Reply #242: Both arguments are responses to the same statement… [View All]

[Finch]

…about the relevance of the term “god”

1.) “…used as convenient and useful: Oh, silly! That word "God" in the pledge doesn't mean Jesus's dad! It means the overarching giver of morals.”

…here I am arguing why the term “god” is relevant to the oath and is not specifically relating to the “Christian god” and has more general connotations…

2.) “….used as convenient and useful: But of course undergod should be in the pledge! Don't you know this nation (or, in your case, all of western civilization) was founded on Xtian principles.”

…I must say I not sure what discrepancy between these two statements you are talking about, here all I am doing is furthering the argument that the inclusion of “god” is relevant… as Christian principles do underpin much western thought and are solidly embedded in popular morality…

Now earlier someone mentioned that Jefferson cut out all the passages of the bible with reference to the super natural and made his own bible… now that would seem to suggest that he accept the “concept” of “god” as an embodiment of this “morally excellent standard of behaviour” so his actions would seem to validate my argument that the term “god” does not impinge upon the rights of atheists as it can be taken metaphorically…