Preserved Topic: pledge ruled unconstitutional (Page 2 of 3)

Gimme a break. This is like the movie contact redone. I say we vote on it and say the majority rules . In fact lets take a in house vote now.

Any one in favor of taking out the expression "under God" in the Pledge post: Yay

If not in favor post: Nay

well tally it up and make that our official asylum decision. I for one am NAY.

God promotes Christianity? If God was replaced with the names 'Elohim', 'El', 'Elah', 'Eloah', 'Yhvh', 'Yeshua', 'Yah', 'Adonai', 'Adon', 'The Son', 'Son Of David', 'Son Of Joseph', 'King Of The Jews', 'Immanuel', or 'The Lamb.' I would understand your thoughts. God, however is a generic name used by many, many religions as the name of their Lord. Both Christian's and Jew's refer to their Lord as God. Allah is sometimes referred to as Compassionate God. God in Hindu dhama has many names, but is still referred to as God. These are just four different religions who refer to their Lords as God. Your sorely mistaken if you believe God refers only to Christians.

-Jestah
Cell 277

so I'll take that as a NAY

True, but it is still a religious term, and unless it refers to all religions equally (good luck finding anything that does), then it is still preferential to those religions that use that term.

As for any free speech issue: what if someone wanted to add some more words to the Pledge? What if someone wanted to make it, "under f---in' great God', and have children recite it every morning? I doubt many people would support that, because it would offend them. But it's free speech! And if you don't let them say it, you're taking away their rights and obviously don't take your own rights very seriously, Comrade. Sound at all familiar (if perhaps a bit exaggerated)?

(Edit: Put me down as an "YEA". Not that I care that much, but it didn't belong there in the first place...)

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 06-27-2002).]

I think it would be good to read the text of the ruling:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf

I have to side with the dissenting opinion towards the end.

Do any of you here honestly believe that Newdow's daughter was "injured" by even hearing the pledge? If you do, then I really want to know how any of you could support the plege being recited in school at all. Are you aware that it is against the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses to pledge allegience to a flag? Will you therefore take all references to the pledge out to prevent those children from being "injured"?

quote:

---

Newdow does not allege that his daughter?s teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge. 3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to ?watch and listen as her state employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our?s [sic] is ?one nation under God.? ?

---

This is one guy that knows he cannot convince the country to remove this phrase through the democratic process. So what does he do? He decides to impose his narrow views on the majority by judicial fiat. I think what he is doing goes far beyond protecting the rights of a minority (which I would defend vigorously by the way) to denying the rights of the majority. He has crossed the line.

The dissenting judge said:

quote:

---

such phrases as ?In God We Trust,? or ?under God? have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone?s exercise, or non-exercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity.

---

I totally agree with this and I think the majority opinion is conflating God with religion.

. . : slicePuzzle

Yes it refers to religion, whats your point?

-Jestah
Cell 277

OK, maybe Jestah...you're really stretching the ideas of language, but for the moment I'll assume that the reactionary right wing wierdos in 1954 really meant 'all' applications of the word 'God'.

Buddists don't have gods (strictly speaking)...neither do atheists...nor practitioners of Shinto...and Hindu's have many gods, not just one God.
Are you advocating
a) they don't matter?
b) they aren't part of this so-called 'indivisible nation'?

Just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

(BTW...this ruling is NOT taking away freedom of speech. Nowhere in the ruling did it ever say somebody CAN'T say the pledge of allegience. All it said was that the state -- in the form of the school -- can not force people to say it. That is promoting, not hindering, the freedom of speech.
And as for your bible analogy, nowhere, no time to my knowledge has there ever been a court ruling saying that the schools can not teach ABOUT the bible...only that they can't teach the bible. It is idiotic, scared, reactionary school officials who interpret the rulings this way.)

mobrul

I do think that this guy is reaching when he says his daughter was 'injured' by hearing the Pledge. I grew up a happy agnostic, and never felt put upon by reciting it.

My problem is really with the upheaval by those who steadfastly insist that it must remain. If the phrase is so innocuous that those who aren't Christian/religious shouldn't be 'injured' by it, then it must also be so innocuous that those who are Christian/religious shouldn't be 'injured' by its absence. It's the fuss being made with the claim that the phrase doesn't really mean anything, while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail to see that it stays. (I must admit, though, that I do enjoy sparring over it. It's fun!)

quote:

---

George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

---

WJ - Reason Number One why, while he may or may not be dumb, he certainly is ignorant...

mobrul - I do think the 'reactionary right wing wierdos' meant God as in a generic term applying to many different God's. While it's true it was added solely to combat the USSR's athiests, it wasn't meant to say we're a Christian nation but rather a nation who believes in one form of God or another. The truth is we are. 96% isn't just a majority, its an overwhelmening majority. Each morning people pledge an oath, an oath they willingly pledge to their country. It's not a pledge to believe in a God. No ones forced to say it either.

While its being said in a public building, it isn't being forced in being said. No ones forcing these children to recite the pledge, and in some cases teachers have taken their own initiative and stopped the pledge in the mornings.

I'm not advocating either of your statements. What I've been saying over and over again is that each day millions take part in a pledge willingly. If you don't wish to take part in the pledge then don't. It's not mandated. To the best of my knowledge no one has gone to jail for failing to say this pledge. If you don't believe in it, don't say it. Choose for yourself, don't tell the government to choose for everyone.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Wang - agreed.

I don't know if you guys are thinking I'm some sort of ultra conservative or something, I certainly am not. I'd generally be considered an ultra liberal by most. I just feel strongly in my rights.

-Jestah
Cell 277

quote:

---

The Constitution in no way prohibits all references to religion, certainly not as general as the word God. The Constitution prohibits the endorsing of a particular religon on it's citizens. Whether or not you choose to believe it, these are two completely different concepts.

---

Do you read what you write?

god=religion. Look it up in dictionary. The word 'god' has no non-religious meaning. I don't care how 'general' that reference is; it still establishes monotheism as the officially recognized government religion.

Our government put god in the pledge for a specific reason. That reason was all about sending a religious signal to another country that had established atheism as the country's belief system (for want of a better phrase). If you know of another reason that it was inserted, I would like to hear about it.

So, I really don't get how anyone in their right mind can say that there is nothing in the pledge establishing/promoting/recognizing religion. How can a person claim that mention of god does not promote a specific type of religion and then turn around and worship god as part of his/her religion? What in the world are the words 'under god' doing in the pledge if not to promote a diety? I just don't get all the denials and I probably never will.

Any politician may exercise and talk about his/her particular faith. At no point is this about removing their rights to do so. This is about the US government mandating that the official national pledge include a reference to religion, regardless of what form it takes.

quote:

---

This is also what's tearing the country apart. Many working familes can't afford health care but we need to provide it to illegal aliens because we don't want to be unfair. These intrest groups think they are striking crucial blows in their favor, but what they really are doing is breaking apart the best country in the world. It's a real shame that politicians feel the need to respond to the minorities every whimper.

---

The pledge is meant to unite the country. When a mention of religion is made in that pledge, it is doing just the opposite. It is IN FACT separating its citizens. One side is the religious majority and the other side is the minority non-monotheistic. It doesn't matter how small that minority is; there is still a separation. The religious majority is blind to THE FACT that the minority is being discriminated against.

"Oh it's just two silly words" you might say. Yes, but then there are also four silly words on all American currency. And four silly words as the national motto. When will the silly words stop?

I guess, simply put, I want to hear a reason for those silly words to be there in the first place. What non-religious purpose do they serve?

Consider this quote:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn?t speak up,
because I wasn?t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn?t speak up,
because I wasn?t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn?t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945


Cell Number: 494

It's amazing how thick some peoples skulls are.

To clear things up BeeKay, there is no Amendment that protects against having religion forced on you. There is an Amendment that says the government cannot create an official religion. If people take part in a volunteery pledge thats their business, suck it up and stop whinning. The Pledge of Allegiance is volunteery. There is no punishment for not reciting it. If you don't believe in it, don't take part in it


-Jestah
Cell 277

I'm still waiting for a response to my thought:

quote:

---

My problem is really with the upheaval by those who steadfastly insist that it must remain. If the phrase is so innocuous that those who aren't Christian/religious shouldn't be 'injured' by it, then it must also be so innocuous that those who are Christian/religious shouldn't be 'injured' by its absence. It's the fuss being made with the claim that the phrase doesn't really mean anything, while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail to see that it stays.

---

(Edit: If their faith is so strong, then why do they need it validated in the Pledge. If they don't need it in the Pledge, then why are they fighting so hard to keep it?)

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 06-28-2002).]

My initial instinct was to return the thick-headed comment in spades. But in reality we are both thick-headed.

You will believe your version and I will believe my version, no matter how many times our thick skulls smack up against one another. I don't believe you understand what I am saying at all, and you are probably thinking the same thing about me.

This issue has hit home with me, literally. My wife is a Southern Baptist and I am an atheist. The past two days have been tension-filled in my own home, which has not been fun. The same thick-skull ramming has been taking place here and we both finally agreed to disagree. We kissed and made up.

I will also back off here. It accomplishes nothing other than eventually ticking people off. I have no desire to kiss you Jestah, but I will agree to disagree and move on.

Sorry to have brought the whole issue up here. My sincere apologies.

Cell Number: 494

<edit>This was posted at approximately the same time as BeeKay's last post...before I read it. If you wish to disregard, please feel free.</edit>

Jestah, you say

quote:

---

There is an Amendment that says the government cannot create an official religion. If people take part in a volunteery pledge thats their business, suck it up and stop whinning. The Pledge of Allegiance is volunteery. There is no punishment for not reciting it. If you don't believe in it, don't take part in it.

---

...but, this pledge of which we speak is an official, government pledge...it is THE Pledge, not just any old pledge.

There is no 'official' punishment...no jail time, no fine...
I don't know how old you are or how good your memory is, but, you may remember some years ago the singer Sinead O'Conner refused to stand during the singing of the national anthem at some sporting event (baseball game, I think...) She didn't really make a big deal about it, she simply didn't stand. Somebody noticed.
Anyway, this is a totally 'voluntary' event...not even state sponsored (like school is!), but she was blasted in the press. Absolutely blasted.

Do you really think that some 8 or 10 or 15 yr old kid, being raised Buddhist or Hindu or Atheist or some other non-monotheistic philosophy, is not going to be made to feel ostracised if s/he refuses to stand with the rest of his or her classmates and recite this pledge?

The not-so-cool kids are outcast for far less significant things than this.

Should s/he stand and fake it...so the other kids and the teacher don't notice?
Should s/he excuse himself from the room?
Should s/he just say it anyway 'cuz it's easier not to make waves?
Should s/he just take the looks, questions, jeers, abuse and accept it as the price for refusing to practice a religion that's not his or hers?
Should s/he just convince his or her parents to move to some other country where they don't make them acknowlege somebody else's god?

I wonder which option you'd choose if the tables were turned...

mobrul



[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 06-28-2002).]

It is incredibly simple. You don't say the words "under God" when it gets to that point. If you can find no other reason to do this then why not out of respect for your fellow citizens?

If I lived in a primarily Hindu school district, I would expect my children to be present during the religious activities in school as long as they were not forced to participate in things that contradicted their own faith. I would seriously restructure how we do (or rather don't do) religious expression in our public activities. It would be based on mutual respect for all parties and not this preventing others from expressing themselves that we see with this ruling.

[edit]
I was just re-reading something mobrul said:

quote:

---

BTW...this ruling is NOT taking away freedom of speech. Nowhere in the ruling did it ever say somebody CAN'T say the pledge of allegience. All it said was that the state -- in the form of the school -- can not force people to say it. That is promoting, not hindering, the freedom of speech.

---

mobrul, that's just not right. The ruling prohibits the allegience from being uttered with the "under God" part. That *is* prohibiting speech. Forcing people to say it was not what the lawsuit was about. Please read my quote from the ruling above about how Newdow claims his daughter was "injured" at simply *hearing* the pledge in school. Did I misread anything there?
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 06-28-2002).]

Well.....there are a couple inherent problems with some of the "logic" going on here.

1) "God" as opposed to god or a god.....*big* difference. Christians are the only group who routinely refer to their diety as "God".

2) We are not in such a primarily christian nation as we used to be. Period. And I think it's time some of you dealt with that issue.

3) Using those terms in *the* national pledge of allegiance makes a very clear statement that christianity is the "good", the "real" the "american" religion. And that's a crock of shit.

To those of us who have a strong disbelief in christianity, it is a slap in the face. It's not a matter of a few people who need to stop whining...it's a matter of defining this nation. And our definition does not inlcude "God" per se. So neither should our pledge.

We are in the United States of America. Not the united states of God. I could pledge my allegiance to a nation perhaps....but not when part of that pledge is to state a faith in "God".
Nope.

Yes, Jestah, it is amazing how thick some people's skulls are.......pull yours out of your ass and stop acting like you're the end-all of socio-political debate. Just because you believe in it doesn't make it right.....


{{edit - for the record, bugimus, I did not read any of the referenced article - I have no desire to actually. Any claim of injury is absurd, in my view, but the topic of conversation here seem to have very little to do with the stated case anyway, so I figured I'd stay on topic by not reading it }}




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 06-28-2002).]

Irregardless of how we argue over it...someone will eventually have to make a ruling on it (I suspect the Supreme Court). And that, my friends, is the way of our land...and a matter of 'exercising' one's rights.

Jestah, I'm not going to bust you for saying that I am not 'defending' my rights...though I do find that somewhat insulting (esp. for someone who has fought a war for his country, and served my terms of service out, removing my debt to my land of birth).

On the contrary, I don't feel (in this case) that my rights are in danger, or that the Constitutuion is in danger. I only see someone using their rights (the right to put something to question). What surprises me, is that (your words, not mine) 96% are against him...that I find disturbing.

I'm sure the Supreme Court will deal with the issue. And then this will be moot. Irregardless of what the ruling is, one will have to accept it. That is the democratic way, after all, and is following the correct path. Why anyone would say that it is not, and accuse this person of not following his conscience, is beyond me. We live in a Democracy. And sometimes, things happen that don't appeal to us. I didn't particularly enjoy seeing Mr. Bush become President (and I didn't vote for him). But he is President. Them's the breaks.

Some may say 'Well, it's peanuts! What's all the fuss?' Apparently, for this person (and for 96% of the others) it's not 'peanuts'. Therefore, it will require a ruling. Things change. That is the way of the world.

If you fell so strongly about it, then do something about it.

It seem like when it comes time to discuss any touchy subject, abortion, religion, death penalty etc people suddenly become expert on the interpretation of the constitution and what our founding fathers really meant. I do not claim to be an expert but I have seen a lot of BS in peoples post as I read through this thread that some people would like you to believe is fact. Here is a brief history of how our founding fathers felt about religion, theist and Christians in particular and some facts about America's pledge of allegiance.

Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God." The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus." Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority. Deist do not follow the fundamental beliefs by most religions that God revealed himself to humanity through the writings of the Bible, the Qur'an or other religious texts. Deist disagree with Atheists who assert that there is no evidence of the existence of God. They regard their faith as a natural religion, as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which is artificially created by humans. They reason that since everything that exists has had a creator, then the universe itself must have been created by God. Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after the French Revolution with: "God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

John Adams:

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Thomas Paine:

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And lastly for those who would like to know what the bible says about the separation of church and state

Jesus:

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

The constitution makes no mention of separation of church and state, the amendment which does was added to the constitution at the insistence of religious advocates, primarily the Baptist.

Now concerning the pledge.

Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

The only personal thought I will add is this, this seems like a silly thing to get upset about but I think it is a wonderful thing that the minority in this country is allowed to voice their opinion and I feel that they should be able to do so without persecution. I also believe that it is our governments duty to see this thru no matter how petty it is and insure that everyone?s rights are respected and held in equal regard.

Amen.

I'll second that.

Those are all very worthy facts to point out, dmstiner. But sadly it seems the lawsuit is hardly concerned with historical facts much less original intent. It seems to me it is much more about where we go from here and whether we're going to exsponge certain aspects of our civic tradition against the will of the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

Bugimus, sometimes traditions were wrong in the first place. and the majority do what's in their best interests and care nothing for anyone else.

<cough> majority believed that the Sun revolved around a flat Earth </cough>


[edit] fixed the earth/cough confusion. sorry about that - too many assignments [/edit]

[This message has been edited by aerosoul (edited 06-29-2002).]

"around a flat Earth"???

~Bugs wanders down the Asylum hallways trying to work that one out~

You ended your <cough> tag with an </earth> tag. I think you'd better double check that schema.

But he has a valid point (even if formulated badly)...change is not always something we view as beneficiary...in the short term. The mainstream always holds to the 'conservative' area...and that's normal...too much change, too rapidly results in confusion, and in extreme cases, chaos. On the other hand, no change results in stagnation.

And if the generations to come find our 'changes' to be unworthy, or no longer 'moderne' or whatnot...then they, in turn, will change it yet again...and the cycle repeats itself...a long run view here, shows that we take ourselves much to seriously...as if the universe revolves around us...ridiculous...

'And this, too, will change' Wise words, once uttered by an Egyptian priest to his Pharoah, when asked for a phrase that fits any circumstance...funny, that it is not in the Bible...*shrugs* Well, not all words of wisdom are in that book...

As a fat American capitalistic pig dog, I worship my money every night by sacrificing small wooden crosses to my portrait of Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Just joking! Gheesh.

Bugs - that was a (clumsy) allusion to the time when everyone thought that the Earth was flat, and the people who protested that it was round (Galileo or Copernicus or both I think) weren't exactly very popular.



.. One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor ..

I think it's time I step in. Well I am in florida right now and Today is my 14'th BDay and last night to celebrate we wen't to a Japaneese Stake House called Arigatos in Tampa. I was with my Dad (who feels very sympothietic for his father who is near death and who is a WW2 veteran, my Grandfather) and my Step Mom (who is just very intelligent to begin with). Well my Step Mother and I got into this discussion, I gave my 2 cents, she gave hers, but it was when my dead stepped in and said something that really made me think.

He said that no one should break the rights in which this country was founded upon, and for some little piss-ant asshole who doesn't wan't his daughter to say the pledge to file a law-suit in San Fran the land of fruits and nuts and expects us to think that's unconstitutional made my dad want to murder this person. He said why should they change 2 words in the pledge we have had for so long, why should his father, who killed a man with his bare hands in WW2, have to not recite what he was fighting for every day. This country has american spirit and for this stupid ass guy to think that 90% of the country has some based religion with a god in it, to agree, just fucks the country up. It's statements from people like that in which makes our economy in a set of chaos and destruction.

Well my thoughts are. If you don't want to say "under god" don't, if you do thats great. We aren't changing the pledge. Senate voted 99/99 no so piss off asshole.


___________________
tri-eye

There's a nice opinion piece from MSNBC here...

InSiDeR - Happy Birthday!

quote:

---

why should they change 2 words in the pledge we have had for so long

---

'Under God''s been absent from the pledge longer than it's been in (62 vs. 48 years), FYI. Also, if you read the above article, you can see that the '50s were a real heyday for sticking God references into things: the Pledge, on money, into our National Motto. None of these things are holdovers from the days of Washington and Jefferson.

I also like the 'simple remedy' mentioned - "not a constitutional amendment but a renewed commitment by Americans to pray at home, in their churches, and with their families."

Keeping God at home, in churches and with your own family... Now, there's an idea... or is that too simple?

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 06-30-2002).]

InSiDeR, not meaning to belittle your father, but I also fought a war (and I'm not going to go into it), but, to be frank, I didn't fight it for the Pledge...The Constituion is another matter.

We have all seen the problems of State Religion...just take a glance at the middle east...ring any bells?

Seperation of State and Religion is a good thing...Religion clouds the mind, esp. in the Political arena. Politics is messed up enough, without adding Religion to it...

Personally, I like Wangensteins advice. Wanna be religious? Then by all means, be so, but not at a level that affects us all. After all, some of us don't want to be religious, or our religion is different.

Well, if it didn't pass the Senate, then I guess the question has now run it's course...

Hows about the sayin to all of the news on this that, 'If you do not have anything nice to say.. Then don't say anything at all!' That is what I would say to those parents. You can have your own beliefs, just keep them to your selves and your family if it is accepted there.



'Me no here. Me go bye. Leave me message. Me reply.'

Wolfen's Sig Site

The United States is messed up because we have been taking God out of it not becuase God is in it too much...

It's a shame how little most people including most of you know about the history of the United States.

This country was founded upon God, schools were not made to teach people math and social skills, they were first started so kids could learn more about the bible and God is a group setting.

This country had took a strong downfall since prayer was taken out of schools several years ago, and I promise if this country is stupid enough to allow god to be taken off our currency and out of our pledge it's only going to get worse.

I'd hate to be the ones who started all this when it's time for judgment before that God that they are to stupid to believe exists

Anyone that can sit here and tell me that they don't believe in any god in one form or another is a fool

The pledge isn't meant to speak of only one God it's in the believe in a God a higher power that is watching over and guiding us all, and if you can't at least acknowledge a higher power then you are blind and sadly mistaken.

I'm not interested in arguing the point of whither there is a God, I already know that there is, all I'm saying is that what is it hurting by having those two words there?

Why has it waited until now to complain that has been there since 1954 and was added to separate this country from the other godless countries out there, and almost 50 years later people want to remove it? That's plain stupid.

When God returns I would love to be around when the lady that removed prayer from our schools gets judged and when those two judges voted to remove those two words gets judged.

I mean what would you say in your defense? "Oh I?m sorry I don't believe in you sir, so you can't judge me" lol

Just as my advice to you all, God is coming back and you better be ready...


If we meet and you forget me, you have lost nothing, but if you meet Jesus Christ and forget him you have lost everything.

[This message has been edited by Synthetic (edited 06-30-2002).]

synthetic - let me just respond to that by saying that, I would *love* to be around when you die and find out that there's nothing more than your body rotting in a box that it shouldn't be in getting eaten by worms. Now, givn the possibility that there *is* actually a "God", let me also say that I would be equally joyed to be there when 'it' comes to judge you and the millions like you and says "what the fuck were *you* thinking? This shit you call religion has *nothing* to do with me....."





heh.

"God" may have been a precept of many of our founding fathers, but it is very clear that the necessity to believe in such a "God" was not.

This is about the NATION and not your RELIGION.

.

Bugimus - I do agree with you as far as this particular law suit goes.

But the issue as a whole is much larger.

And......as has been stated ad nauseum....."God" was *not* in the original pledge...and never should have been added.





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 06-30-2002).]

You made my point quite well

I don't belive in "RELIGION"

I belive in "God"

There is a huge difference which you will probably never understand



If we meet and you forget me, you have lost nothing, but if you meet Jesus Christ and forget him you have lost everything.

Synthetic, at the risk of being a fool by your standards, I do not wholly believe in the principle of an all-seeing and all-caring God. There may or may not be a higher power, but I don't entirely accept the principle of God as has been largely described by the principal religions of the world today. Naturally, this has resulted in a great deal of anger from people who are upset that I "don't believe". Having said that, I respect your right to your opinion, and the freedom to believe it.

Please explain to fools like I, who have an opinion different from yours for our own reasons, why we are "blind and sadly mistaken".

Okay, so maybe this is getting a little off topic and tempers are running high, but I need to know what Synthetic knows that I quite obviously can not see.

.. One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor ..

Synthetic - IF there is a God (being agnostic myself, I cannot claim proof of such a being's existence or non-existence) who cares whether or not people chose to believe in it, and IF such a being chooses to 'judge' those who 'foolishly' did not believe, I am quite certain that any such 'judgment' will be mitigated by the presence of the multitudes of people with attitudes like yours, which have provided some of the worst PR for any concept in the history of the world. So, keep up the good work...