View Full Version : one nation under allah????????
rockhound
05-01-2014, 07:09
I did not see this in any of our local news casts???
The principal at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado, is facing a hailstorm of criticism from some very angry parents and residents.
The school recites the Pledge of Allegiance weekly, on Mondays. Last Monday, a member of their “Cultural Arms Club” led the student body in an Arabic version of the pledge, replacing the words (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-recites-pledge-in-arabic-one-nation-under-allah.html) “under God” with “under Allah.”
Principal Tom Lopez denies any attempt to push an Islamic agenda, saying, “These students love this country. They were not being un-American in trying to do this. They believed they were accentuating the meaning of the words as spoken regularly in English.”
Principal Lopez doesn’t make any sense. Speaking unintelligible words in Arabic in some way accentuates their meaning? That is an extremely weak argument in defense of an ill-advised decision.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/28/hs-students-say-pledge-in-arabic-one-nation-under-allah/
drift_g35
05-01-2014, 07:15
This is the same ahole that didn't report a 5 year old girl being molested on school grounds.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
That's one thing you don't change. It was made one way, is said one way, and should remain one way.
even the Hispanic advisory council awards ceremony I recently attended did the pledge, and they did it in English.
This guy should be given two letters. One announcing his resignation, and one announcing he has been fired. His choice which one to sign.
Jeffrey Lebowski
05-01-2014, 07:47
This guy should be given two letters. One announcing his resignation, and one announcing he has been fired. His choice which one to sign.
I'm sure he'd be looking for his union or tenure documents. [thumbdown]
I don't think principals are in the union.
BPTactical
05-01-2014, 09:00
https://rmh.psdschools.org/
1300 W. Swallow Road Fort Collins CO 80526-2412 Main Number:970-488-7023 Attendance Line: 970-488-7002
Craig Woodall, Principle
Isn't it the same God but with the rules interpreted differently? I suppose names matter though.
Islam and The Constitution of the United States of America are wholly incompatible. This asshole has made his choice.
Isn't it the same God but with the rules interpreted differently? I suppose names matter though.
No, completely different interpretations of God, what God expects of humans, and God's interactions with humans. Islam is the product of the prophet/pedophile/murderer Mohammed.
No, completely different interpretations of God, what God expects of humans, and God's interactions with humans. Islam is the product of the prophet/pedophile/murderer Mohammed.
I meant they share the same root. It is not something completely different like Hindu.
Same God, different rules vs different Gods different rules.
Isn't it the same God but with the rules interpreted differently? I suppose names matter though.
Hmmm, I believe that when the founding fathers used the term "God" in our countries originating documents it was in a generic manner meaning that god represented a higher power, whatever that may be to whomever.. similar to the Freemasons that require that you believe in a "God" yet that god is not defined in any way.
In the spirit of the founding fathers "In God We Trust" refers to the idea that there is an entity that exists that is greater than any single man himself. This was a response to the idea that humans such as monarchs and military despots had the right and the ability to somehow reign supreme over their subjects.
The pledge of allegiance was modified in the 50's to add the God phrase which at that time was a direct reference to "God" as in the christian/catholic church and was a response to growing communist influence by our congressional leaders. Unfortunately these days people now take the term "God" literally as being a direct reference to the christian/catholic god when it was never meant to be. To those that believe "God" means the christian/catholic deity.. or any other for that matter, you are wrong.
The original pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Modified in the 1920's:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Modified in the 50's:
"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."
Interestingly the original pledge as enacted when drafted required a military salute to the flag prior to the beginning of the recitation and then extending the the arm to point at the flag at the words "to the flag". During WW2 the change was made to simply placing your hand over your heart as it resembled the Nazi salute.
10mm-man
05-01-2014, 09:43
I meant they share the same root. It is not something completely different like Hindu.
Same God, different rules vs different Gods different rules.
Except that their God permits, Pedophile's, rapist,murders??? Were as Christians GOD does not. Maybe?
Only one way to say the pledge, in English and with all the original words period!!!
I meant they share the same root. It is not something completely different like Hindu.
Same God, different rules vs different Gods different rules.
My God doesn't advocate the murder of innocent civilians in the name of "Holy War." My God doesn't put justice in man's hands to decapitate their foes so they "cannot find their way to heaven," he'd rather be the final judge. I do not have the same God as these low-life filth.
bellavite1
05-01-2014, 10:15
Hmmm, I believe that when the founding fathers used the term "God" in our countries originating documents it was in a generic manner meaning that god represented a higher power, whatever that may be to whomever.. similar to the Freemasons that require that you believe in a "God" yet that god is not defined in any way.
In the spirit of the founding fathers "In God We Trust" refers to the idea that there is an entity that exists that is greater than any single man himself. This was a response to the idea that humans such as monarchs and military despots had the right and the ability to somehow reign supreme over their subjects.
The pledge of allegiance was modified in the 50's to add the God phrase which at that time was a direct reference to "God" as in the christian/catholic church and was a response to growing communist influence by our congressional leaders. Unfortunately these days people now take the term "God" literally as being a direct reference to the christian/catholic god when it was never meant to be. To those that believe "God" means the christian/catholic deity.. or any other for that matter, you are wrong.
The original pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Modified in the 1920's:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Modified in the 50's:
"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."
Interestingly the original pledge as enacted when drafted required a military salute to the flag prior to the beginning of the recitation and then extending the the arm to point at the flag at the words "to the flag". During WW2 the change was made to simply placing your hand over your heart as it resembled the Nazi salute.
Thank you!
And now...brace yourself for the stoning! [Coffee]
rockhound
05-01-2014, 10:25
Hmmm, I believe that when the founding fathers used the term "God" in our countries originating documents it was in a generic manner meaning that god represented a higher power, whatever that may be to whomever.. similar to the Freemasons that require that you believe in a "God" yet that god is not defined in any way.
In the spirit of the founding fathers "In God We Trust" refers to the idea that there is an entity that exists that is greater than any single man himself. This was a response to the idea that humans such as monarchs and military despots had the right and the ability to somehow reign supreme over their subjects.
ding ding ding, you then have just made my case.
if the word God in the pledge is to mean your own personal god and not one in particular i am cool with that, say the pledge and pledge to any god you want in your heart. when they name a specific god that is where they over step their bounds. The, as you put it, generic word god is fine, but that is not what they did. They prescribed a specific god "allah" and required the children to pledge allegiance to that particular god.
To ask that my child pledge allegiance to any god that is not of their choosing is wrong.........
I meant they share the same root. It is not something completely different like Hindu.
Same God, different rules vs different Gods different rules.
OK, I understand what you mean.
Maybe the same root idea of God. There are numerous similarities in the religions of the world, most religions are about peace and harmony, Islam is about subjugation and murder.
RblDiver
05-01-2014, 10:39
Pretty sure this was done last year too (or a few years ago, or something, but I remember Rocky being in the news for it in the past).
Thank you!
And now...brace yourself for the stoning! [Coffee]
There is always a stoning.
We had to be more Godly then those commie Russians.
That said, sounds like the principle is an idiot.
funkymonkey1111
05-01-2014, 11:31
Hmmm, I believe that when the founding fathers used the term "God" in our countries originating documents it was in a generic manner meaning that god represented a higher power, whatever that may be to whomever.
how did you arrive at this belief?
Kraven251
05-01-2014, 11:48
[bs] just more bullshit to get press, and desensitize
Thank you!
And now...brace yourself for the stoning! [Coffee]
I too like def90's interpretation.
The first amendment allows for freedom of and freedom from religion so it would follow that the founding fathers presented a generic version of God in their documents. As I understand it a few of the founding fathers were deists and not Christians but together they managed to forge a foundation upon which the greatest nation in the known history of the earth was built.
I'm ready for my stoning too.
buffalobo
05-01-2014, 11:51
how did you arrive at this belief?
Probably because some of the founders were deists.
Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain.
Probably because some of the founders were deists.
Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain.
:)
ZERO THEORY
05-01-2014, 11:57
Stupid, but given that the Pledge wasn't adopted until well into the 20th century by a socialist nutter who was kicked out of every church in town, I'm not losing any sleep over it being "tainted". In fact, it was written to try and help push an American socialist movement. So...yeah.
Speaking unintelligible words in Arabic
LOL @ anything that's different being "unintelligible".
how did you arrive at this belief?
Probably from the numerous published works by people like ol' Tommy J. himself explicitly discussing their lack of faith and denouncement of religion.
how did you arrive at this belief?
Ever read the Federalist Papers?
funkymonkey1111
05-01-2014, 12:12
Ever read the Federalist Papers?
Yeah, I have. Have you?
HoneyBadger
05-01-2014, 12:16
No, completely different interpretations of God, what God expects of humans, and God's interactions with humans. Islam is the product of the prophet/pedophile/murderer Mohammed.
Watch out, you're going to cause another Benghazi with words like that! [facepalm]
Watch out, you're going to cause another Benghazi with words like that! [facepalm]
Oh...My...Gawd....you're right.
Repeat after me.
It just doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter.
ad infinitum :)
References to a Christian foundation are in the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution.
This should not be surprising, knowing the US was overwhelmingly colonized by Christians.
"Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in our founding documents, neither is "Freedom from religion."
Some Examples:
The Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)
Start
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
End
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Federalist Papers No.2 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed02.asp)
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
Federalist Papers No. 20 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed20.asp)
The true patriots have long bewailed the fatal tendency of these vices, and have made no less than four regular experiments by EXTRAORDINARY ASSEMBLIES, convened for the special purpose, to apply a remedy. As many times has their laudable zeal found it impossible to UNITE THE PUBLIC COUNCILS in reforming the known, the acknowledged, the fatal evils of the existing constitution. Let us pause, my fellow-citizens, for one moment, over this melancholy and monitory lesson of history; and with the tear that drops for the calamities brought on mankind by their adverse opinions and selfish passions, let our gratitude mingle an ejaculation to Heaven, for the propitious concord which has distinguished the consultations for our political happiness.
Federalist Papers No. 37 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed37.asp)
The experience of ages, with the continued and combined labors of the most enlightened legislatures and jurists, has been equally unsuccessful in delineating the several objects and limits of different codes of laws and different tribunals of justice. The precise extent of the common law, and the statute law, the maritime law, the ecclesiastical law, the law of corporations, and other local laws and customs, remains still to be clearly and finally established in Great Britain, where accuracy in such subjects has been more industriously pursued than in any other part of the world. The jurisdiction of her several courts, general and local, of law, of equity, of admiralty, etc., is not less a source of frequent and intricate discussions, sufficiently denoting the indeterminate limits by which they are respectively circumscribed. All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications. Besides the obscurity arising from the complexity of objects, and the imperfection of the human faculties, the medium through which the conceptions of men are conveyed to each other adds a fresh embarrassment. The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined. When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.
Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination? The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.
Federalist Papers No.43 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)
9. "The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States, ratifying the same. ''This article speaks for itself. The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable. Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion:
1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?
2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.
There are a few more
US Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
Start
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
End
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Probably from the numerous published works by people like ol' Tommy J. himself explicitly discussing their lack of faith and denouncement of religion.
^Interesting (as in complete nonsense)
The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN63)
Thomas Jefferson
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; DIPLOMAT; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF STATE; THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
^Interesting (as in complete nonsense)
The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN63)
Thomas Jefferson
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; DIPLOMAT; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF STATE; THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.
Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
The first amendment is/was interpreted out of context by attorneys as now the attack on the second amendment will eventually be interpreted out of context. The first amendment was based totally on preventing a quasi-governmental authority like Rome or the Church of England from restricting the rights of people (what the protestant movement worked so hard to change) and one of the main themes of colonization in the first place. The first amendment was never intended to strip God from government and society as it is being used to do now. It was intended to protect the people's right to worship from government interference. It is definitely not meant to protect you from getting your feelings hurt by this nation's history, monuments, prayers, and gatherings of common believers. Those with a thing against religion are trying to strip God out of society even though it has no influence on what they can or can't do. I mean who does it hurt if a school rents space to a church so believers of the same faith have a place to meet. It hurts absolutely nobody; and from my point of view, this type of hostile attack on religion is exactly what the amendment is suppose to address.
I did not see this in any of our local news casts???
The principal at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado, is facing a hailstorm of criticism from some very angry parents and residents.
The school recites the Pledge of Allegiance weekly, on Mondays. Last Monday, a member of their “Cultural Arms Club” led the student body in an Arabic version of the pledge, replacing the words (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-recites-pledge-in-arabic-one-nation-under-allah.html) “under God” with “under Allah.”
Principal Tom Lopez denies any attempt to push an Islamic agenda, saying, “These students love this country. They were not being un-American in trying to do this. They believed they were accentuating the meaning of the words as spoken regularly in English.”
Principal Lopez doesn’t make any sense. Speaking unintelligible words in Arabic in some way accentuates their meaning? That is an extremely weak argument in defense of an ill-advised decision.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/28/hs-students-say-pledge-in-arabic-one-nation-under-allah/
I am disgusted by this for two reasons and neither has to do with my faith:
Celebrating a culture that has so much innocent blood on their hands is disgusting. I absolutely hate political correctness, and this is a good example of the crap coming out of our public schools. The teaching of kids that these people only do what they do because we are mean to them is complete bullshit.
Secondly, I am disgusted by the lack of reverence for this country and culture.
funkymonkey1111
05-06-2014, 14:02
Here's some Islam in the classrooms in California--determine whether the Holocaust really happened or was just a “propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/california-school-district-promises-to-revise-crazy-eighth-grade-lesson-promoting-holocaust-denial/
Mohammad Z. Islam, the interim superintendent of the Rialto Unified School District, just doesn't seem to understand what all the fuss is about, --which is essentially what was said by Syeda Jafri, spokesman for the district.
Here's some Islam in the classrooms in California--determine whether the Holocaust really happened or was just a “propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/california-school-district-promises-to-revise-crazy-eighth-grade-lesson-promoting-holocaust-denial/
Mohammad Z. Islam, the interim superintendent of the Rialto Unified School District, just doesn't seem to understand what all the fuss is about, says spokesman Syeda Jafri.
Now that really pisses me off! Tell this to the guys who first saw what happened when they rolled into Ohrdruf. My father was in the Pacific, but he was friends with people who came back from Europe. Damn...that is just wrong!
Allah is literally just the translation of God
The pledge doesn't belong in schools, any way.
Aloha_Shooter
05-06-2014, 17:14
Allah is literally just the translation of God
The pledge doesn't belong in schools, any way.
I don't have a problem with it if the Muslims in question are the peaceful ones I've normally met in the past. I DO have a problem is the translation is intended with irony and their Allah is the one followed by the likes of the Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama bin Laden or the Tsarnaev brothers.
Your last statement though is typical liberal BS. Schools are the place the pledge belongs most. Violence in American society began rising as we took civics out of school and replaced it with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" and other facets of the felgercarb liberals like to replace actual education with.
Your last statement though is typical liberal BS. Schools are the place the pledge belongs most. Violence in American society began rising as we took civics out of school and replaced it with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" and other facets of the felgercarb liberals like to replace actual education with.
Blindly swearing membership in anything is bad. And considering how many members on this forum spend the day bitching about the country and the people who run it, I'm surprised my statement would be met with any disagreement. There is nothing wrong with diversity in it's core. It's when diversity is lifted up and other ethnicities and groups are raised above others that it becomes a problem.
My imaginary dude in the sky can beat up your imaginary dude in the sky [013]
BPTactical
05-07-2014, 09:11
My imaginary dude in the sky can beat up your imaginary dude in the sky [013]
Yup
My imaginary dude in the sky can beat up your imaginary dude in the sky [013]
Yup
[LOL]
My imaginary dude in the sky can beat up your imaginary dude in the sky [013]
Oh your back from fishing. How was the trip?
Oh your back from fishing. How was the trip?
Don't encourage him. The fish were probably jumping into his net. [Neene3]
Oh your back from fishing. How was the trip?
-palm tree's, 93*, daily breeze, large extensive flats, good sized bonefish....and far too many airports. I like being in those places but wish I could fax myself there, I've come to hate airports.
rockhound
05-07-2014, 15:59
Blindly swearing membership in anything is bad. And considering how many members on this forum spend the day bitching about the country and the people who run it, I'm surprised my statement would be met with any disagreement. There is nothing wrong with diversity in it's core. It's when diversity is lifted up and other ethnicities and groups are raised above others that it becomes a problem.
first: to question your govt and its propensity to take away your freedoms is by definition patriotic and those of us that believe in what this country stands for will be the reason it has any chance to survive
second: every ethnicity, ideology, religion and political ideology is being raised above mine that is why we are pissed.
You can only be a racist bigot, terrorist if you are a white, republican male. your opinion only means something if you are an illegal alien, an actual terrorist, a minority race of some kind, or gay democrat
I dont care if you are gay, i dont care if you are black, mexican, chinese, japanese or pink with yellow polka dots, i don't care if you are muslim, christian, jewish, or believe that some spaceship is going to come out of the sky probe you in the rear and send you to eternal bliss. Just obey the law, speak english, pay fricken taxes like I do. stop shoving your agenda in my face, and stop trying to get my kids to consider your religion your lifestyle, your belief in global warming, your drugs as something they should partake in.
the whole goddam reason they did this in a school is because that is the only place they can get all the kids in one place without their parents, their pastor, or some other proper role model to stand up at the time they do it and call bullshit before it happens.
first: to question your govt and its propensity to take away your freedoms is by definition patriotic and those of us that believe in what this country stands for will be the reason it has any chance to survive
second: every ethnicity, ideology, religion and political ideology is being raised above mine that is why we are pissed.
You can only be a racist bigot, terrorist if you are a white, republican male. your opinion only means something if you are an illegal alien, an actual terrorist, a minority race of some kind, or gay democrat
I dont care if you are gay, i dont care if you are black, mexican, chinese, japanese or pink with yellow polka dots, i don't care if you are muslim, christian, jewish, or believe that some spaceship is going to come out of the sky probe you in the rear and send you to eternal bliss. Just obey the law, speak english, pay fricken taxes like I do. stop shoving your agenda in my face, and stop trying to get my kids to consider your religion your lifestyle, your belief in global warming, your drugs as something they should partake in.
the whole goddam reason they did this in a school is because that is the only place they can get all the kids in one place without their parents, their pastor, or some other proper role model to stand up at the time they do it and call bullshit before it happens.
Exactly.
TheWeeze
05-08-2014, 09:25
I don't have a problem with it if the Muslims in question are the peaceful ones I've normally met in the past. I DO have a problem is the translation is intended with irony and their Allah is the one followed by the likes of the Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama bin Laden or the Tsarnaev brothers.
It even says it in the story in the OP's post. Even Christian Arabic's use the word Allah in the place of God. Because the word Allah is translated to English as God. If anybody here thinks the students that ran this whole exercise did so to convert anybody to Islam, then I don't think there is a reasonable bone in your body. If you think High School Students have the wherewithall to think this deeply and scheme like this, then there is no hope for you. I'd be willing to bet that they took the words of the Pledge and put it through Google Translate and then read them. Took 5 minutes thought and they ran with it. Everybody needs to calm down and realize that this isn't a social injustice, this is High School Student's thinking globally about as well as our school system can teach them to.
bellavite1
05-08-2014, 10:31
It even says it in the story in the OP's post. Even Christian Arabic's use the word Allah in the place of God. Because the word Allah is translated to English as God. If anybody here thinks the students that ran this whole exercise did so to convert anybody to Islam, then I don't think there is a reasonable bone in your body. If you think High School Students have the wherewithall to think this deeply and scheme like this, then there is no hope for you. I'd be willing to bet that they took the words of the Pledge and put it through Google Translate and then read them. Took 5 minutes thought and they ran with it. Everybody needs to calm down and realize that this isn't a social injustice, this is High School Student's thinking globally about as well as our school system can teach them to.
I think you may have a point here...
Don't be fooled
From: http://www.menorah.org/askpr18.html
Our Question:
Dear Pastor Reuben,
I am in a group that has Arab Christians in it and they refer to hwhy-Jehovah/God as "Allah”.
They say that Arab Christians before the onset of Mohammed and Islam called Jehovah "Allah”
I responded that Jehovah should never be called "Allah" because "Allah" was a pre-Islamic god worshipped by pagan Arabs at the Kaaba. I appreciate your help as this does not seem to have an easy answer and I do not want to irritate Arab Christians if I'm wrong.
I appreciate your thoughts on this.
Blessings, Brad
Pastor Reuben's Answer:
Shalom Brad,
I greatly appreciate your concerns and stand with you. We work a lot in face to face witnessing situations taking the Gospel to Muslims. Two Islamic scholar Christian friends gave me these answers as I revisited the topic with them:
1. There are factual errors here. The pre-Islamic use of “Allah” was widely used in the polytheistic Arab communities. The reason that “Allah” became a name for the Judeo-Christian Jehovah was that Christian missionaries in the Middle East (late 2nd century-600 A.D.) used the name “El-Ilah” or “Allah” for the Arabs to understand that Jehovah was above their other gods. The use of “Allah” by Arab Christians in the early centuries after Christ ascended is attributable to lax missionary language in their attempt to get the polytheistic Arabs to understand a monotheistic God. Mohammed simply co-opted “El-Ilah” or “Allah” after this to help bring Arab polytheists into monotheism.
2. Yes, Allah was used by pagan, pre-Islamic Arabs to refer to a specific idol, who had three daughters named Al'Lat, Manat, and 'Uzzah (or al-Uzzah). Muslims claim the Allah they worship is the same God that Christians and Jews worship - except in Malaysia, where it is against the law in this Muslim nation for any Christian literature to claim Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
There is vague ambiguity among Muslims, because Allah is the name of their God, and it is also a generic name for God. So if you ask them, does Hinduism have thousands of Allahs, they might say no, because there is just one Allah. Then you can ask what Hinduism has thousands of that they worship? They would say idols. Then what did the pre-Islamic Arabs worship that had three daughters named Al-Lat, Manat, and 'Uzzah? Why did Mohammed never explain to these same pre-Islamic Arabs who Allah was?
Mohammed's father was named 'Abdullah meaning "slave of Allah". A tribe of Jews was called 'Abdullah bin Salam in Bukhari vol.5 book 59 ch.13 no.362 p.241
It is true the Christians prior to Mohammed used the named "Allah" for the One True God. It may have come from the Semitic word for El. The people of Ugarit (in northern Phoenicia) also used the word "El" for God, and they used it for a specific deity in their pantheon.
Today, many Arabic Bibles use the name "Allah" for God. Other Arabic Bibles do not. Arabic-speaking Christians disagree about the best name to use today for God. Indonesian Bibles also use the word "Allah" for God.
So while I would not use the name "Allah" for God in English, I would not get too hung up on whether a particular Arabic-speaking Christian used the word Allah for God or not. However, we need to make it clear that regardless of names, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, any more than all religions that worship a Creator worship the same God. Likewise Muslims claim to honor Jesus, but it is a different Jesus than Christians have, not the Son of God.
When a Muslims tells me that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, one response I give is as follows:
Christians worship the Father. Do Muslims worship the Father. [No]
Christians worship Jesus, God the Son. Do Muslims worship Jesus, God the Son. [No]
Christians worship the Holy Spirit. Do Muslims worship the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead. [No]
Who told you that Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Which part of the Trinity do Christians and Muslims both worship?
We Brad, clearly see the error as you do. That it is not correct in a true Christians life to insist on using a name that is primarily used to = the god of Islam when most of the world understands it as such. Why confuse the matter among the unsaved or misguided/misinformed? Certainly seems only to further worship of a false god to me.
Hope I have been of some help. www.menorah.org/false.html (http://www.menorah.org/false.html)
God bless you,
TheWeeze
05-08-2014, 11:32
I never said that they mean the same God. Only that the word translates that way. You're arguing semantics here, @davsel. Just because their God isn't the same God doesn't mean that the word Allah in Arabic doesn't translate to the word God in English. No one said they were reciting the Muslim/Islamic Pledge of Allegiance, they were reciting the Pledge in the Arabic language. Big difference. And just because some Pastor of a religion I don't believe in says something, doesn't make it the truth. Who's this guy to say that I'm not a true Christian just because I use two words interchangeably, nevermind I mean them in the exact same way. Should we be angry with people who speak Spanish who call God by the word Dios? Or French who call him Dieu? Or German who call him Gott? Or Russian who call him бог? They all mean God, so does God only think that English is the proper way to say his name?
So while I would not use the name "Allah" for God in English, I would not get too hung up on whether a particular Arabic-speaking Christian used the word Allah for God or not.
And if you think that these high school students really meant to say One nation under Allah (the Islamic deity), don't you think they would have said that instead of translating the entire pledge? You're all giving these KIDS too much credit.
funkymonkey1111
05-08-2014, 12:38
I never said that they mean the same God. Only that the word translates that way. You're arguing semantics here, @davsel. Just because their God isn't the same God doesn't mean that the word Allah in Arabic doesn't translate to the word God in English. No one said they were reciting the Muslim/Islamic Pledge of Allegiance, they were reciting the Pledge in the Arabic language. Big difference. And just because some Pastor of a religion I don't believe in says something, doesn't make it the truth. Who's this guy to say that I'm not a true Christian just because I use two words interchangeably, nevermind I mean them in the exact same way. Should we be angry with people who speak Spanish who call God by the word Dios? Or French who call him Dieu? Or German who call him Gott? Or Russian who call him бог? They all mean God, so does God only think that English is the proper way to say his name?
And if you think that these high school students really meant to say One nation under Allah (the Islamic deity), don't you think they would have said that instead of translating the entire pledge? You're all giving these KIDS too much credit.
doesn't make you any less full of shit, either.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.