Preserved Topic: pledge ruled unconstitutional

Top CNN story right now: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html

I applaude the decision. Don't know if it will stick, but it's good to know some folks can see through all the crap and make an informed choice. Just because someone does not believe in god(s) does not mean they are not patriotic. Now if only they can actually get our country's true motto back out to replace In God We Trust and get god off my money, we'll be all set.

On the other hand, the senate voted 99-0 to fight the decision, then they headed out to the steps to recite the pledge and sing God Bless America. I truly believe in freedom of religion, but I also believe in freedom FROM religion, and separation of church and state. The senate is just pandering to the public. Any politician who dared to not go along with the vote might as well not run for re-election.

I will pledge allegiance to my flag and country, which I proudly served while in the military for 12 years, but I will not pledge to a god that I do not believe exists.

Whew ... sorry about that folks ... got all stirred up there ... please excuse my rant ...

Cell Number: 494

Hey! I thought you were the *unbiased* moderator of the Does God Exist debate! =)

I am sure will be overturned by the supreme court. Hypothetically. if we would no longer say "under god" someone will look at money and realize it says "In god we trust". It would a LOT of money to upgrade the money to say "In democracy we trust(which is what it should say imo)"(There is a certian irony of having to pay money to may money say something different, inst there?). Anwyays, thats why this will be overturned

always thought it was strange that we have 'in God we trust' on our currency? Maybe that is unconstituional also?

Yeah this chaps me as well... though I believe it's just another shining example of political correctness run amok... just sad. We need to get some people in our offices that won't bow down to everyone's bitches and moans... cause this is just over the top, imo.

Dont get me wrong, I believe that if you have a complaint, it should be heard... but someone needs to draw a friggin line.

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

lol@slime

yea thats been pissing me off for a while too bk

but to be perfectly honest, in school when we pledge, i don't recite "one nation under god"

"The senate is just pandering to the public"

"We need to get some people in our offices that won't bow down to everyone's bitches and moans"

hmmmm, that's what we pay 'em for, yeah? yeah.

Jason

This is the dumbist thing I have heard in a while, why can't they just leave things alone?

Synthetic

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

What I'm saying is that the politicians and judges who makes these ridiculous statements and rules need to quit playin' it up to the crowd. Person A bitches and moans about how unconstitutional it is to wear red hats, so red hats are taken away and ruled unconstitutional. Well, Person B thinks the red hats should be given to everyone to wear anytime they *want*, not forced. What's the judge to do? What's the politian to do?

How about their friggin jobs, instead of trying to make America the most politically correct country in the world.

Shh! Don't say that! It could offend someone!
Hey! Don't write that! It could offend someone!
Wha? You can't do that! It could offend someone!

Until those in power realize that this is NOT the way to run a country, I have a feeling that anything and everything mildly patriotic will be taken away, one by one, until there's nothing left. Why? Because they feel it's their need to make everyone of them bitchin' people happy... and it just can't be done!


*steps down off soap box*

Oh, and BeeKay, I completely understand your ideals and beliefs... and guys, just because he's got them beliefs don't mean he still can't moderate a debate with no bias. He's a person, he's got an opinion... but I'm sure he'll keep it out of the debate.

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

Only in California could something like this have happened. Fortunetly the rest of the country isn't as naive as those who seem to support this decision. This nation is free to worship as they choose, to suggest that the printing of 'In God We Trust' or the saying of 'Under God' promotes any particular religion is ridiculous. Seperation of Church and State is wonderful on paper, but that doesn't take away from the overwhelming majority of the population who believe there is a God in one form or another.

Fortunetly cooler heads always prevail, and the decision will be over turned in due time.

-Jestah
Cell 277

First of all, this is strictly, completely, totally NOT about someone being offended and crying No Fair! This is about the constitution and what is says. Before you start blowing this off as just another whiner raising a stink about something stupid, then I suggest you read the very well-written decision the district court made. Then back that up by reading this country's constitution.

Secondly, the pledge, god on money, the motto, etc. are all in fact promoting one type of religion: monotheism. For those who do not worship a deity and for those who might worship multiple deities or spirits or a life force or whatever, this represents being forced to acknowledge someone's religion. I am patriotic and want to honor my country with a pledge, and I see no reason that while reciting that pledge I need to edit it while I say it. I have to use this nation's currency, which has emblazoned on it something I do not believe in. And the real motto of this nation United We Stand was highjacked in favor of In God We Trust.

Third, I was under the impression that in this country the minority was supposed to be protected from having their rights infringed upon by the majority. No, in this real world, that concept does not always hold true. I realize that. But that doesn't mean no one should fight to have their voice heard when they believe in something strong enough to stand up and defend it. What right is being infringed on? My right not to have religion in any form shoved down my throat by the government.

And finally, the judges in the court were not trying to appease the masses with their decision, nor were they trying to make a statement about political correctness. They correctly interpretted the constitution. Period. Once again, if you disagree, then read their published decision. If that doesn't sway your opinion, then nothing likely will. It's the pandering politicians in the senate and white house that are getting all worked up for public consumption. If any politician publishes a worthy, well-thought-out statement countering the court's decision, then I will sit up and take notice. But that won't happen. They're going to sing God Bless America for the cameras and work the masses up into a froth about the evil man who took away this country's pledge.

Unfortunately, the ruling will be overturned or backdoored in some way. This country is not ready this decision yet.



Cell Number: 494

~ no reply, my head just isn't here tonight, nothing comes out sounding intelligent, so I'm shutting up ~

[This message has been edited by njuice42 (edited 06-27-2002).]

First this isn't a california thing, the 9th circuit court represents California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the North Marianas islands and is the largest of the 13 circuit courts. It happens to live in San Francisco.

Second there is nothing here guaranteeing this being overturned. The supreme court currently has been fairly consistent in it's decisions regarding the pledge and it's religious implications. The bit about preventing the pledge from being recited maybe overturned, however it may lead to the changing of the pledge. Which wouldn't be first the first time since the "Under God" part was added by a congressional vote in the 50's (ahh McCarthiesm at it's best) and is in fact a direct reference to Christianity. There is nothing in the decision against anyone's right to choose to participate in any religion of their choice, just that government and religion should be seperate.

You may not like the decision, me personally I think guns should be outlawed, however in both cases the constitution is clear.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Yet another example of the many problems that arise when people don't read particular things in their entirety. Wrong as it is, there is a general belief in the United Stats that there is a seperation of church and state. All that mumbo jumbo about it not being about a whiner crying but rather someone correctly looking at the Constitution is wrong. 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.

Exactly which particular religion is being endorsed by the word God? Since we all know only one religion in particular worships a god(s).

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

- and no law was made.

-Jestah
Cell 277

I hope those guys lose in the supreme court. I would not be suprised if the ruling goes that far.



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

Wolfen's Sig Site

Here is all the pertinent info on this :

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to
support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people.

So, the separation of Church and State...though not in those words, is in the Constitution. And as Schools are a part of the state, therefore, there can be no required Religion...otherwise, that would be considered state-sponsered Religion. What the people do there themselves, is another matter (as I have shown, that is also protected under the constitution.) So if the Pledge is required by the School, it may not make a reference to Religion. However, they could get around this with not making it manditory.

So that about sums it up...

Your wrong about the seperation of church and state WS, at least in the generally accepted definition. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from forcing a 'national religion' it's not prohibited from mentioning any words pertaining to religion. The coinage of money with the phrase 'In God We Trust' or pledging allegiance under God is not in violation with the Constitution, which is why the asinine decision will be over turned.

While the pledge is said generally before school starts, it is not required by law that all children must take part in it. No one is being forced to worship and no religion is being forced on the people. Everyones free to do as they choose as far as this pledge goes. Say it or don't, its your choice. Thats what it comes down to.



-Jestah
Cell 277

All that I have to add to this discussion is that as an atheist, one who does not believe in the existance of any god, the phrase in the Pledge and the endorsement on the currency do at times make me feel as an outcast and unwanted in this country.

And I'm sure that those of you who are vehemently arguing in the defense of those phrases would agree that I as an atheist do not belong in this country. And that lack of tolerance saddens me.

But I am a patriot and believe in the USA. I will continue to support the rights of ALL people not just those of the religious bent. And I will sit here and applaud decisions like these because they seek to create an America for ALL people.

As an addendum: If you wish to commit a crime in the State of Arkansas, do not worry if I see you. According to the Arkansas constitution, atheists cannot hold public office nor can they testify in court. So please, if you go on a killing spree, kill all of the witnesses but me. The government has ensured that your secret will be safe with me.

Actually Jestah, that is not entirely true

quote:

---

Your wrong about the seperation of church and state WS, at least in the generally accepted definition. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from forcing a 'national religion' it's not prohibited from mentioning any words pertaining to religion

---

The Constitution says nothing about a 'national religion', on the contrary it says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

Now, I guess you mean how that is interpreted...and here we get into semantics...but by examining the guidelines (that's why I included those other parts of the Constitution) that we have in the constitutuion, it is fairly clear that the Founding Fathers (if you will) were aware of the problems of the State and Religion (not just a 'national religion') and took steps to emphasize that. An 'establishment of religion' means any religion...

That which you mention on the Pledge, however, does seem to be correct...I've never heard of anybody being expelled because they won't say it...however, then why is the Pledge even in the Schools? And what is the purpose of it? What is the background behind it? And taking the 'under God' out of it, is that really so bad? And wouldn't that solve the issue?

But here is the point...a Teacher leads (and teaches) the Pledge...and because a Teacher works for the State, is in effect representing the State...and the School. And therefore, it is unconstitutional...were the Pledge to be introduced from outside of the School system for example, and some of the children wanted to say the Pledge, well, according to the Constitution, they could...those Rights are protected...or, the word 'God' could be removed, and then it wouldn't matter...

@ St. Senica - uhh...this from the Ar. Con. 'Section 26. Religious test. - No religious test shall ever be required of any person as a qualification to vote or hold office, nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations.'

Or do you have something else to support your words...because from the state constitution, it seems that what you say is not correct...and certainly unconstitutuional...



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

I really feel bad for this mans child. This child will now always be known as the kid who got god thrown out of the school system. I am sure many support the man and his decision but few childern get to have a father that is so widely loathed by so many americans. As a side note, I think by extension athiests should refuse to use any currency which has any reference to god.

Actually, (no, I don't consider myself to be Atheist...why? Though I don't believe in a God, I don't particularly care what 'label' people give me in that regards...) I don't think the use of God should bother an Atheist...however, most bible beaters become very rabid against someone who 'doesn't believe'...just my experience...though in the Military, I didn't get any flack...however, religious people did get to go to service on Sunday and we that didn't had to scrub the barracks...kinda unfair, if you ask me...

WS - The Constitution is what is being tested here, not the other things you've mentioned, and these other things have little to do with the issue anyway. No one is being tasted or evaluated based on religion. Whether or not the teacher leads the class, and not all teachers do mind you, all students are free to participate at will. It's almost like lunch. Students are given a time to eat. Whether they choose to eat is up to them, what they choose to eat is also up to them. Since no one is being forced to say this 'oath' it really shouldn't be an issue period and comes back to what I said before about this man whining and crying. It's a shame we've alienated 96% of the country to make you select few feel better about yourselves. 96% of the country wants to take part in this 'oath' but in 9 states they have been prohibited because of this 4%. The 4% always had the option of not reciting the Pledge or if prefered skipping the part pertaining to 'under God'. It's a pretty fair system. Do what you want. Now the problem is athiests didn't want to extend the common courtousy to those believing in a God of any form. They don't want there to be any mention of God at all. So since religion isn't being forced on anyone, it comes down to whether or not the government can use termonology pertaining to religion, and there isn't anything in the Constitution saying it shouldn't.

As to your question of why not just get rid of the phase and move on it's not that simple. That doesn't solve the problem. In fact it sets a precident. As our St. Seneca pointed out, he feels outcasted because we coin money with 'In God We Trust' on it. The Dr. who brought this lawsuit has already announced he would like to take to court this issue. So you see it doesn't stop there.

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.

I have to admit I do feel sorry this doctors daughter also. Not only is she the daughter of currently the most hated man in America, personally I find little different between him and Osama bin Laden, but knowing she was used by her father to advance his political cause is terrible. Hopefully she transfers schools or something. She has a rough life ahead of her in public school, especially when topic turns to current events.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Peter, is there any more room in canada?

Izzay

I'm an agnostic of the "don't know, don't care; too much to do and I'll find out soon enough" stripe, just to put my thoughts in context. I regard most religions as curiosities.

What I want to know is, if it's so bad to take 'under God' out of the Pledge, why is it so good to have it in there?

I'd also like to note that a lot of the press coverage of this story revolves not around the 'under God' issue, but around removing the Pledge as a whole, which means that a lot of peoples' opinions (including those who don't tend to read/think for themselves, but believe what the media tells them) are being formed from a patriotic standpoint, as opposed to the 'God/no God' standpoint or even (Heaven forbid) a Constitutional standpoint.

I also find it amusing that the Pledge has been altered twice since it was created in 1892. Here's a history of the Pledge I found on MSNBC:

quote:

---

The Youth's Companion, a Boston-based family magazine, publishes the original pledge in its Sept. 8, 1892 issue. Although its authorship has since been disputed, historians believe that Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist, penned the words to mark the public schools' 1892 quadricentennial celebration of Columbus Day. During the celebration it was repeated by more than 12 million public school pupils in every state in the Union.

1892 version
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Againt Bellamy's wishes, the pledge is altered during a flag conference hosted by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution.
'My Flag,' is changed to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'

1924 version

'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

A campaign led by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic organization, leads Congress to add the words "under God" to the Pledge.

1954 - present version
'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.'

---

Note that the Pledge used to say 'my Flag', and didn't mention God at all. If it was okay to make those changes, why is it bad to change it further?

quote:

---

Not only is she the daughter of currently the most hated man in America, personally I find little different between him and Osama bin Laden

---

Jestah, that seems a little extreme. Could you explain the similarities between an American exercising his (supposedly God-given) rights and a man who wants to bomb America to bits and kill everyone who doesn't believe what he believes?

(Edit: Personally, I've seen more similarities between Osama bin Laden and some of those reacting to the judgement. Are you aware he's received threatening phone calls? How different is that behavior from bin Laden's?)

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

hello everyone,
All i can say is that Jestah voices my opinion quite well.
i dont have much time since i am sitting here in class, but as luck would have it, class discussion is exactly about today's cnn article on this topic. i am at the dept. of defense's information school, (one of the best media schools nationwide). the block i am in is broadcasting hard news ("phoner", etc.), sports broadcasting, print news, and so on.
gotta go,

Additionally, if you're truly faithful, why do you care if 'under God' isn't in the Pledge? If you truly believe that there is no God, why do you care if 'under God' is in there? (Edit: Doesn't the nature of faith mean that you don't need outside validation, either from other people or from two words in a pledge of some sort?)

I believe that, in the face of more important issues, this doesn't even appear on the radar...

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

Wangenstein - Personally I don't find a difference between a man who assults buildings and citizens of the United States and a man who assults the Constitution of the United States. While you clearly disagree with me, both are just as damaging. Our Constitution is what seperated us from many other countries. This doctors actions, in a fit of selfish rage, has damaged the Constitution. There is no foundation to support this decision, although athiests will argue otherwise. It's not a matter of interpeting the Constitution, its a matter of reading it:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

And no laws were made.



-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah - "in a fit of selfish rage"? That's a little hyperbolic, isn't it? Do you know how long it takes to send a case through the courts? You can't stay 'enraged' that long...

quote:

---

Personally I don't find a difference between a man who assults buildings and citizens of the United States and a man who assults the Constitution of the United States. While you clearly disagree with me, both are just as damaging.

---

I do, indeed, disagree. One is a literal assault upon people and property, designed to bring down the United States as a whole. The other is part of the free exchange of ideas that this nation was founded upon. The fact that you dislike its consequences in no way makes it any less vital to this country's survival.

Overall, this is just another little piece of American history that you and I are living through. Enjoy it! It's a hell of a toboggan ride!

Wangenstein - Whether you choose to believe it or not, the Constitution is much more then just a free exchange of ideas. It sounds to me your either a citizen who takes their rights for granted, meaning your willing to throw away what you consider to be petty rights because you don't believe we could ever live as terrible as other countries, or your not a citizen and are content with your limited rights. Either or its your own choice and I don't care, just don't tell me its not a big deal when you want to take away rights, and you most certainly are.

I keep telling you the Constitution says one thing reguarding religion and that is it cannot establish laws to force citizens to worship a particular God and you keep saying 'oh c'mon it really isn't a big deal'. It is a big deal to many Americans, read that as 96% of the country. If you feel as though its only a pledge and money then sit there and shut up. Don't tell me its just a pledge and money, it really doesn't effect your life too much so you really shouldn't mind.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah you're being fucking ridiculous. This guy is not attacking a the "constitution" he is in fact trying to defend it and his view was just upheld by a district court. Our whole system of government and judicial process is structured to allow this guy his point of view and give him was to address those grievances.

This may stand or may not but comparing him to a Mass murdering terrorist for exercising the right's we've given him is fucking fascist.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

Whether you choose to believe it or not, the Constitution is much more then just a free exchange of ideas. It sounds to me your either a citizen who takes their rights for granted, meaning your willing to throw away what you consider to be petty rights because you don't believe we could ever live as terrible as other countries, or your not a citizen and are content with your limited rights.

---

So, either I'm stupid, or just foreign?

quote:

---

Either or its your own choice and I don't care, just don't tell me its not a big deal when you want to take away rights, and you most certainly are.

---

Thought 1: The doctor is a man, exercising his Constitutional rights, and you're telling him to sit down? I'm confused; which of us is talking about taking away rights? Thought 2: The doctor is a man, exercising his "God-given" (at least, according to religious-types) rights. If God gave him those rights, who are you to tell him to sit down? (Edit: From either a Constitutional-rights standpoint or a religious standpoint, I can't find a problem with his actions. Sorry...)



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

Here's something else I found on MSNBC. I thought it was funny and that I'd share it:

quote:

---

The pure poetry of the Pledge: Why couldn?t they have left the Pledge of Allegiance alone in the first place? All through grade school, every morning without fail, I recited the Pledge of Allegiance. To my child?s ear the Pledge sounded like a cool poem. We were all of us ?one-nation-indivisible-with-liberty-and-justice-for-all.? You know how kids are with poetry. You learned it ? and recited it ? by rote.

Then one morning the Pledge changed. I had no idea the Knights of Columbus got Congress to change it. All I knew was that now we were all part of ?one-nation-under-God-indivisible-with-liberty-and-justice-for-all.?

Suddenly the lines didn?t scan. To my child?s ear, the rhythm was way wrong. It was as if ?Georgie Porgie pudding and pie, kissed the girls -under God- and made them cry.? No one would go for that.

Now everybody?s full of shock and outrage that the Pledge has been declared unconstitutional because of those two words. Why not just go back to the original wording? At least it scans.

---

Beekay, "...the senate is just pandering to the public..." Yes, as a politician you have two jobs: 1) spend money 2) get re-elected. Any actions they take on this matter will fall under the latter of those two.

In some respects I agree with Jestah but I am offended by this because it is completely frivilous. With all the issues we face as a country both externally and internally this seems like such a complete waste of time. Of all the societial issues that we as a country could be spending our time, money, and focus on we end up with trival litigious stuff like this. I am angered by the trivial nature of this whole situation. I saw some statistics stating that less than 2% of this country is athiest or agnostic...well sorry, the minority dosent get to dictate the majoritys place, (statistics can be made to say anything of course.) This man has landed himself in a shitstorm with this one especially with all the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots that have popped up since 9/11. I still have the same reaction I had when I first heard this, I just shake my head...What a sick sad world we live in.

How about this, the US is still a democracy, lets vote on it...make a constitutional amendment to prevent this complete waste of time from happening again.

Regardless of the fact that America was founded on principles of freedom from religious tyranny, I believe history portrays our founding fathers as decidedly Christian, though Protestant. While this has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual principles involved in the writing of our laws, anthems, constitutions and what have you, it does lend a real Christian flavor to just about everything...

Wangenstein - I've never said you were either stupid or foreign. What I said was you either do not value the rights given to you by the Constitution (not God btw) or you do not enjoy these rights because you live in a country that probably doesn't have them. If you choose to take that as your stupid then by all means do so. As for your second quote I was telling you to sit down and be quiet. You seem to be of the impression that it shouldn't be such a big deal because it really isn't a big deal. It's just words so why not change? At least thats the impression I recieved from your previous posts. If you feel its not a big deal then why are you making it a big deal?

Bit - Whether or not you believe it, this country was founded on a belief of God. The Founding Fathers decided that they would not promote a particular religion though, hence the first Amendment. The Founding Fathers did not decide that they would prohibit all government officials from taking part in any type of religion. The words 'under God' in the pledge does not promote a religion so this part of the 1st Amendment really isn't applicable so look at what these judges have ruled against. Speech. While it might sound silly to you, losing a touch of freedom of speech it sets a precident for future cases. What happens now when this same doctor decides the teaching of the Bible in HS's promotes religion. Certainly there is precident now for these types of bannings. How about Native Americans wanting to take American History out of public schools? Naturally it should be banned of course.

The bannings will go on forever, and thats why I think its an attack on our Constitutional rights.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Bodhi - Precisely. The Founding Fathers were all Christians (or at least, from a Christian-based society). They had every opportunity to stick in as much "Hail Jebus, twist and shout!" into the Constitution as they wanted, establishing an official religion based on praising Jebus and thumbing their noses at the British. They didn't. They left it out. So, if the Founding Fathers didn't feel that the inclusion of religion into government was important enough to mandate it in the Constitution when they were writing it, who are today's politicians to try and do it now?

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

Also, I hold both judges just as responsible for taking away Constitutionally guarenteed rights.


Your entirely still missing the point Wangenstein. The Founding Fathers didn't leave religion out of the Constitution because they didn't feel it was important. Most of these men were very religious. They left it out because they didn't feel it was the governments place to tell someone who they should worship. They decided to leave it up to the people.

-Jestah
Cell 277


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

Jestah -

"under God" most certainly does promote a religion. It promotes christianity. What it does not promote is a particular sect of that religion.

It does not say "under a god", it says "under God". That makes it specific to christianity, as any other religion has other terms for their diety of choice (such as Allah and Jehovah for instance...).

What that says to anyone of religions other than christianity is that they are not a part of this unifying ritual we call the pledge of allegiance, and that their religion is not valid here.

Which, is indeed, a rather anti-constitutional train of thought.

Now, different sects of christianity may have been all there was to contend when the consitution was written, but that is obvioiusly not the case now. So religion specific items have no business in our pledge of allegiance, nor on our currency, or anywhere else in matters of national importance.

I rather doubt I'm 'entirely' missing the point quite as much as you say, but I will clairify my statement: The Founding Fathers did believe that religion was important; that's why it gets a mention in the Bill of Rights. However, if the Founding Fathers had thought religion was that critical to the nation, they had ample opportunity to do something about it when they created the country. Wisely, they did not.

quote:

---

They left it out because they didn't feel it was the governments place to tell someone who they should worship. They decided to leave it up to the people.

---

Precisely my point. Thank you. Why then, did Congress (aka, the Government) put 'under God' into the Pledge in the first place? I think we're on the same page here; you're just reading it upside-down.

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...

"liberty and justice for all"

Don't go on about how the pledge shouldn't be molded for the individual. That is a farse look at the document you are describing. If you want to have your justice and liberty for all you need to cater to every one. I would also like to point out that your arguement that we would be showing a faith in "all peoples gods" were that the case it would not be written "God" but "god."

The motive is clearly to evoke the christian god in the pledge, which has been proven.

By statistices the united states is 76.5% Christian with a 13.2% population which is non-religious/secular, there is then a spattering of other religious groups in the united states. Which since 1990 has dropped 10% from 86.2% and the non-religious/secular portion growing by 6% over the past 10 years. There are also stated to be thousands of different religious groups within the united states.

Our Constitution was designed to protect the minority and it has been doing its job. There is a "seperation of church and state" and this is what is being worked on here.

There is a growing diversity of religions in America and trends are currently changing. There is no more cold war and being non-religious no longer carries the connotation of being a subversive communist. Those who once were fearful of telling their true ideas no longer feel that way, they are able to speak their mind.

Just like in the world of web design. Even though Microsoft has the numbers doesn't mean that you don't need to work on solutions that appease Opera as well. You can not forget about any of the people involved or what they are using. You need to come up with an all encompassing solution, one that makes everyone happy.

That is what the pledge is about. Liberty for all, the ability to make everyone happy, to have everyone on equal footing.

As for that whole school thing, teachers are no longer able to beat the children either, and I am sure dicipline has gone downhill because of that. Maybe giving teachers back the right to whip children would make our school system better as well.

?Which have provided some of the worst PR for any concept in the history of the world. So, keep up the good work..."

You see by saying that you?re putting all people to claim to believe in God in a box and giving them a label and that's what I was trying to avoid. Not all people who claim to believe in God are Christians and not all people who claim to be Christians believe in God.

Religion has become a very twisted concept and I agree that most people claiming to be Christians set a horrible example of what a true believer in God is true like or believes.

The same has happened to the Muslims from "bad PR" from those claiming to be of that religion, because of the terrorists that have claimed to be of the Muslim religion. And then naturally all people of that faith were condemned for their belief and put into your little box and labeled.

Yes I do believe in God, the one true God spoken of in the bible but I am in no way like what you think you know about me or what your concept of a real Christian is. I don't force my beliefs on anyone and I don't condemn you for your different beliefs or the lack there of.

If you choose to believe that there is no God, then that is your right, I will tell you that you are wrong and you will have to answer for your decision later, but I?m not going to beat you over the head about it or think any less of you for it.

You can?t be saved and go to heaven because you?re a nice guy and do good works, nor will you get there from going to church every Sunday like the typical stereotype suggests.

This world and everything in it didn?t get here by chance and you didn?t come from monkeys, so why is everyone so quick to rule out there being a higher power ?a God? that did all this? And if you are willing to accept the fact that there is a God then why is it so hard to belive that he cares for you as well?

I know so many people that are wise enough to realize there is a God but refuse to believe that he cares for you and wants to get to know you personally.

They say ?well how can one God care for and know us all?? well he did make and single one of us and he did put the stars in the sky and he does keep the planets in perfect alignment and he did create a living breathing creation with a mind body and soul called we like to call ?humans? so why the hell is it so hard to believe that he knows us all by name?

I mean if he can do all that I find it pretty easy to believe that he knows us all and I don?t know why we are here if he doesn?t care about us? What is the thing we call existence? Is it all a game?

You can?t see the wind yet you believe it?s there without any other assurance other than your belief, why can?t you do the same towards a belief in God?

I have to get back to my work so I?m leaving this conversation, sorry if I hold a unpopular belief here,but in the end I know it?s the right one.

I hope you all choose to believe as well, but even the bible is clear that most people won't come to the true before it's too late, regardles this is the last you?ll ever hear about it from me.

Have a great rest of your night or day which ever the case may be...

I would say God bless you, but it's seems as though most of you could care less...



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

Not being american I'm not going to venture opinions in what is right or wrong in your consitiution or your pledge, but I must say that the very way that the pledge is OFFICIALLY written constitutes the Christian God as opposed to the general 'almighty deity' theory. God with a capital G, in all of the accepted texts and dictionaries refers not to a general deity, but to the christian idea of God. A lower case g means a general deity.

And also, forceing somebody to do or say something that they don't want to is the best way to take a downfall. This is refering to the Prayer in schools. As far as I have seen (and I'll admit all I've seen is through the media) the 'downfall' of American Society actually began before prayer was taken out of schools.

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

wow

and really...prayer is not compulsory in Australian schools, and we don't have a pledge of alegience...are you then saying that our society is on the way out?

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

Synthetic...WTF are you posting?

Are you seriously pushing the non-evolution theory? That all evidence to the contrary, you believe a book that was written by man over the geological records, and overwhelming evidence that supports the evolution theory, in favor of a book that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a god exists?

I suppose that you also believe that the earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around the earth, as well. And, of course, DNA can't exist, that is just a ludicrous lie, bent on discrediting the bible...

Man, I'm glad I am a citizen from a land that protects me from people like you. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. The rights granted me are also yours. Thank our lucky stars that it is so.

*shakes head*

Unbelievable...

Well, it takes all kinds...

What if you are wrong? Have you ever considered that? What if you are wrong? What if God says, 'Sorry old chap, but only Jews are allowed in Heaven...', or 'Well my boy, only Moslims are correct in their belief, and you had your chance...' or 'Whups! Only Hindus can enter Paradise...christian? Sorry, stage left...' or 'Ha! This here is the Happy Hunting Grounds...and seeing as you are not an indian, I don't think it will be very happy for you...Hehe'.

But maybe, just maybe, you are right (let's consider that for a moment)...so what? So only 1% of the entire race of Man (the % is probably smaller, when one considers all of Mankind across time...) gets to 'enter' this Heaven? Well, I guess I'll just have to join the crowd, now, won't I? Because it must be pretty lonely in this 'Heaven' of yours...barren, really. Not really a nice picture, is it? All those people in 'Hell' partying down, while you get to look down in isolation on us...well, my first beer will be for you...of course, you can exchange niceties with Jerry Farwell...or is he not on the list? Ok, maybe you can exchange words with Jesus...he is probably feeling pretty lonely, anyway...

Me, I'll be having a 'Hell' of a time...if you are right...I hope, for your sake, that you are not...

It's that kind of narrow thinking that makes my point even stronger...

It's easy to follow what the crowd says and what some idiot with a special degree tells you happened and then go off and believe in your evolution theory.

I mean that is the nice little coward?s way out, and you follow it quite well

It takes guts and faith to believe in something that the world says is wrong and can't be true and could even be unpopular. I know many friends that have died in a foreign countries for preaching their belief and trying to share the truth.

Why you are not constantly prosecuted for your belief? Because you have chosen the convent way out and refused to have faith in anything, you don?t have what it takes to go after something with all your heart and follow it no matter what the outcome.

One thing that does bother me is If you believe in your evolution theory, I fail to see how that accounts for the world and everything in it? I mean where did all this come from?

I?m sure you have a logical science backed answer for that as well? If so I?d love to hear it.

I want to know how the earth sits in perfect alignment.

Did you know that if the earth was one degree closer to the sun and we would all burn up and die, and if the earth was one degree farther away from the sun we would go into the next ice age?

That is well known science facts, well science has yet to explain why or how it?s that way, but I?m sure you have an answer right?

Or maybe you can tell me where the sun or the moon or even the earth itself came from?

Maybe you know why if we were evolved from monkeys, why we suddenly stopped evolving after we hit humanity? Or do you think were just taking a break and we are going to keep going?

Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

Science suggests we have stopped evolving and will not continue, doesn?t say why it just says we stopped. Ok well I guess we are expected to just have faith and believe that what they are telling us is true then?. Oh wait I?m sorry you don?t have faith or believe in things that are not backed by science, so how is it you are able to take what they tell you as a fact then?

If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.
Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.
Backed by science in your opinion or not isn?t the point here, signs of God?s existence are everywhere, if you choose to ignore them then that is your own fault.

I'd still love to hear how you can explain the mysteries of the world without believing in a higher power


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

First of all, Synthetic, I have been persecuted for my beliefs...from people like you. Unfortuneatly, you never asked me what I believe in, before going off...sad man, really sad.

Second, Man has been evolving...the entire time...where did you get the idea that that isn't true? Ever heard of the Neanderthals? So, we are Cro-magnons (sp?)...you know, Homo Sapians...and yes, we have evolved...and continue to do so...but that must go against your beliefs, right? Thought so. Too bad the Aboriginies exist (though the christian church did everything it could to 'eraticate' them). And why? Well, you do know that the Aboriginals of Australia have a known (read - proven) history that goes back 250,000 years, right? Oh, you didn't know that...too bad, for the Bible, isn't it? Actually, recent evidence suggests that the Aboriginal culture is over 500,000 years old...whups! Now that really doesn't 'jive' with what you think you know...oh boy. That must really be depressing...

So of course, you must be against all this...otherwise, the Bible just doesn't make any sense, now, does it? Well, them's the breaks...

Welcome to reality...

And as for the rest...why should I look all this stuff up, and then spit it out for you? Do the work yourself...there's this thing called Google...great way of informing yourself...I do it all the time...

Man, School must of been really wild for you...all those lies...did you go to college? That must of been really depressing...they can lie really well, now, can't they? In fact, they are all lying, aren't they...it's a huge conspiricy, I tell ya...just to get you. Yep, I guess those 'rare' individuals that believe, um...that the 'aliens' are here are pretty hard pressed for their beliefs...even prossecuted...man, they have it hard...because they know the truth...

No wait...what about David Coresh (name?)...that guy down in Texas (well, was...)...he knew the truth, now didn't he? Man, he must be a Saint, or something, because he really paid for his beliefs...you know, this list could get long with all those examples of people being persecuted for their beliefs...

But then, you don't really believe that they really have the one, only truth...right?

Because they don't believe as you do...poor, misguided sops that they are...

Starting to get the picture?

Actually, I'd be content to let you believe as you do...doesn't bother me...until you start affecting others that don't believe as you do, and don't want to...

Then it becomes a problem.

You don't see me damning others because they don't believe as I do. And I'm not interested in changing the world, or laws to that effect.

Why should I do that? Think about it...

Well since you completly avoided "all" my questions you obviously know far less than I gave you credit for...

oh well, go have fun in your so called reality, i'm just fine in this one, thank you just the same though.

I can see this discussion going no where, i should have realized you can't try to discuss anything with a closed mind.

Later all, I'll leaving this discussion now...


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 07-01-2002).]

Ok...this is getting slow to load. Here's the new one:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum1/HTML/004864.html

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live