Flag priorities....

[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.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by 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...ans-will-hate/

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

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]

Originally Posted by vienna

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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!

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

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-...aths-and-books

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._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>