reforms abut the time I graduated. Up to then, it was a very old style school, very hard and regimented. Our teachers, mainly nuns, didn't really tolerate very much questioning and most of the time the answer to a potentially unanswerable or uncomfortable question would be "Because it is God's will"...

It sounds like your priest was a Jesuit. You were lucky to have such a good teacher. I still, myself, choose to just try to follow the "Golden Rule" and try to avoid being locked into any particular flavor of religion or faith...

One point to be made about the topic at hand: all references to God (I n God we trust, under God, etc.) could be removed from all branches of the US government tomorrow and nothing would change and nothing would be materially damaged; the currency would be just as strong, the flag would still fly as always; the only difference would be that those who would impose their views and wills on other under the guise of faith would have to find something else to occupy their time. You know, like try to obey the Commandments...

BTW, if anyone would wish to give examples of any harm possibly done by actually separating church and state, I demand actual, tangible, material examples and not rhetoric or platitudes...


<O>

[Betonov]

Predominantly catholic nation, very low actuall practice.
Even the atheists mostly declare themselves catholic here.
Cultural grounds mostly.

We had that one priest for 30 years, he had me from baptism to confirmation.
After confirmation I left the Church, soon we had another priest who was even more chilled than the previous one. He believed that one can pray in his heart and do good and so his mass was a 20min affair. It didn't stant good in the whole ''look like a good christian'' crowd. The sunday mass was something the klero hypocrits used as the only excuse to make themselves look like good christians and a short mass made them feel disconected from God.
He was booted out and replaced by one of those old school tyrants. A true inquisitor. Beloved by the Sunday klero hypocrits. Can't stand him.

[Wolferz]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/see-the-moving-photo-of-a-black-cop-helping-a-man-at-kkk-rally/ar-AAddsXB?ocid=iehp

KKK flag protester aided by black police officer. Photo goes viral.

It's all black and white.:yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2:

Gotta love it! :rock:

[Jimbuna]

Poetic justice :)