U.s. Founding fathers

[steelish]

Actually it's to both. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...."

Why didn't you embolden and to the Republic for which it stands? That is quite important.

[Thorne]

"Religion certainly has no place in government." In this I disagree.

"Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities." But for this I agree.

But then I make a distinction between these two concepts!

I sure would like some kind of explanation for that. If you mean that churches have a right to be represented in the law, then I will agree with you. But if you mean that religions have a right to force their moralities into the law then I must respectfully disagree! I can't bring myself to trust the morality of any group of people who proclaim their moral basis comes from an invisible being or an ancient collection of fireside stories.

[Thorne]

It symbolizes all that to you, yet you still think of it as just a piece of cloth. A piece of cloth no different from your socks...or the dishcloth.

Of course. As I said, it's not as if there's only one in the world. If someone trashes my flag I can buy another one this afternoon. No big deal.

But it's not the fault of religion. It's not the fault of politics. It's not the fault of race. It's the fault of the people themselves who use those things as weapons.

But don't you see? It's the religious groups, the political parties, who separate people and make them see opponents with fear. Christians against Muslims. Muslims against Jews. Democrats against Republicans. ALL such groups, through their leaders, spout hatred and fear, setting one group against another, instead of sitting down and working through our differences. Listen to the lies and hatred vomited up by political commentors, from both sides. Listen to the hatred form the religious groups regarding gays. Yes, it's the people who put out the hate, but so many of them are prompted to do so by their leaders, who use religion and/or politics to justify their comments.

Only by reaching out to one another with decent human kindness in our souls can we overcome this insanity.

I can get behind this sentiment. Sadly, decent human kindness seems to be out of style in America today.

[Thorne]

Why didn't you embolden and to the Republic for which it stands? That is quite important.

It's important, but wasn't the point I was trying to make.

[steelish]

See there, it's all in the way you look at and interpret a sentence. To me it was the entire point.

[Thorne]

My POINT was that the pledge places allegiance to the FLAG above allegiance to the Republic. I have no qualms about pledging allegiance to the Republic, but I don't feel I owe any allegiance to a symbol. It would be tantamount to pledging allegiance to one's avatar.

[denuseri]

Or perhaps like pledging allegiance to one's collar?

"I pledge allegiance to my Collar and to my Owner for which it stands, one slave under His whip, submissive yet spirited, with blowjobs and ass fucking for all."

[tedteague]

It's me again, the annoying guy
Here are 11 freedoms that the founding fathers criminalized after gaining independence
1. Non-marital sex
2. Homosexuality
3. Divorce
4. Dancing
5. Leisure (the typical weekend was 3 days, post-Revolution it was 1 day)
6. Children's Play
7. Gambling
8. Sports - they thought that Greece had fallen because of all the Olympics
9. Drinking
10. Racial Integration
11. Fashion
Freedom, hooray

[DuncanONeil]

I sure would like some kind of explanation for that. If you mean that churches have a right to be represented in the law, then I will agree with you.

Well this is a given!

But if you mean that religions have a right to force their moralities into the law then I must respectfully disagree!

No this is not what I meant. In fact this is what I infered led to the second course.

I can't bring myself to trust the morality of any group of people who proclaim their moral basis comes from an invisible being or an ancient collection of fireside stories.

Perhaps a better way to explain it is that without the codification of some religion way too many people would be little more than spoiled brats, well brats at least. People that are moral from their own compass are way to far and few between. Many of those "fireside stories" are expressions of humanities collective wisdom.

[DuncanONeil]

But don't you see? It's the religious groups, the political parties, who separate people and make them see opponents with fear. Christians against Muslims. Muslims against Jews. Democrats against Republicans. ALL such groups, through their leaders, spout hatred and fear, setting one group against another, instead of sitting down and working through our differences.

You should join some of my other groups and see the vitriol that is spewed towards those that do not hew to the beliefs of the majority. Actually that word represents a misnomer. Perhaps it would be better to say a specific set of beliefs.

[DuncanONeil]

Really!? The founding fathers? Or perhaps the individual states?

It's me again, the annoying guy
Here are 11 freedoms that the founding fathers criminalized after gaining independence
1. Non-marital sex
2. Homosexuality
3. Divorce
4. Dancing
5. Leisure (the typical weekend was 3 days, post-Revolution it was 1 day)
6. Children's Play
7. Gambling
8. Sports - they thought that Greece had fallen because of all the Olympics
9. Drinking
10. Racial Integration
11. Fashion
Freedom, hooray

[Thorne]

People that are moral from their own compass are way to far and few between.

I disagree. It's only that those without a moral compass make the headlines more often. Most people are willing, and able, to maintain a moral center regarding their fellow human beings, even without religion.

Many of those "fireside stories" are expressions of humanities collective wisdom.

Only such wisdom which was collected before about 100AD (give or take), at least as regards the Bible. A few extra years for other books. But you have to realize, too, that much of that "collected wisdom" was taken from relatively small areas of the world, not from a collective humanity. It's more the collected stories of an individual culture, and a culture that is historically obsolete.

[Thorne]

You should join some of my other groups and see the vitriol that is spewed towards those that do not hew to the beliefs of the majority. Actually that word represents a misnomer. Perhaps it would be better to say a specific set of beliefs.

Sorry, not big on joining groups. ANY groups. There's almost always a tendency to set hard and fast rules, which generally insure that the leaders maintain their leadership while eliminating opposition. And as you say, those who see the world differently are then considered pariahs, apostates, heretics, or traitors.

[DuncanONeil]

I disagree. It's only that those without a moral compass make the headlines more often. Most people are willing, and able, to maintain a moral center regarding their fellow human beings, even without religion.

Really no way for us to settle this!


Only such wisdom which was collected before about 100AD (give or take), at least as regards the Bible. A few extra years for other books. But you have to realize, too, that much of that "collected wisdom" was taken from relatively small areas of the world, not from a collective humanity. It's more the collected stories of an individual culture, and a culture that is historically obsolete.

Again more or less. But stories were carried from area to area over the trade routes. Everyone has a creation myth, and nearly everyone has a story of a catastrophic flood.

[Thorne]

But stories were carried from area to area over the trade routes. Everyone has a creation myth, and nearly everyone has a story of a catastrophic flood.

And all of those stories, while having some points in common, have far more differences than similarities. That's how you can tell that they have been "tainted" with the myths of other cultures. The stories of the Bible, for instance, were borrowed (to be polite) from the Babylonians, Egyptians and even the Far Eastern cultures. They were modified to fit the cultures of the Hebrew tribes. And then those cultures spread their myths and stories far and wide, too.

[tedteague]

nope the actual leaders of the Revolution, John Adams especially
http://www.alternet.org/media/148518..._/?page=entire

[Thorne]

Interesting article, tedteague. I have to admit, I wasn't aware of how fun-loving the pre-Revolution populace was.

Just goes to show, though. The politicians have ALWAYS been more interested in controlling other people's personal lives. I especially liked, "Though the Founders did their share of the drinking in early America, in public they attacked the practice during and after the Revolution." Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do!"

[DuncanONeil]

But that is the problem with a myth. That little kernel of truth!

And all of those stories, while having some points in common, have far more differences than similarities. That's how you can tell that they have been "tainted" with the myths of other cultures. The stories of the Bible, for instance, were borrowed (to be polite) from the Babylonians, Egyptians and even the Far Eastern cultures. They were modified to fit the cultures of the Hebrew tribes. And then those cultures spread their myths and stories far and wide, too.

[steelish]

nope the actual leaders of the Revolution, John Adams especially
http://www.alternet.org/media/148518..._/?page=entire

So your source of great wisdom on the founding fathers comes from the Huffington Post? Huh.

Try reading something written by an expert on the Founding Fathers. I know what you will say...biased opinion. BUT, David Barton became who he was (was shaped by what he found out) when he studied the founding fathers and began to collect original writings.

[Thorne]

But that is the problem with a myth. That little kernel of truth!

You make an assumption that all myths do indeed have such a kernel of truth. I would say, instead, that they all have a kernel of perceived truth. What is perceived as truth today, may be proven as untrue tomorrow. It was a perceived truth that the Earth was the center of the universe. We now know that to be wrong. Should we, then, give equal weight to those myths which rely upon that one-time truth?

[DuncanONeil]

But you do agree with the kernel theory.

You make an assumption that all myths do indeed have such a kernel of truth. I would say, instead, that they all have a kernel of perceived truth. What is perceived as truth today, may be proven as untrue tomorrow. It was a perceived truth that the Earth was the center of the universe. We now know that to be wrong. Should we, then, give equal weight to those myths which rely upon that one-time truth?

[Thorne]

But you do agree with the kernel theory.

I will agree that they probably had some elements within them which were not completely fabricated. Like any good fiction, blending some reality into the story enhances it, making it easier to accept it as possibly real. Whether or not the primary point of the story is real depends on the particular story.

The catastrophic flood stories, for example. Most early civilizations were centered upon large rivers or natural harbors, areas which would tend to see major flooding periodically, and truly catastrophic flooding rarely. For commoners who rarely, if ever, strayed more than a day's journey from home, seeing everything they've ever known covered in a flood would certainly engender tales of the wrath of the gods destroying the whole world. In effect, the world they knew was destroyed. Not a hard concept to understand. Taking those stories and twisting them into some sort of morality story creates the myth. An angry god: what was he angry about? (People sinned, or they didn't pray hard enough, or they didn't sacrifice enough virgins.) The world destroyed: why would he do that? (To punish everyone, guilty and innocent alike, men, women, children, even animals, except for one righteous family.) Control: how do we make sure he doesn't do that again? (Don't sin, pray harder, sacrifice more virgins. And don't forget to pay the priests.)

So a tiny incident (globally speaking) is blown up into a major myth. Floods happen. Global floods don't.

[Lion]

So your source of great wisdom on the founding fathers comes from the Huffington Post? Huh.

Try reading something written by an expert on the Founding Fathers. I know what you will say...biased opinion. BUT, David Barton became who he was (was shaped by what he found out) when he studied the founding fathers and began to collect original writings.

Huffington Post is clearly liberal. David Barton is an evangelical Christian minister who is a Texas Republican Politician. I imagine he is well versed in American history, but with his political activism, he clearly has a biased viewpoint. It seems less academic and more political in nature.

As for the 'expert' article: The quotes are sourced from secondary articles. As in there is no direct proof that the quotes are authentic or fabrications that have come about over the last 200 plus years. A simple google search for "David Barton Christian Nation" will show a lot of links that claim Barton has no real evidence of the quotes.

I don't see what's wrong with reading the Huffington Post for information about the founding fathers. Or watching Fox News for information on the economy, Obama's presidency, War, etc.

[steelish]

My POINT was that the pledge places allegiance to the FLAG above allegiance to the Republic. I have no qualms about pledging allegiance to the Republic, but I don't feel I owe any allegiance to a symbol. It would be tantamount to pledging allegiance to one's avatar.

Not necessarily. The flag is not placed ABOVE the Republic. The flag REPRESENTS the Republic. Besides, allegiance to one's avatar means allegiance to the person for which it stands. The symbol has to mean something, it has to stand for something. The flag is a symbol that stands in place of the Republic, a form of government. It gives people a visual reference...a reminder, if you will. I simply find it hard to equate it with an object that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. You're saying it's the same as pledging allegiance to a pair of dirty socks, or a basketball, or a used paint brush. That is ridiculous.

[Thorne]

Not necessarily. The flag is not placed ABOVE the Republic. The flag REPRESENTS the Republic.

No, the wording is clear: I pledge allegiance TO the flag... AND to the Republic for which it stands.

Besides, allegiance to one's avatar means allegiance to the person for which it stands. The symbol has to mean something, it has to stand for something.

I agree, but it does not have to mean the same things to different people. And the symbol itself is not interchangeable with the thing, or person, it represents.

The flag is a symbol that stands in place of the Republic, a form of government. It gives people a visual reference...a reminder, if you will. I simply find it hard to equate it with an object that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

I never claimed it had no meaning. I agree that it DOES have meaning. But that meaning can be different to different people. Even people who honor this country, and believe in this country, don't necessarily see the flag as meaning the same things. And I, for one, don't see the flag as being so connected to this nation that disrespecting the flag would mean an attack on the nation. That's just ludicrous. The flag, itself, is a piece of cloth. It can be purchased almost anywhere. What it represents cannot.

You're saying it's the same as pledging allegiance to a pair of dirty socks, or a basketball, or a used paint brush. That is ridiculous.

If those items have meaning for you, then they can have as much symbolism, for you, as the flag. What if those dirty socks were all you had left of someone who died saving your life? Would they mean something to you? Maybe the basketball belonged to a child that is no longer with you. Some symbolism there, too. (Okay, you might have me at the used paint brush.) But that doesn't mean that your neighbor has to have the same respect for those dirty socks, or that basketball. It does not mean that he should be forbidden from washing or discarding all dirty socks without due reverence. And it does not mean he must pledge allegiance to those items.

All I'm really saying, though, is that the WORDS of the Pledge of Allegiance are just words, they are not sacrosanct. There was not always a Pledge of Allegiance. The words have changed in the last 120 years, and will likely change again as political winds blow around this country.

I have no problem with pledging my allegiance to this country, and to the people of this nation. I do not feel we owe allegiance to the politicians who run the country, though as elected representatives we owe them a certain level of respect and obedience. I also feel that, as Americans, we owe a certain level of respect to our flag, because of the nation it symbolizes. I do not feel we owe allegiance to that flag, however.

[tedteague]

what you posted was article talking about how chriistian the founding fathers were. that goes right in line with the article talking about how they forced chrisitan cirtues and values on the population

[tedteague]

and it's not an article that the Huffington Post wrote itself. It was taken from an excerpt of a book by historian Thaddeus Russell

[steelish]

I don't see what's wrong with reading the Huffington Post for information about the founding fathers. Or watching Fox News for information on the economy, Obama's presidency, War, etc.

Nor do I. But then, I DON'T agree with it being the only source of information on a subject. I do not rely solely upon David Barton or Fox News or CNN or NBC or CBS or the local papers or even a single internet source. I read/explore a variety of sources and reach my own conclusions based upon my research.

[steelish]

All I'm really saying, though, is that the WORDS of the Pledge of Allegiance are just words, they are not sacrosanct. There was not always a Pledge of Allegiance. The words have changed in the last 120 years, and will likely change again as political winds blow around this country.

How amusing that the article you link to says the very thing I've been saying: "The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches."

[Thorne]

I don't deny that this is the REASON for the pledge. It's the words which I object to. It's the statement of pledging TO the flag, first and foremost, AND to the republic. I don't see any sense in pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, however symbolic that cloth might be.

And yes, we should specify that it is indivisible. If it is not, we end up with another Europe, divided states constantly at war with one another. I do object to the phrase, "Under God", though, which I'm sure will surprise no one. There was an ad campaign around here years ago, proclaiming that "Jesus is Lord in" this town. I objected to that, as well. I am a citizen of this town, of this nation, and I do not, and will not, accept any religious fantasy as ruler!