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

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


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.

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:

:sign_yeah: :agree: :yeah:

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:

Fixed. :D

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

Actually:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_City.svg.png
<+]:¬) or +O=-) https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...832f8c68d5.jpg

August Landmesser
 

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.

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...ans-will-hate/

No matter who you are...
 

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:

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...

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>

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.

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

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>

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

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

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.

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>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"