|
Post by ladytera on Oct 19, 2008 1:53:11 GMT -5
I actually don't disagree with you there dark, on the idea anyway. I've always found music to be more powerful than mere words. The Pledge is much like the Lord's Prayer to me. If you say it over and over, and don't think about what you're saying, as LDM said, it tends to lose meaning. So, if a bunch of people are reciting by rote, without thought, it becomes much less powerful.
ETA: Okay, so I realized this sounds like I'm contradicting earlier statements. It was my turn to crash trucks on the video game, so I had to be quick. What I meant is, the pledge is powerful to me anyway, but that is because I do think about the words I'm saying. I still think it should be done in schools, for reasons already stated. But, the National Anthem will choke me up every time I here someone else sing it, whereas the pledge only does that to me sometimes. So, in essence, just like I think Casting Crowns songs tend to communicate God better than the Lord's Prayer, I also tend to think the Star Spangled Banner does a better job of communicating the spirit of America. I think it has to do with the way humans are wired. The music seems to bring us to attention, so we pay more attention to the words being sung.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 19, 2008 16:01:49 GMT -5
RP (sorry I get a little acronystic when I'm short on time) - while I appreciate the feeling of needing to respond and make yourself understood, and I appreciate that you have been offline during the time many of us are up and about, and the debate rages on, I will ask, as I'm sure keyodie will as well, that you stick to that promise this is the last post on this topic. Not to sound like a meanie, but from previous experience, on other boards that span time zones, this need to address it one more time, for whatever reason, no matter how justifiable, is what will eventually kill a thread, derailing it to such an extent that noone bothers looking anymore to see if a new post might actually be relevant because they don't feel like wading through the other stuff. So, for any of you, or all of you that are still feeling a need to chime in off topic, please don't. You can either PM Bubba's Dad, PM me, or if there's a real overwhelming need, we can start a thread in the rant section about generalizations, grouchy people, and any other aspect of it that you still feel a need to vent about, and move the conversation there so it doesn't distract from the lovely dialog that is trying to take root once again here. This might not have been your intention, ladytera, but this came out incredibly patronizing - especially from someone who isn't the admin or a moderator of the forum. It's not even "your" thread. Forgive me for being so blunt here (and possibly harsh) but I just had to say it. There's no way we can keep a "lovely dialog" here if you've decided that it's your job to tell people what they should or should not post. I apologize if I've offended you. That wasn't my intention. Now, carry on folks!
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 19, 2008 16:19:20 GMT -5
My apologies Rhovanion, if that was the way you interpreted it. The back story on this is that you are correct, I am not the admin or mod on this forum, however, to my knowledge, I am the only one who has applied for that position in the Debate/Discussion forum. Keyodie and Ammy have both said they are okay with that, but I admit I can't remember if Caunion had voted one way or the other yet on the application. Ammy requested directly that I intervene in this thread when Keyodie brought it to her attention, as it was her birthday and she was taking a day off. In a private message, I also informed Keyodie of the steps I had taken in this thread and the PM I had sent to Bubba's Dad. There was no intent whatsoever to interfere in another party's thread, nor any intent to insult or patronize anyone in this thread. The intent was to put this thread back on the topic it was intended for, and hopefully keep it there. We have managed to get a couple new thoughts and ideas going here, and I hope it continues in that vein. And, no offense taken, blunt is always welcome, it saves a lot of tap dancing and miscommunication. Thanks for the input. Do you have any other thoughts on the Pledge, or comments on what similar types of traditions there are where you are from? We'd love to hear them! LT
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 19, 2008 16:37:05 GMT -5
Thanks for letting me know the back story. I didn't know . And I agree, I hate tip-toeing around issues so bluntness is always great. Other thoughts? Well I don't have the time to reply to everyone that has posted or replied to me previously in the thread but I can make a quick comment on traditions here in Sweden. We don't have any Pledge of Allegiance here or anything similar to it. The military probably has one but I wouldn't know anything about that. We Swedes don't believe in excessive patriotism or nationalism so the National Anthem is reserved only for main sports events and the National Holiday on June 6th (which would be the equivalence of your Independence Day but we've never been occupied so we don't have an independence day as we've always been independent). It's not like you can't sing it whenever you want to - by all means do - but most people just don't. People only sport the flag on the special 'flag days' around the year (Holidays and such) or if you have a special family celebration, like a birthday, wedding, graduation etc. Not sure if this was taking it further off-topic but I didn't really know what else to add since we don't have a pledge here.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 28, 2008 22:02:29 GMT -5
'Twas not off topic. The question of the traditions of other countries was raised.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 2, 2008 14:33:02 GMT -5
There has been some talk about saying the words (in the pledge or prayer and so on) too much takes the meaning out of them. Perhaps, but this would be up to the individual to think about. I mean, the same thing could be said of other words and phrases, such as "I love you", "have a good day", and "I am sorry for your loss". The point is, words have meaning, and rather they are used over and over again or not, the meaning is still there, it is up to us, to except that and think about what we are saying.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 13, 2008 2:44:17 GMT -5
Alright, so, ladytera and I began a discussion of the pledge in another thread. I figured it would be best if we moved it over here. What about the pledge? The Under God part? That was added many years after the original pledge was adopted, and was again not meant to denote the Christian God specifically, simply a God that was above the country and looking out for it. Well see, that's what I don't really understand about it. Though the word God can refer to multiple gods and religions, what if you believed in multiple gods or no god at all? Then it's a bit obvious that what is said in the pledge is different from your beliefs. I think you have said earlier that "under God" is supposed to refer to the religious freedom we have here. But really, if you look at the phrase "one nation under God", what else can you really interpret from that? Normally you wouldn't think that it refers to religious freedom, maybe even the opposite. If we really want to acknowledge all of the different gods and religions in our pledge, why not "under the gods"? "The gods" could refer to those different gods and religions. We already acknowledge that this country has Christian influences (such as free will/religious freedom). Like you said, it's pretty obvious with the religious symbols in the capitol, the Declaration of Independence, and such. Why not acknowledge the huge diversity we have here as well? I don't see a problem with it. Personally, I don't have much objection to people skipping that part, or just standing respectfully for the pledge if it bugs them that much, I think we've established before that you think atheists and agnostics remove God from their life, while I believe that those who believe in God add God to their life. I think it's similar here. You think that if someone is bugged enough by the "under God" phrase, they can just skip the phrase or opt out altogether. But why not just start with no religious implication, and then adding whatever you feel is right to make it reflect your beliefs? but I do have a problem with being told I can't say it that way, or can't teach it to my kids that way. Or that the schools can't teach it that way. I understand that you would have a problem with being told that you can't say it that way, or you can't teach it to your kids that way. I agree, people should be allowed to say the pledge however they want, and they can teach their kids however they want. But schools? Why do you feel that schools shouldn't be forced to teach it to kids any other way? Actually, would you mind telling me whether or not schools are presently forced to recite the exact same version of the pledge? It's been that way for more than half a century now. Just because it's become en vogue to object to religion these days doesn't mean we should submit to the tyranny of a small minority of people trying to silence every one else on the grounds that they are offended by a word. Now, if someone were to start making laws that you can't run for office, or hold a government job, unless you are a Christian, (or a Muslim, or a Jew, or an Atheist), then there would be Establishment Issues. This other crap is just something for people to complain about so they will ignore the real losses of liberty that many in government are trying to achieve. Ah yes, just because it's "en vogue" to object to religion doesn't mean we should change the pledge. But just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean we shouldn't. Either way, the time argument doesn't really validate anything. I understand where you're coming from with the whole minority thing, I am also irked by people who complain constantly about racism and assume that anything bad that is done to them is because of their appearance. But I think it's important to acknowledge that these people are stereotyped and judged, and they actually do have something to complain about sometimes. I think it is sad that if you want to run for office in this country and you do not pertain to the majority religion, you have to lie about your belief system. You can't get elected any other way. I guess religious intolerance is something we will just have to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 13, 2008 3:38:28 GMT -5
I understand where you're coming from with the whole minority thing, I am also irked by people who complain constantly about racism and assume that anything bad that is done to them is because of their appearance. But I think it's important to acknowledge that these people are stereotyped and judged, and they actually do have something to complain about sometimes. I think it is sad that if you want to run for office in this country and you do not pertain to the majority religion, you have to lie about your belief system. You can't get elected any other way. I guess religious intolerance is something we will just have to overcome. Okay, I'm going to have to come back to the rest of this later, but this part is an outright falsehood. Kwami Kilpatrick (sp?), is one example. There are many Jewish, several Muslim, lots of Catholic, lots of Protestant, and some agnostic and humanist, as well as some atheists. That the majority of elected officials tends to be Christian to one degree or another is not particularly surprising, since our government is designed to be representative of our citizens, and a majority of the population is Christian to some degree or another. The biggest persecution in politics I have ever seen based on religion came from the jack asses in the media this last primary season when they went after Mitt Romney because he was Mormon. No one has been excluded from running from office, legally, based on religion, and the only one I've seen pushed out of elections in my life is the example I just sited. So, who do you believe was forced to lie about their belief system to get elected?
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 13, 2008 3:44:04 GMT -5
Bleh, my bad. You have permission to kick me in the face.
ETA: I think I meant president up there, because I know I've heard of the guy who got sworn in on the Qur'an. But not even all presidents were Christian, so nevermind.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 14, 2008 11:18:38 GMT -5
tbh I didn't follow the Mitt Romney thing that closely. But from what I can gather he was treated appaulingly, which is shameful. Someone's religion or lack there of should have absolutely no bearing on wether they can be a good leader.
Your President elect, Barack Obama had a whole lot of mud slinging about his religion. Implications of him being a Muslim. Now to the best of my knowledge, he is a Christian. But even if he was a Muslim, that should not prevent him or anyone else running for any sort of Governmental office.
I remember when Tony Blair stepped down as Prime Minister, there was some fuss made over wether or not his replacement - Gordon Brown - was a Christian. What that had to do with how well he would do his job was completely beyond me. Now Mr Brown is a Christian, a devout one. He was just not as vocal about it as his predecessor. But yet this was somehow a black mark against his leadership skills. Terrible.
|
|