NFL�s Proposed National Anthem Rules

[Sparko]

And I note you did not answer the question....


So - again...if the U.S. Currency said "In god we do not trust..." would you use the money, or try to do everything possible to use electronic currency?

The words are meaningless. It is clear that the USA no longer trusts in God or believes in him. Besides, it doesn't say which God, so I guess I should be just as offended as you are.

[carpedm9587]

The words are meaningless. It is clear that the USA no longer trusts in God or believes in him. Besides, it doesn't say which God, so I guess I should be just as offended as you are.

And you still avoided the question...

It's a simple question Sparko - capable of being answered with a simple choice...

If the U.S. currency had the inscription, "we do not trust in god," would you want to pass the currency, or would you be inclined to use electronic currency?

Which?

[NorrinRadd]

Honestly, I find it utterly bizarre that some are equating agreement to work for a particular level of remuneration with being agreement to compulsory jingoism.

[NorrinRadd]

I feel completely uncomfortable with the pledge myself, though CP gave me an analogy awhile back that makes a reasonable argument.

I thought that you should only pledge allegiance to God, though CP pointed out that you make an allegiance pledge in a wedding vow and that's not idolatrous. So I know I have some more work to do here but on a personal level, my conscience still tells me that something is wrong. So biblically, I believe it would be wrong for me to participate in the pledge of allegiance.

When I substitute taught, when the pledge of allegiance was said, I always just stood there quietly, not making a scene or anything. Nobody ever complained.

I don't think the wedding analogy holds up.

A wedding vow is a mutual promise of fidelity between equal partners, both (assuming they are believers) under one Sovereign.

The Pledge of Allegiance, especially in its original form (lacking "under God") is a vow of fealty to an earthly sovereign, and, especially in the absence of the "under God" addition, constitutes a conflict for believers, who only recognize one Sovereign.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why on earth would I want to hand out a business card for something I do not believe?

If the money said, "We do not believe in god," would you be using cash?

[lilpixieofterror]

And you still avoided the question...

It's a simple question Sparko - capable of being answered with a simple choice...

If the U.S. currency had the inscription, "we do not trust in god," would you want to pass the currency, or would you be inclined to use electronic currency?

Which?

[KingsGambit]

I don't think the wedding analogy holds up.

A wedding vow is a mutual promise of fidelity between equal partners, both (assuming they are believers) under one Sovereign.

The Pledge of Allegiance, especially in its original form (lacking "under God") is a vow of fealty to an earthly sovereign, and, especially in the absence of the "under God" addition, constitutes a conflict for believers, who only recognize one Sovereign.

That's a reasonable point.

My thinking was along these lines: a pledge of allegiance means that you will defend/obey your country, no matter what. So that's a conflict for a Christian. However, thinking in terms of a wedding vow, you are pledging allegiance to the spouse, but it could hypothetically be broken without acting immorally (if your spouse runs off with somebody else or tries to kill you, for instance). So it may not be as absolute as I thought.

[Cow Poke]

That's a reasonable point.

My thinking was along these lines: a pledge of allegiance means that you will defend/obey your country, no matter what.

I don't think that has to be. I think it's possible that the country could get to a point where I no longer could pledge my allegiance. I'm not there, but I'm not eternally committed to the country.

[One Bad Pig]

And if it said "In god we do not trust," would you distribute the money...?

I would use the money without a qualm, as Christians in non-Christian countries have done for 2,000 years.

[One Bad Pig]

but the the other players are allowed to express their political speech by standing for the anthem and they are doing what the NFL wants, so they are allowed out in public, while the NFL hides away people who don't support the political speech they want to promote.

Actually, they're not expressing their political speech; they're doing what's required by the rules.

It would be like a an Indian owned bank said Hindu employees can openly pray in public areas but Christians had to go to the break room to pray.

We are to pray in secret, not openly.

[KingsGambit]

Maybe they could just change it to "in gold we trust".

[One Bad Pig]

Maybe they could just change it to "in gold we trust".

Given we've been off the gold standard for 85 years, that wouldn't be any more accurate.

[carpedm9587]

I'm sure, to you, they do not. Yet one denies (to the Christian) that god is to be trusted, and the other claims (to the atheist) that a god who doe snot exist is to be trusted.

If the money simply said nothing about god whatsoever (as it did before the McCarthy era), all people could wield it with no conflict.

[carpedm9587]

I would use the money without a qualm, as Christians in non-Christian countries have done for 2,000 years.

You are the first one to offer an honest question...except I do not know of a single instance where a non-Christian currency has made an explicit claim about the non-existence or non-trustworthyness of god.

But I do know of several countries where the currency makes claims about the existence and/or trustworthyness of god.

Out of habit, theists have come to see this as "normal," and an atheist who says, "wait a sec...that excludes me" is a rabble rouser. Yet all that is being said is "can our currency simply be silent about gods, so we can all use it without conflict?"

Terrible, that....

[Cow Poke]

You are the first one to offer an honest question...

answer

except I do not know of a single instance where a non-Christian currency has made an explicit claim about the non-existence or non-trustworthyness of god.

But I do know of several countries where the currency makes claims about the existence and/or trustworthyness of god.

Out of habit, theists have come to see this as "normal," and an atheist who says, "wait a sec...that excludes me" is a rabble rouser. Yet all that is being said is "can our currency simply be silent about gods, so we can all use it without conflict?"

Terrible, that....

Why would somebody bother to put a saying on a banknote that somebody they do not believe exists does not exist.

"The Easter Bunny does not exist" or "The Easter Bunny (or spaghetti monster) cannot be trusted"....