Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:10 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:59 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:46 am
At least I went to school, and wasn't forced to worship a rag ever morning.

You mean this in my great country "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Of course this means nothing to you since you don't have a flag to worship as you don't have a country to speak of so you try to denigrate my great country (but fail every time). At least I have a flag to worship whenever I want to.
Can you say the same about your country?

PhilX

It never had 'God' in it until the late 1950s. I'm sure that particular child abuse is the reason for your country's collective insanity. There has to be a reason.

Playing doctor again. Not a reason for child abuse nor collective insanity (but then you contradict yourself saying
"There has to be a reason").

BTW God was added in 1954. Certainly not the "late 1950s."

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:10 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:59 am

You mean this in my great country "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Of course this means nothing to you since you don't have a flag to worship as you don't have a country to speak of so you try to denigrate my great country (but fail every time). At least I have a flag to worship whenever I want to.
Can you say the same about your country?

PhilX

It never had 'God' in it until the late 1950s. I'm sure that particular child abuse is the reason for your country's collective insanity. There has to be a reason.

Playing doctor again. Not a reason for child abuse nor collective insanity (but then you contradict yourself saying
"There has to be a reason").

BTW God was added in 1954. Certainly not the "late 1950s."

PhilX

Oh well. That gave you even more time to become collectively insane.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:26 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:10 pm

It never had 'God' in it until the late 1950s. I'm sure that particular child abuse is the reason for your country's collective insanity. There has to be a reason.

Playing doctor again. Not a reason for child abuse nor collective insanity (but then you contradict yourself saying
"There has to be a reason").

BTW God was added in 1954. Certainly not the "late 1950s."

PhilX

Oh well. That gave you even more time to become collectively insane.

Still playing doctor. Can an insane person tell if he or she is insane?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:31 am M-W says about murder:

"... the crime of unlawfully killing a person..."

The keyword is "unlawful." I'm sure your blind prejudice against the US will trip you up and try to twist things around.

PhilX

It's very simple really, (what else do expect when it comes to VT?) If the US did it, it's illegal, If anyone else does, it it must be legal.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:59 am You mean this in my great country "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Of course this means nothing to you since you don't have a flag to worship as you don't have a country to speak of so you try to denigrate my great country (but fail every time). At least I have a flag to worship whenever I want to.
Can you say the same about your country?

PhilX

The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents. Accusing someone of idolatry is a typical ruse of an atheist to discredit a Christian, but then that is typical for someone on the outside looking in.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:58 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:59 am You mean this in my great country "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Of course this means nothing to you since you don't have a flag to worship as you don't have a country to speak of so you try to denigrate my great country (but fail every time). At least I have a flag to worship whenever I want to.
Can you say the same about your country?

PhilX

The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents. Accusing someone of idolatry is a typical ruse of an atheist to discredit a Christian, but then that is typical for someone on the outside looking in.

Good point.

PhilX

Trending buzzword of the day in the context of Muslims:

"internment".

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:58 pm The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents.

The word 'worship' still sounds a bit odd.

And, of course, 'the country' does not have ideals, any more than the piece of cloth on the pole. It is the inhabitants of that country that might have the ideals, so (if they are willing to recite the pledge) presumably they are worshiping themselves!

Also, I would have thought they hold those ideals because they consider them good (morally or pragmatically), i.e. they consider them rational, whereas to 'worship' something isn't a rational act.

For example, I find the arguments of certain philosophers convincing, but I do not 'worship' them. Like the ideals of the USA, I like to think I am always open to argument about whether these ideas are right and that, if necessary, I can change my opinion.

It would be interesting to try and get some insight on if Islamic terrorism does increase during Ramadan, which will be going on another three more weeks?

On the one hand, a month of not eating properly, sleep deprivation, incessant blaring loudspeakers on every block day and night, and religious fanaticism in the air would obviously contribute to destabilizing psychologies.

On the other hand, many people who follow Islam* spend the month lazing around and sleeping all day, and gorging themselves every night, food prices skyrocket since consumption significantly increases during the month of "fasting". Such sloth may not contribute to the terrorist mindset.



* Note vocabulary shift from Muslim, to people who identify as Muslim, follow Muslim practices, have Muslim aspirations and so on.

The Doc wrote:

The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents. Accusing someone of idolatry is a typical ruse of an atheist to discredit a Christian, but then that is typical for someone on the outside looking in.
Top

It's more important than a ruse, the Doc.

Don't you see that idolising any concept is soul-destroying?
It's impossible to idolise ineffable God. It's possible to idolise America.

Londoner wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:25 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:58 pm The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents.

The word 'worship' still sounds a bit odd.

And, of course, 'the country' does not have ideals, any more than the piece of cloth on the pole. It is the inhabitants of that country that might have the ideals, so (if they are willing to recite the pledge) presumably they are worshiping themselves!

Also, I would have thought they hold those ideals because they consider them good (morally or pragmatically), i.e. they consider them rational, whereas to 'worship' something isn't a rational act.

For example, I find the arguments of certain philosophers convincing, but I do not 'worship' them. Like the ideals of the USA, I like to think I am always open to argument about whether these ideas are right and that, if necessary, I can change my opinion.

I had questioned the use of the word "worship" but decided to let it stand for the time being. There is probably a better word to use, do you have any suggestions.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:34 pm

Londoner wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:25 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:58 pm The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents.

The word 'worship' still sounds a bit odd.

And, of course, 'the country' does not have ideals, any more than the piece of cloth on the pole. It is the inhabitants of that country that might have the ideals, so (if they are willing to recite the pledge) presumably they are worshiping themselves!

Also, I would have thought they hold those ideals because they consider them good (morally or pragmatically), i.e. they consider them rational, whereas to 'worship' something isn't a rational act.

For example, I find the arguments of certain philosophers convincing, but I do not 'worship' them. Like the ideals of the USA, I like to think I am always open to argument about whether these ideas are right and that, if necessary, I can change my opinion.

I had questioned the use of the word "worship" but decided to let it stand for the time being. There is probably a better word to use, do you have any suggestions.

I was considering loyal.

PhilX

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:22 pm The Doc wrote:

The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents. Accusing someone of idolatry is a typical ruse of an atheist to discredit a Christian, but then that is typical for someone on the outside looking in.
Top

It's more important than a ruse, the Doc.

Don't you see that idolising any concept is soul-destroying?
It's impossible to idolise ineffable God. It's possible to idolise America.

A symbol is only useful if it makes the individual remember what it represents. The symbol by itself is meaningless and useless.

Londoner wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:25 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:58 pm The key phrase here is "and to the Republic for which it stands" and the understanding that most do not worship the flag itself, but the ideals of the country that it represents.

The word 'worship' still sounds a bit odd.

And, of course, 'the country' does not have ideals, any more than the piece of cloth on the pole. It is the inhabitants of that country that might have the ideals, so (if they are willing to recite the pledge) presumably they are worshiping themselves!

Also, I would have thought they hold those ideals because they consider them good (morally or pragmatically), i.e. they consider them rational, whereas to 'worship' something isn't a rational act.

For example, I find the arguments of certain philosophers convincing, but I do not 'worship' them. Like the ideals of the USA, I like to think I am always open to argument about whether these ideas are right and that, if necessary, I can change my opinion.

In a democracy the country is the people, so whatever ideals the people have is understood to be those of the country. At least that is the way I see it.

Well, Londoner:

What do you suppose the press will say about the bridge attacks?

"Isolated madmen"?

"Cowards"?

"Let's not jump to conclusions?"

"Don't blame Islam"?

Which of the snivelling, leche-botte platitudes do you think they'll trot out first? My money's on "regrettable tragedy."

And how many more innocents will have to be stabbed in the guts before we decide that these men weren't Quakers or Bahai or Maoris or a wandering gang of Aztec ne'er-do-wells, and start assigning the blame exactly where the perpetrators so ardently tell us we should?