Is it disrespectful to sit during the Pledge?

[Antityranicals]

Vass, I didn't know you had an alternative account and I didn't know we were moving the goal-posts.

It's not cult-like, it's not a loyalty test per se, and it's not asking you to prostrate yourself before a deity in specific terms. It's a pledge of patriotism and nationalism that carries no penalty for refusal to recite it. Its recitation along with an education in history and civics prepares one to contemplate citizenship and what it means in the hopes that, perhaps, they won't be listless and/or selfish citizens, at least if we reflect at all on what is being spoken.

The Pledge would be fine if it was voluntary and not literally rammed into children's heads every single day since they first entered education (With them having no choice in the matter at that), especially since it completely whitewashes all the sins and war crimes America performed during its 243 year old history and implicitly coerces you to be a Christian due to the "Under God" segment, as if the US was a theocracy and the separation of church and state was nonexistent. And worshipping a inanimate object such as the American flag is cult-like behavior, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Look. The pledge never says anything about Jesus. You cannot claim that it is Christian. The government, in a rare event of sense, is admitting that its actions are only okay so long as they coincide with the will of our maker, who without a doubt exists, but whom the government makes no statements about, only that they are subservient to Him. Adding these words to the pledge makes the pledge morally acceptable. Otherwise, we are pledging total allegiance to an organization of men, something which is simply unacceptable, precisely because of the crimes you describe. The "Under God" clause, however, allows us to condemn these sins as the government not acting "under God".

[Vassenor]

The Pledge would be fine if it was voluntary and not literally rammed into children's heads every single day since they first entered education (With them having no choice in the matter at that), especially since it completely whitewashes all the sins and war crimes America performed during its 243 year old history and implicitly coerces you to be a Christian due to the "Under God" segment, as if the US was a theocracy and the separation of church and state was nonexistent. And worshipping a inanimate object such as the American flag is cult-like behavior, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Look. The pledge never says anything about Jesus. You cannot claim that it is Christian. The government, in a rare event of sense, is admitting that its actions are only okay so long as they coincide with the will of our maker, who without a doubt exists, but which the government makes no statements about, only that they are subservient to it. Adding these words to the pledge makes the pledge morally acceptable. Otherwise, we are pledging total allegiance to an organization of men, something which is simply unacceptable, precisely because of the crimes you describe. The "Under God" clause, however, allows us to condemn these sins as the government not acting "under God".

So despite making explicit reference to the Abrahamic God it's not Christian?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

who without a doubt exists

What if people disagrees with your supposed axiom?

[Antityranicals]

Look. The pledge never says anything about Jesus. You cannot claim that it is Christian. The government, in a rare event of sense, is admitting that its actions are only okay so long as they coincide with the will of our maker, who without a doubt exists, but which the government makes no statements about, only that they are subservient to it. Adding these words to the pledge makes the pledge morally acceptable. Otherwise, we are pledging total allegiance to an organization of men, something which is simply unacceptable, precisely because of the crimes you describe. The "Under God" clause, however, allows us to condemn these sins as the government not acting "under God".

So despite making explicit reference to the Abrahamic God it's not Christian?

The Pledge does not read, "One nation, under the God of Abraham." It reads, "One nation, under God." This is the God which actually exists, whoever's God he may be. The pledge makes no statement on which God actually does exists, only that one does exist, which everyone should realize.

[Antityranicals]

who without a doubt exists

What if people disagrees with your supposed axiom?

Then they're wrong, just like flat-Earthers are wrong. I don't know why that's so complicated.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So despite making explicit reference to the Abrahamic God it's not Christian?

The Pledge does not read, "One nation, under the God of Abraham." It reads, "One nation, under God." This is the God which actually exists, whoever's God he may be. The pledge makes no statement on which God actually does exists, only that one does exist, which everyone should realize.

I think we all get which particular deity the "Gott" in "Gott mit uns" refers to. And it sures as fuck wasn't Odin.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Yeah, no. Christians do not have a monopoly on G-d. Really, theists/deists don't either.

The majority religion in America is Christianity though, and it was overwhelmingly so in the 1950s when the Pledge was rewritten to include the "Under God" segment as part of a culture war against secularism and atheism during the Cold War. Thus, it does implicitly refer to the Abrahamic God given the sheer influence of Christianity on American society, culture, and politics.

You're not "worshiping" the flag. That's not what the pledge of allegiance is. There's no religious overtones to a secular national ritual.

The word "worship" is also used in contexts other than deities:
"to love, respect, and admire someone or something very much, often without noticing the bad qualities of that person or thing."
""a lot of love or admiration for a particular thing or person, often when this is considered too much."
And reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does just that.
Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/worship

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What if people disagrees with your supposed axiom?

Then they're wrong, just like flat-Earthers are wrong. I don't know why that's so complicated.

Then I am either clearly an idiot or... or... or... bear with me...
Withdrew my consent to acknowledge your deity as real long ago.

[Antityranicals]

The Pledge does not read, "One nation, under the God of Abraham." It reads, "One nation, under God." This is the God which actually exists, whoever's God he may be. The pledge makes no statement on which God actually does exists, only that one does exist, which everyone should realize.

I think we all get which particular deity the "Gott" in "Gott mit uns" refers to. And it sures as fuck wasn't Odin.

Draw your own conclusions on which God exists and which one doesn't, I'm just saying that the US is "under" the one that does.

[San Montalbano]

and implicitly coerces you to be a Christian due to the "Under God" segment, as if the US was a theocracy and the separation of church and state was nonexistent.

Yeah, no. Christians do not have a monopoly on G-d. Really, theists/deists don't either.

The majority religion in America is Christianity though, and it was overwhelmingly so in the 1950s when the Pledge was rewritten to include the "Under God" segment as part of a culture war against secularism and atheism during the Cold War. Thus, it does implicitly refer to the Abrahamic God given the sheer influence of Christianity on American society, culture, and politics.

And worshipping a inanimate object such as the American flag is cult-like behavior, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

You're not "worshiping" the flag. That's not what the pledge of allegiance is. There's no religious overtones to a secular national ritual.[/quote]
The word "worship" is also used in contexts other than deities:
"to love, respect, and admire someone or something very much, often without noticing the bad qualities of that person or thing."
""a lot of love or admiration for a particular thing or person, often when this is considered too much."
And reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does just that.
Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/worship[/quote]

So your saying america is a christian nation de facto

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

The Pledge does not read, "One nation, under the God of Abraham." It reads, "One nation, under God." This is the God which actually exists, whoever's God he may be. The pledge makes no statement on which God actually does exists, only that one does exist, which everyone should realize.

I think we all get which particular deity the "Gott" in "Gott mit uns" refers to. And it sures as fuck wasn't Odin.

A Odinist USA would be a very blessed timeline to see. Jokes aside, you are right. "God" (Capital G) in Western nations almost always refers to the Christian God the Father.

[Antityranicals]

Then they're wrong, just like flat-Earthers are wrong. I don't know why that's so complicated.

Then I am either clearly an idiot or... or... or... bear with me...
Withdrew my consent to acknowledge your deity as real long ago.

You're not necessarily stupid, just misinformed.

EDIT: And God exists whether or not you acknowledge him, just like Earth is round whether or not you acknowledge it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Then I am either clearly an idiot or... or... or... bear with me...
Withdrew my consent to acknowledge your deity as real long ago.

You're not necessarily stupid, just misinformed.

I think I should find that equally insulting.

[Antityranicals]

You're not necessarily stupid, just misinformed.

I think I should find that equally insulting.

There's nothing wrong with a misinformed person. There is something wrong with a stupid person. I'm willing to put you in the category of misinformed.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Then I am either clearly an idiot or... or... or... bear with me...
Withdrew my consent to acknowledge your deity as real long ago.

You're not necessarily stupid, just misinformed.

EDIT: And God exists whether or not you acknowledge him, just like Earth is round whether or not you acknowledge it.

As long as you are unable to prove God's existence using the scientific method, then he is nothing more than a fairytale myth concocted back when humans didn't know any better than to invent deities to explain their world. The Earth is round because it has been conclusively proven so through the utilization of the scientific method and evidence. The existence of God on the other hand, well.... Let's just say "creation science" is full of pseudoscientific bullshit.

[Antityranicals]

You're not necessarily stupid, just misinformed.

EDIT: And God exists whether or not you acknowledge him, just like Earth is round whether or not you acknowledge it.

As long as you are unable to prove God's existence using the scientific method, then he is nothing more than a fairytale myth concocted back when humans didn't know any better than to invent deities to explain their world.

Can you prove the accuracy of the scientific method with the scientific method? If not, how can you?

[Vassenor]

What if people disagrees with your supposed axiom?

Then they're wrong, just like flat-Earthers are wrong. I don't know why that's so complicated.

Prove them wrong then.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

As long as you are unable to prove God's existence using the scientific method, then he is nothing more than a fairytale myth concocted back when humans didn't know any better than to invent deities to explain their world.

Can you prove the accuracy of the scientific method with the scientific method? If not, how can you?

We have gone to the moon and beyond and you sit here with the chutzpah to ask that question?

[Antityranicals]

Then they're wrong, just like flat-Earthers are wrong. I don't know why that's so complicated.

Prove them wrong then.

Happily. All contingent realities have a cause. In order for there to be something instead of nothing, there must have been starting cause. However, since this starting cause is the starting cause, it cannot have a cause, because nothing predates it. Therefore, this starting cause must be a non-contingent reality. The ultimate definition of God is "a non-contingent reality". Therefore, this starting cause must be God. This simple proof doesn't tell you anything about God, simply that there is one.

[Antityranicals]

Can you prove the accuracy of the scientific method with the scientific method? If not, how can you?

We have gone to the moon and beyond and you sit here with the chutzpah to ask that question?

So your proof for the accuracy of the scientific method lies in criterion outside of the scientific method? I agree that the scientific method is accurate, but this is not something which can be proven by the scientific method. Therefore, not everything has to be proven by the scientific method to be true. In fact, the scientific method is simply an extension of a far more fundamental method: the method of logic. And with this method, I can prove the existence of God, and in fact just did.

[Vassenor]

Prove them wrong then.

Happily. All contingent realities have a cause. In order for there to be something instead of nothing, there must have been starting cause. However, since this starting cause is the starting cause, it cannot have a cause, because nothing predates it. Therefore, this starting cause must be a non-contingent reality. The ultimate definition of God is "a non-contingent reality". Therefore, this starting cause must be God. This simple proof doesn't tell you anything about God, simply that there is one.

Except we know what the starting cause was. It's called the Big Bang.

And it was literally postulated by a Catholic Priest.

[Antityranicals]

Happily. All contingent realities have a cause. In order for there to be something instead of nothing, there must have been starting cause. However, since this starting cause is the starting cause, it cannot have a cause, because nothing predates it. Therefore, this starting cause must be a non-contingent reality. The ultimate definition of God is "a non-contingent reality". Therefore, this starting cause must be God. This simple proof doesn't tell you anything about God, simply that there is one.

Except we know what the starting cause was. It's called the Big Bang.

And it was literally postulated by a Catholic Priest.

The Big Bang was postulated by a Catholic priest, and it most likely did happen. But the Big Bang is an event, and events are contingent, and as a result require a cause. The Big Bang isn't the starting cause. It may have been the second cause, but the first cause was non-contingent, and therefore God.

EDIT: In fact, the Big Bang Theory proves very well that there must have been a God. If the universe had always existed, it would be harder to make the case that it requires a cause. But since the universe started with a Big Bang, it must have been caused, and therefore there is a God.

[True Refuge]

Happily. All contingent realities have a cause. In order for there to be something instead of nothing, there must have been starting cause. However, since this starting cause is the starting cause, it cannot have a cause, because nothing predates it. Therefore, this starting cause must be a non-contingent reality. The ultimate definition of God is "a non-contingent reality". Therefore, this starting cause must be God. This simple proof doesn't tell you anything about God, simply that there is one.

Except we know what the starting cause was. It's called the Big Bang.

And it was literally postulated by a Catholic Priest.

Radioactive decay is a better example of an event without a clear cause, since Old Earth Creationists who believe in the Big Band and evolution generally state God caused the Big Bang or something along those lines.

[Fahran]

The majority religion in America is Christianity though, and it was overwhelmingly so in the 1950s when the Pledge was rewritten to include the "Under God" segment as part of a culture war against secularism and atheism during the Cold War. Thus, it does implicitly refer to the Abrahamic God given the sheer influence of Christianity on American society, culture, and politics.

No, it specficially sets the nation up in opposition to the state atheism of the Soviet Union. It does not establish the United States's government as a Christian republic or democracy and does not, in the slightest, set up a predetermined religious path. It does not even preclude those of mind with Spinoza from professing loyalty.

The word "worship" is also used in contexts other than deities:
"to love, respect, and admire someone or something very much, often without noticing the bad qualities of that person or thing."
""a lot of love or admiration for a particular thing or person, often when this is considered too much."
And reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does just that.
Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/worship

That's a pretty loose definition.

A more nuanced one is "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity", which, obviously, cannot apply to a community that has not been deified. But, again, children learn about the negative aspects of the United States in school. They just aren't asked to pledge allegiance to "the republic, which once had legally-sanctioned chattel slavery and committed genocide against inidgenous persons, for which it stands one..." Why not? Because that's not its intended purpose.

Also, it's quite curious than you're insinuating that the pledge of allegiance suggests too much love or admiration for the political community responsbile for a good deal of who we are. I would argue those who oppose it for those reasons are far more inordinate in their affections than those who support it.

[Vassenor]

Except we know what the starting cause was. It's called the Big Bang.

And it was literally postulated by a Catholic Priest.

The Big Bang was postulated by a Catholic priest, and it most likely did happen. But the Big Bang is an event, and events are contingent, and as a result require a cause. The Big Bang isn't the starting cause. It may have been the second cause, but the first cause was non-contingent, and therefore God.

EDIT: In fact, the Big Bang Theory proves very well that there must have been a God. If the universe had always existed, it would be harder to make the case that it requires a cause. But since the universe started with a Big Bang, it must have been caused, and therefore there is a God.

"We don't know why this happened ergo God is real" is really shit logic.