Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 4w

This

19

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Yeah but communist china is becoming the new Soviet Union, and North Korea.

-3

Anonymous OP 4w

China isn’t like the Soviet Union though. China has no desire for direct confrontation with the States, the USSR did.

7

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 4w

I disagree. As a person who believes that there is some form of god I wouldn’t want us to deny that. I don’t sign up for any one church but I do hope that us being here isn’t just a coincidence and that there is reason life exist. Plus the vast majority of Americans and the world is in some way religious. Lots of different faiths that may be different and you can find almost all of them here in the USA. But they all agree on one thing that there is a God. In that way atheist are the odd one out.

-7

Anonymous OP 4w

Common Christian L

6

Anonymous OP 4w

It’s not a denial to simply not force people to affirm it. If you want to believe in a God, that’s great. That’s your choice. But we don’t need to force every schoolchild in America to affirm that.

20

Anonymous #2 4w

North Korea. Also I’m agnostic. I believe there is a god but I’m not officially part of any one faith.

-3

Anonymous OP 4w

I will never understand why you guys try to force your religion onto other people. Just shut the fuck up man.

23

Anonymous OP 4w

North Korea doesn’t want a fight with us either. They only built nukes so we’d leave ‘em the fuck alone. A strategy which seems to be working for them.

8

Anonymous #5 4w

Its also used all the time by Christian nationalists to normalize the idea that this is a Christian nation

17

Anonymous OP 4w

Dude it's like just keep that shit to yourself. I can choose to not believe and you're trying to force a religious state.guess what happens when there's a pre-defined minority?

16

Anonymous #5 4w

I was forced to sing that shit in elementary school and it's torture I wish I could've told myself to sit down and shut up.

12

Anonymous #2 4w

Watch your mouth. Do tell what my religion is?

-7

Anonymous OP 4w

Doesn’t matter what your religion is, forcing even just deism on the population is still a violation of the First Amendment.

26

Anonymous OP 4w

You're type, the anti science and logical reasoning type disgust me.

15

Anonymous OP 4w

“The vast majority of our country are x” is how religious minorities are oppressed the world over. It’s the claim that just because they are a minority therefore they don’t matter. Thats claimed by Christian nationalists in our country and by Muslim nationalists in others.

17

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

No that has nothing to do with it. We’re talking about 3 words in the pledge of allegiance. The first amendment says you can choose your own religion. But that has nothing to do with the state taking a generic stance and choosing the acknowledge that a generic god exist. But it’s not forcing anyone to believe it.

-5

Anonymous #2 4w

Sing what?

-3

Anonymous OP 4w

Nope, the government doesn’t get to acknowledge any God, generic or otherwise.

16

Anonymous #2 4w

Yes that’s what the first amendment says. You can choose your own religion. But that has nothing to do with the states decision to acknowledge the existence of a god in some way. And again it fits with the majority of people. And typically in a democracy the majority wins. Atheist are a minority. And religious people are a majority.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Why are you trying to got ya me? I have the moral high ground simply because I have a set of morals I've given myself and I don't need a 2000 year old book to tell me what to do.

17

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

they can but it’s distasteful for them to promote it in the pledge

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

But they already are though.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

Acknowledging the existence of God is clear bias towards religious belief over nonbelief. And the use of the word God implicitly privileges some religions over others (Christianity over Hinduism, Buddhism, indigenous faiths, etc). Minorities need to be protected. Otherwise you get a state that’s declared to only be for the largest ethnic and religious group, and the minorities are persecuted.

13

Anonymous OP 4w

Dude Iran isn’t technically forcing anyone to believe in Allah either. You can’t force anyone to believe anything. But that’s still persecution by the government.

10

Anonymous #2 4w

I don’t know what you mean by that. If this is about me telling you not to tell me to shut the fuck up then I think you already lost. Also you don’t give yourself morals, you learn them, with that logic anything I declare to be moral can be right.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

You're lost buddy

11

Anonymous #5 4w

Yeah but the state going out of its way to deny the existence of a god is bias in favor of atheist against for more people. They’re not signing onto any one faith. The point of acknowledging a god is to give higher standard and value to the United States as a nation beyond just a country. Plus to appeal to the vast majority religious population. It’s to say that god wants for us to be united nation. Which is not a statement which coincides with any religion.

-2

Anonymous #5 4w

You’re comparing three words in the pledge of allegiance to a terroristic state which does absolutely punish people who don’t conform not only to Muslim morals but directly to Muslim theology. We don’t, we just acknowledge the existence of A god. Which I think is totally fine.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Where do you think it starts man? A country is declared as belonging to the majority religion, and then steps are taken to enforce that.

18

Anonymous #5 4w

It’s not automatic like that. It’s been like 70 years since we included the phrase and if anything we’ve become less religious. Iran was practically overnight they became the state they are today. We aren’t Iran. And another example is Britain. Britain absolutely is a religious state. The Anglican Church is their state religion and their monarchy is upheld by their version of Christian god. But they are also a democracy and arguably very unchristian these days.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Have you seen our government currently? Florida right now is trying to funnel government money to Christian schools while excluding Muslims schools from receiving funds. Anti-abortion legislation is being passed based on Christian beliefs. Louisiana is putting the 10 commandments up in public schools. The federal government has dubbed “anti-Christianity” as a terrorist ideological indicator. People are currently trying to make this country like Iran but Christian.

11

Anonymous #5 4w

If “anti-Christianity” refers to destroy the Catholic Church or Anglican or Calvinist church or any Christian faith and kill them all then yeah it is terroristic. Otherwise that’s not necessary. Louisiana: ok yeah I agree that’s wrong. Florida: that wrong. But I think the government should only fund public school, but if you send your kid to a private school that you pay for then you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to also pay for public school.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Public school is a public good. It’s done for the good of the whole community. You don’t get to opt out of paying taxes for local road maintenance if you decide you don’t want to use roads. But frankly that’s off topic. All those bad policies are done because they view this as being a Christian nation and think therefore the government should promote Christianity. The government needs to be secular and not endorse any religious claims or beliefs.

8

Anonymous #5 4w

Abortion: I really don’t care what your reasoning is because abortion is murder at the end of the day. It’s scientifically true that life begins at conception and idc if it can or can’t survive outside the womb it’s still a human being. The only exception should be only when the mother’s life is genuinely in danger and it’s her or they both die. So yeah abortion should be illegal for all reason beside that.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

I’m a biologist. Conception isn’t anything special. It’s not magic, it’s just two cells coming together. They have a unique genetic signature, but that’s not a person. There’s people out there with mixed genetic material who are a result of two separate embryos melding together. Are they therefore two people? And any of your nucleated cells could be induced to develop into a fetus with the right triggers.

8

Anonymous #5 4w

No but it does mean their life still started at conception. And those two cells coming together is still the moment when life begins. And science might not view at as something big but at the end of the day I think people need to recognize that as something that is special. Even if small, the small things grows into an infant which also grows into an adult. And it’s a human always. I think it’s a moment that deserves respect. people need to step back and see how special it is to create new life.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Excluding “Under God” isn’t denying the existence of god, dude. It’s just not acknowledging one way or another. It’s neutrality. It leaves people to make their own choices. And as an atheist I do not appreciate the implication that one must believe in God to be truly American. And by saying God (singular) it’s clearly biased towards the abrahamic faiths. Other faiths have many gods, some faiths have no gods.

8

Anonymous #5 4w

You can’t claim it’s not biased when everyday Christian nationalists point to “under god” to claim this is a Christian nation and that atheists like me aren’t truly American. This isn’t some nebulous thing, Christian nationalists know it means Christianity and they act as such.

8

Anonymous #5 4w

I agree that the phrase does hold a religious stance to a higher standard than an atheist stance. But it does kind of make sense because one humbly chooses to believe there is something greater than themselves out there worth following and worshipping and the other doesn’t except that and sees humanity and therefore the United States as an accident or coincidence. I don’t disagree it holds the former to a higher standard. But it doesn’t harm or hate atheist either.

-1

Anonymous #5 4w

Plus the United States isn’t strange at doing this. You’ll be pretty hard pressed to find a nation especially one worth living in that doesn’t connect their nations existence to religion in some way. Pretty much every nation has a poem, or anthem, or even their constitution that mentions god as a father or protector of their nation. Including some nations that nowadays are very atheist and in religious like Britain and Germany for example. They all have national songs or poem mentioning god.

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

Dude a tenant of Christianity is that everyone was made in the image of God, the omnipotent creator of the universe, who made the entire universe just for us. How is that humble compared to being an atheist. And the U.S. government shouldn’t be endorsing a religious belief. I don’t care if you think that way, the government shouldn’t take a stance on the topic.

10

Anonymous OP 4w

Countries having national symbols from the fuckin late medieval ages isn’t an argument for keeping something we added in the 1950s.

6

Anonymous #5 4w

Like my guy I’m sure Iranians view the holy light of Islam as a unifying force in their country which they get their values from. That doesn’t mean it should be forced on everyone who isn’t Muslim.

9

Anonymous #5 4w

That’s not entirely correct view of Christianity. The humble part is excepting that you’re not the greatest thing in the universe and your life wasn’t random. You have a creator who is perfect and will always be greater than yourself. And I’m not talking about medieval times I’m talking about recent too. There’s plenty of nationally accepted songs and poems from 1800s and 1900s that all mention god in other nations. So the USA is not weird at all. In fact is reduced for us compared to others.

-1

Anonymous #5 4w

Plus these nations don’t force people to be Christian. You’re perfectly allowed to have other religions. But the nation itself is choosing to hold itself to a certain god and religion as the father and protector of their nation. The United States is the odd one for NOT doing that. The United States only mentions a generic god but not a specific faith.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

The United States is BETTER for not doing that. You forget that England used to just fuckin murder Catholics. Any endorsement of a religion by the government means that those not of that religion will be treated as not having the same right to live in that country.

9

Anonymous #5 4w

Like the founding fathers made America secular for a reason. They saw how terrible all the religious persecution in England and the rest of Europe was. They knew the government had to remain completely neutral on matters of religion, otherwise minority denominations would be persecuted.

5

Anonymous OP 4w

What? Sperm and egg are both alive before fertilization. There is no special difference once fertilization occurs. Does sperm deserve rights too? That’s what becomes an embryo. Scientists have literally made functional egg cells from human skin. We are just big walking cell cultures, there’s nothing special about a zygote.

5

Anonymous #5 4w

Actually there is a difference. It becomes a human being and beings growing. If we’re all nothing but big walking cell structures that mean nothing then why do any of our lives matter or our rights. Neither the sperm or egg are anything except a thing inside the man and woman but only once they come together that a new life. And nothing would stop it unless there is a miscarriage, or … you kill it. And most other problems happen in the last trimester when c-section is an option instead of aborti

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Dude this just always comes across as shallow to me bc it’s never followed up with any respect for any other organisms, even organisms that are orders of magnitude smarter and more capable of suffering, like an adult cow. Are humans or human cells the only things we need to show respect to?

14

Anonymous #5 4w

^obligatory ‘every room of my public university in Arkansas has the 10 commandments installed under state law and it is a felony to interfere with them’ mention

12

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 4w

WTF?? How long has that been a thing?

7

Anonymous OP 4w

With enough scientific equipment and know-how I could turn your skin cells into a fetus, either through cloning or inducing said cells to form sperm and eggs. What do you think about a clone made with no conception at all? Would they not be a person.

7

Anonymous #7 4w

They’ve been up for probably 3-5 months? I heard it’s being challenged in the Arkansas Supreme Court but haven’t heard a verdict yet

11

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 4w

Damn, they must be in a race to the bottom with Oklahoma

13

Anonymous #5 4w

Personhood is determined by being a conscious being. Not based on what type of cell it is. That’s why a clone made with no fertilization is a full human deserving of rights, but a zygote made of only a few cells is not. A theoretical robot with a consciousness should have rights too, as should animals proportional to their degree of consciousness. It’s not the substrate for consciousness that matters, it’s the conciseness itself.

10

Anonymous #5 4w

Ok no it’s not. There are lot of conscious things that aren’t people. A robot is a machine and does not deserve rights even a little bit. What about when someone is unconscious, can you kill them? Consciousness has nothing to do with if you deserve to live, all that matters is your humanity. And unborn humans are still human. And yes human life is more important than an animals. We eat animals which is normal and natural and so is pregnancy. That doesn’t mean tormenting animals is fine.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Someone being brain dead is literally when their body no longer can support a consciousness and we consider them legally dead. We have multiple cultures of cancer cells. Thats human cells, no consciousness. But you seem to think that doesn’t matter? Are HELA cultures people? Do you think they deserve rights?

6

Anonymous #5 4w

Also the idea that a machine consciousness with the same capacity as humans doesn’t deserve rights is called substrate chauvinism in philosophy and I think it’s genuinely monstrous. No machines we have now are actually conscious, but if they were they 100% should deserve rights. And I think we still agree that a dog deserves more rights than a mosquito. That’s because it’s more conscious.

5

Anonymous #5 4w

Yeah that’s because that’s something that happens when someone’s life is at an end. Not at the beginning when their life is only starting and the body is still growing. They aren’t growing anymore they’re decomposing. Also that’s a stupid question and beyond disrespectful. Human are not a cancer or a disease or an abnormal growth. Humans are humans because they are humans with a life that started at conception. Which is a fact.

-1

Anonymous #5 4w

No that whole machine talk is just way out there. A machine is only what we program it to be. So let’s just not try to even do that. Sure we can agree that a mosquito is a pest and a dog makes a good pet. But humans are neither pest or pet. We as humans hold human to a higher standard. And we all see human life as more important. At the end of the day abortion is the killing of a human before it is born and that’s murder. A person who does that belongs in prison for murdering their own child.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

Cancer isn’t some monstrous word. It’s just human cells who grow out of control. There are (non-cancerous) tumors in people that are the remains of their twins who they absorbed in utero. Are those tumors people? They come from embryos. Do they deserve rights?

6

Anonymous #5 4w

How about this. There was an incident where a 18 year old woman waited until she actually gave birth, then put the baby in the trash can and the baby died of suffocation. That baby was a new born and she claimed to be “scarred” and it was obviously not as conscious or aware as an adult. So is that murder? Should she go to jail or be executed?

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

A baby is a conscious being in a way that a clump of cells is not.

4

Anonymous #5 4w

One: it was already conscious long before the actual birth took place. Two: still a human being. 3: I’m going to assume that’s a yes she should go to jail for that and she is a murderer and for once we agree.

2

Anonymous OP 4w

I do consider late term fetuses to be conscious beings. The good news is that late term abortions almost never happen so long as the fetus is viable, as doctors won’t perform abortions past fetal viability.

3

Anonymous #5 4w

But I still want to hear your responses about the realities of fetal development. Sometimes two separate embryos fuse and develop into one person with two genetic signatures. If you think both of the embryos counted as full, separate persons before they fused, doesn’t that mean the resulting single human is actually two people?

4

Anonymous OP 4w

How is that disrespectful? They are literally refuting to a biological cancer of human cancer cells originating from a woman in the 1950s (stolen cells by the way). She died decades ago but there are billions of cells which originated from her and are used for all sorts of science and so on. They’re human cells.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

The first amendment literally says the state cannot acknowledge any religion in that way. It is unconstitutional and always has been.

6

Anonymous #6 4w

Sure but it’s also an extremely easy fix that is a big part of Christian Nationalist propaganda and rhetoric.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

You're trying to force me to be Christian and that's enough.

4