At a time in this country’s history when we are being threatened by an authoritarian takeover, we need to keep our heads. Wasting effort on an issue may be viewed emotionally rather than logically drains energy. Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful, socie…
At a time in this country’s history when we are being threatened by an authoritarian takeover, we need to keep our heads. Wasting effort on an issue may be viewed emotionally rather than logically drains energy. Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful, societal harmony can prevail. However, issues arise when religion is misused to disguise prejudices. The late Lee Atwater was known for using such tactics. It is important to note that the country should not be placed above individual beliefs and principles. The court decisions mentioned were made by justices with excellent credentials, whose personal beliefs and principles were not a factor. Just the LAW.
First of all, what makes you think I believe ANY effort should be made to remove "under thor" (whatever) at this precise time? I stated it should be removed, but never declared NOW. You are correct in that there are many more important items to put efforts against given the current fiasco.
We are chatting in a comment section - no real effort being expended outside of some quick typing.
However - and you knew there had to be a "however" - "Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful".... how is the state declaring there is a god via the requirement that The Pledge be recited to children daily private?
Reply if you so desire - I've stated my piece and pointed out where your argument is anything but a solid argument, so I am done. I respect your right to believe or not believe, as long as any mythological tenets are not forced on others (such as the state declaring there is a god). You will never find me in a classroom declaring there is no god to children, and I expect the state to have the same courtesy.
I have got to go along with Mills one this one. although,
I appreciate your clarification that you’re not advocating for immediate action on removing 'under God' from the Pledge but rather stating your position that it should be removed at some point. You're right that we’re just engaging in a comment section, not actively influencing policy, so the energy spent here is minimal.
Regarding your point about privacy and respect, I see your argument that requiring children to recite the Pledge—particularly the inclusion of 'under God'—might conflict with keeping beliefs private. While I agree that personal beliefs should not be forced onto others, I’d argue that the controversy stems more from the state’s endorsement of religious language, which could make those with different beliefs, or no one feel excluded. That said, it’s also worth considering whether the Pledge, with or without 'under God,' serves its intended purpose or whether it has become a point of division rather than unity.
I respect your stance on refraining from imposing your beliefs and the expectation for the state to show the same courtesy. While we may not fully agree, I value the discussion and the opportunity to explore these nuances. Thank you for sharing your perspective. But do not lose sight of our primary objective here, "find Trump another line of work where he can not do further injure to this country"!
At a time in this country’s history when we are being threatened by an authoritarian takeover, we need to keep our heads. Wasting effort on an issue may be viewed emotionally rather than logically drains energy. Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful, societal harmony can prevail. However, issues arise when religion is misused to disguise prejudices. The late Lee Atwater was known for using such tactics. It is important to note that the country should not be placed above individual beliefs and principles. The court decisions mentioned were made by justices with excellent credentials, whose personal beliefs and principles were not a factor. Just the LAW.
First of all, what makes you think I believe ANY effort should be made to remove "under thor" (whatever) at this precise time? I stated it should be removed, but never declared NOW. You are correct in that there are many more important items to put efforts against given the current fiasco.
We are chatting in a comment section - no real effort being expended outside of some quick typing.
However - and you knew there had to be a "however" - "Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful".... how is the state declaring there is a god via the requirement that The Pledge be recited to children daily private?
Reply if you so desire - I've stated my piece and pointed out where your argument is anything but a solid argument, so I am done. I respect your right to believe or not believe, as long as any mythological tenets are not forced on others (such as the state declaring there is a god). You will never find me in a classroom declaring there is no god to children, and I expect the state to have the same courtesy.
I have got to go along with Mills one this one. although,
I appreciate your clarification that you’re not advocating for immediate action on removing 'under God' from the Pledge but rather stating your position that it should be removed at some point. You're right that we’re just engaging in a comment section, not actively influencing policy, so the energy spent here is minimal.
Regarding your point about privacy and respect, I see your argument that requiring children to recite the Pledge—particularly the inclusion of 'under God'—might conflict with keeping beliefs private. While I agree that personal beliefs should not be forced onto others, I’d argue that the controversy stems more from the state’s endorsement of religious language, which could make those with different beliefs, or no one feel excluded. That said, it’s also worth considering whether the Pledge, with or without 'under God,' serves its intended purpose or whether it has become a point of division rather than unity.
I respect your stance on refraining from imposing your beliefs and the expectation for the state to show the same courtesy. While we may not fully agree, I value the discussion and the opportunity to explore these nuances. Thank you for sharing your perspective. But do not lose sight of our primary objective here, "find Trump another line of work where he can not do further injure to this country"!
I think a great job for the Felon would be washing dishes in prison - for life.