Federal judge rules reciting pledge unconstitutional...

[saunders45]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6JOG4.html

Freakin' cowboy judges piss me off.....

[iGary]

What is secular about the word "God?"

[TheMonarch]

I think that they just wanted to b*tch about something or they wanted to say "yeah, I made them change that pledge". Because saying God, does not force you to believe anytihng.


EDIT: This just opened the gates to other who want to leave a mark, and suddenly money forces you to believe in God :rolleyes:

[Lacero]

What is secular about the word "God?"Only when it's used inside a car with steamed windows.

[saunders45]

It's just some guy wasting time and tax dollars to try and prove himself right. When he couldn't win the case with his own daughter, he starts using other people. The funny thing is, he calls himself an atheist and yet uses the title of Reverend for his "FACTS" religion...... oxymoron?

[miloblithe]

Political forum ho!

Why do people think that "God" should be in the pledge? What justifiable argument is there for it?

[saunders45]

Only when it's used inside a car with steamed windows.


Heh..heh....

[IJ Reilly]

Freakin' cowboy judges piss me off.....

From the cited article:

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

[stonyc]

Political forum ho!

Why do people think that "God" should be in the pledge? What justifiable argument is there for it?Getting in before this is moved. ;)

None, imo.. I wonder what people would think if instead of "God", it were "Allah" or "Vishnu"? If government is not to endorse one religion over another, then "God" should not be in the Pledge. It was not in the Pledge in the first place..

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

[saunders45]

From the cited article:


Which,if I remember, was the ruling that was struck down by the supreme court.

[clayj]

From the cited article:Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.Wasn't that decision already overturned by a higher court? If so, then Karlton is a moron. If not, then he's doing the legally-correct thing by acknowledging a precedent.

Why is it such a bother for atheists to just NOT SAY the words "under God" when they say the Pledge of Allegiance? It seems like people like Newdow think that atheism includes never even having to be exposed to religion...

[lmalave]

Why is it such a bother for atheists to just NOT SAY the words "under God" when they say the Pledge of Allegiance? It seems like people like Newdow think that atheism includes never even having to be exposed to religion...

Keep in mind that the words "under god" were ONLY added at the height of the McCarthy 50's Red Scare. That's around the same time that "In God We Trust" was added as the national motto. You just assume those phrases were always there because that's all you grew up with. But the fact is that those phrases have NO place being sanctioned by the federal government. The U.S. was fine for over 150 years without having these.

The U.S. was founded on religious tolerance and hence the emphasis on separation of church and state. Think about it. The U.S. *pioneered* this concept. It's one of the founding cornerstones or our republic, right up there with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Think about it. The constitution doesn't say anything about "freedom to practice religion". No, it is even more straightforward than that. The ONLY thing the Constitution asks is that the government stay OUT of officially sanctioning any religion.

People are free to practice whatever religion they want on their own private property. I think in modern times the constitution is being twisted beyond recognition. I don't think religious organizations should be receiving federal funds (as they are now), and I don't think religion should play ANY part in any government organization, including and ESPECIALLY the public schools.

[iGary]

"Because saying God, does not force you to believe anytihng."

What about "Under God."

Sound pretty submissive to me.

No, back on topic.

Explain to me how you people define God as a secular term. That will be neat.

[feakbeak]

<snip>Agreed. Most people don't know that such additions were made so recently and only because the communists were athesists and we'd do anything to differentiate ourselves from our cold war enemies.

Damn commies ruin everything! :D

[Moxiemike]

"Because saying God, does not force you to believe anytihng."

What about "Under God."

Sound pretty submissive to me.

No, back on topic.

Explain to me how you people define God as a secular term. That will be neat.

No **** gary. You're right on with that submission thing. And it makes it easier to justify some of the things we do as a country.

Take this war in Iraq. God is on our side. God bless us for fighting this fight. God this. God that. Doing god's will. God, god ****-in' god.

It becomes a nice way to slip through the cracks. We're doing god's will. We can question god, right?

I'm all for removing "under god" from the pledge, removing "In god we trust" from EVERY national document, removing ANY religious based icons from government buildings (i.e. ten commandments in front of courthouses), et. al.

I mean, really... if you're a muslim on trial, and you walk into court and see the ten c's emblazoned on the building... it'd make me think "oh. i'm royally screwed"

Futhermore, the very idea that we're doing work sanctioned by god re: occupying iraq, is preposterous! A quick cursory glance throughout the bible will illustrate this wonderfully.

[Lord Blackadder]

Personally I think that the separation of church and state should not be construed to mean the active purging of even obsolete or relict religious references, though they may appear somewhat anachronistic in today's more secularized public society. They are essentially harmless - especially if you don't belive them, since the Pledge is not obligitory or binding in any way.

I can understand why the religious reference was inserted; the cold war was an ideological struggle, the US was de facto a religious nation, and the Society of the Godless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless) had to be openly countered.

Is it's meaning obsolete today? That depends whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian God or not.

Personally I don't see a burning need for the reference to remain in the Pledge, though I suppose I am sympathetic to it. I confess to the MR community that I feel a little peeved at this guy, it feels like an attack on my belief system, though he claims the same thing. I understand the reasoning behind it though.

In short I agree that the Pledge as written violates the seperation of church and state, and would not oppose the excision of the words "under god" from the text, but I feel that this removal of religious references in our government should not be taken to the point of historical revisionism.

[GFLPraxis]

I disagree with the reasoning, but frankly, it's about time. Requiring children to swear their allegiance to a country and proclaim that their country is under god is a form brainwashing. Further, it's contradictory on several levels.


If someone doesn't believe in God, then they don't believe what they are saying. And if someone does believe in God, and they read the Bible, they should know that God does NOT TAKE SIDES IN WAR.


And it's not optional. The teachers require the students to make the pledge and many will get angry with or embarrass the students whose beliefs contradict it.


Futhermore, the very idea that we're doing work sanctioned by god re: occupying iraq, is preposterous! A quick cursory glance throughout the bible will illustrate this wonderfully.

Precisely.

[miloblithe]

Why is it such a bother for atheists to just NOT SAY the words "under God" when they say the Pledge of Allegiance? It seems like people like Newdow think that atheism includes never even having to be exposed to religion...

How does removing the word "God" from the pledge mean that atheists will never have to be exposed to religion? I think you'll notice that religion and religious references are all around us, and should be, as free expressions of religious people. There is no legitimate argument for saying, for instance, that the President is not allowed to mention "God" ad nausium, as he tends to do. That's his free expression. However, _requiring_ people to state a pledge that references "God" is siding with the establishment of a particular religious view.

Your solution is, by the way, is lacking.

[Moxiemike]

Personally I think that the separation of church and state should not be construed to mean the active purging of even obsolete or relict religious references, though they may appear somewhat anachronistic in today's more secularized public society. They are essentially harmless - especially if you don't belive them, since the Pledge is not obligitory or binding in any way.

I can understand why the religious reference was inserted; the cold war was an ideological struggle, the US was de facto a religious nation, and the Society of the Godless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless) had to be openly countered.

Is it's meaning obsolete today? That depends whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian God or not.

Personally I don't see a burning need for the reference to remain in the Pledge, though I suppose I am sympathetic to it. I confess to the MR community that I feel a little peeved at this guy, it feels like an attack on my belief system, though he claims the same thing. I understand the reasoning behind it though.

In short I agree that the Pledge as written violates the seperation of church and state, and would not oppose the excision of the words "under god" from the text, but I feel that this removal of religious references in our government should not be taken to the point of historical revisionism.

but isn't our country about freedom, expression and individuality? shouldn't we, as a country with those ideals, not endorse, in any way that could make another human being uncomfortable, any religion, be it christianity, judaism, satanism or other?

[IJ Reilly]

Which,if I remember, was the ruling that was struck down by the supreme court.

Nope. The Supreme Court dodged the Constitutional issue. They only ruled that the father didn't have standing to file the suit on behalf of his daughter.

[ohcrap]

God is on our side.
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." -Adolf Hitler

[Moxiemike]

Hitler said the same thing...


watch out. those pesky conservatives are gonna open up a can of whoop ass on your liberal ass for comparing our country to nazi germany, right as you may be. :)

[GFLPraxis]

Ironically...turns out my father knows the judge who made the ruling. As a DEA officer he was in his court many times. He doesn't like him much, either.

[GFLPraxis]

Hitler said the same thing...


And Hitler also required students in every school to pledge allegiance to him every morning. Sound familiar?

They're going to kill us all for making these comparisons ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I think it's kind of amusing in a scary sort of way that whenever anyone says that they don't feel it's appropriate to recite "one nation under God," they are assumed to be atheists.

[Moxiemike]

And Hitler also required students in every school to pledge allegiance to him every morning. Sound familiar?

They're going to kill us all for making these comparisons ;)


I guess it's a country with free speech...well, until you question your government, then you're unpatriotic and a communist.

[clayj]

I guess it's a country with free speech...well, until you question your government, then you're unpatriotic and a communist.If you questioned the government in the Soviet Union, would that make you a communist? ;)

[miloblithe]

If you questioned the government in the Soviet Union, would that make you a communist? ;)

Potentially. Trotsky comes to mind.

[GFLPraxis]

I think it's kind of amusing in a scary sort of way that whenever anyone says that they don't feel it's appropriate to recite "one nation under God," they are assumed to be atheists.

I know what you mean.

Don't recite the pledge and you're:
A) An athiest
or
B) a disrespectful America-hating communist terrorist.

Ugh. :rolleyes:

[Moxiemike]

I know what you mean.

Don't recite the pledge and you're:
A) An athiest
or
B) a disrespectful America-hating communist terrorist.

Ugh. :rolleyes:


Just switch on Jim Quinn's radio show, where during the promos he says that if you don't follow the government's pursuit of liberty then you're not american. Plainly said, and sadly such an icon of what we've become.

[2jaded2care]

Keep in mind that the words "under god" were ONLY added at the height of the McCarthy 50's Red Scare. That's around the same time that "In God We Trust" was added as the national motto. You just assume those phrases were always there because that's all you grew up with. But the fact is that those phrases have NO place being sanctioned by the federal government. The U.S. was fine for over 150 years without having these.

The U.S. was founded on religious tolerance and hence the emphasis on separation of church and state. Think about it. The U.S. *pioneered* this concept. It's one of the founding cornerstones or our republic, right up there with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Think about it. The constitution doesn't say anything about "freedom to practice religion". No, it is even more straightforward than that. The ONLY thing the Constitution asks is that the government stay OUT of officially sanctioning any religion.


"In God We Trust" first appeared on coinage in 1864. http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Don't recall anything about a specific "right to privacy" in the Constitution, either, would you argue there isn't one? Admittedly I'm not sure I even understand your point. How can one practice religious tolerance yet not allow freedom to practice religion?

[Moxiemike]

"In God We Trust" first appeared on coinage in 1864. http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Don't recall anything about a specific "right to privacy" in the Constitution, either, would you argue there isn't one? Admittedly I'm not sure I even understand your point. How can one practice religious tolerance yet not allow freedom to practice religion?

basically, because there's no wording in the constitution that says that we must be of one religion, then we can practice any religion we want, but that we should also realize that others may practice religions we might not agree with, but we should be tolerant of those.

If not, you get into situations like Nazi Germany, with the Nazis killing jews because of their hatred of their culture, religious mores, et.al. not hard to understand.....it's essentially a moral, novel and practical approach to maintain in a world that has buddhas, jesus christ, allah, and even that lil' devil named satan as religious "gods"

[Lord Blackadder]

but isn't our country about freedom, expression and individuality? shouldn't we, as a country with those ideals, not endorse, in any way that could make another human being uncomfortable, any religion, be it christianity, judaism, satanism or other?

That is why my previous post clearly stated when I was expressing opinion.

And anyway, despite my expressed feelings you should see that I have also expressed agreement that the pledge should not contain the reference.

So we're arguing on the same side, I'm merely trying to show that, like anyone, I have complex thought processes and the issue is not black and white to me. I weigh my religious beliefs against my respect for my diverse neighbors and find that I am not trampling on my religion's toes by not affirming my belief in God (which is a personal, private matter to me) whilst swearing an oath of allegience to my country.

I do not feel the need to wave my religion under everyone's nose, and I don't like proselytizing. At the same time I dislike attacks on religion which serve only to anger people and cloudy the issue in the context of this debate. I'm not speaking of anyone specific here, I'm just sayin'. :)

The Pledge does not need the religious reference to God.

[IJ Reilly]

"In God We Trust" first appeared on coinage in 1864. http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Don't recall anything about a specific "right to privacy" in the Constitution, either, would you argue there isn't one? Admittedly I'm not sure I even understand your point. How can one practice religious tolerance yet not allow freedom to practice religion?

From the same article, although it was used sporadically on coinage from 1864, "In God We Trust" wasn't made the national motto until 1956.

John Roberts was asked a question about the right to privacy in his confirmation hearings yesterday. He proceeded to recite the numerous places in the Constitution where rights to privacy were mentioned and implied.

[Moxiemike]

That is why my previous post clearly stated when I was expressing opinion.

And anyway, despite my expressed feelings you should see that I have also expressed agreement that the pledge should not contain the reference.

So we're arguing on the same side, I'm merely trying to show that, like anyone, I have complex thought processes and the issue is not black and white to me. I weigh my religious beliefs against my respect for my diverse neighbors and find that I am not trampling on my religion's toes by not affirming my belief in God (which is a personal, private matter to me) whilst swearing an oath of allegience to my country.

I do not feel the need to wave my religion under everyone's nose, and I don't like proselytizing. At the same time I dislike attacks on religion which serve only to anger people and cloudy the issue in the context of this debate. I'm not speaking of anyone specific here, I'm just sayin'. :)

The Pledge does not need the religious reference to God.

Right, and as someone who's NOT religious, or may not practice a religion who's god is named by this very country on it's currency, in oaths, and as every third word by our president, how do you think that makes people like us feel?

I understand we're on the same end of the argument, and that question is more pointed towards anyone who believes all of those statements, in keeping with the definition of democracy set forth by our founding fathers, should lead us to keep some archaic, dated, and separatist language in ANY forms of our government...

if you do, you're foolish, and you're not really understanding the founding premise of this country, which is tolerance and freedom for all. Except for black people, of course. ;)

[ColoJohnBoy]

Don't recall anything about a specific "right to privacy" in the Constitution, either, would you argue there isn't one?

Are you Clarence Thomas' mailing list? No. There isn't a specific right. The fact that the Constitution exists implies that right. During the Roberts hearing yesterday, Sen. Feinstein quoted one of the greatest dissents in the Supreme Court's history, Justice Brandeis' in Olmstead v. United States

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.

Or in Griswold v. Connecticut, seven justices found three 'penumbras' of privacy rights: In the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments taken together, in the 9th Amendment alone, or under Due Process of the 14th. The court upheld all these in Lawrence v. Texas. The right is there. It's something, as Judge Roberts said, the American people rely on, something the American people hold dear.

[FoxyKaye]

Get rid of all the God BS - it's just a front for Christian theocratic nonsense anyhow. Don't forget, the "under God" part of the pledge and "In God We Trust" was rammed down our throats during the Eisenhower administration in reaction to the "Godless Communists." *gasp*

Thanks to "Cowboy Judges" we also struck down such other Christian ideas as laws banning interracial marriage, and more recently, bans against Lesbians and Gays getting married.

From the same article, although it was used sporadically on coinage from 1864, "In God We Trust" wasn't made the national motto until 1956.
Keep in mind that the words "under god" were ONLY added at the height of the McCarthy 50's Red Scare. That's around the same time that "In God We Trust" was added as the national motto...
Beat me to the punch - thanks! This has been sitting open without being submitted on my browser for almost an hour.

[2jaded2care]

As usual, arguments over semantics.

I did not say that "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto in the 1950s. I merely pointed out that the phrase has been in "official" use for more than the last 50 or so years.

I did not say that I do not believe in a "right to privacy". (Otherwise why should it not be legal to disclose everyone's SSN and personal credit info?) I merely was using a cliched example to argue against taking things too literally.

Geez, glad I'm banned from the political forums...

[Lord Blackadder]

The political climate in the US is really acrimonious right now, and I hope this doesn't become blown out of proportion to serve partisan ends.

Anyway this entire discussion is moot until congress passes a law changing the Pledge, and I do not see that happening under Bush; even if the Democrats make big gains in the upcoming election I doubt it will be sufficient numbers to override a veto.

Slightly OT: did anyone see Jon Stewart last night making fun of Tom Coburn doing a crossword during the Roberts hearings? He totally schooled him, it was hilarious.

[ColoJohnBoy]

As usual, arguments over semantics.

I did not say that "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto in the 1950s. I merely pointed out that the phrase has been in "official" use for more than the last 50 or so years.

I did not say that I do not believe in a "right to privacy". (Otherwise why should it not be legal to disclose everyone's SSN and personal credit info?) I merely was using a cliched example to argue against taking things too literally.

Geez, glad I'm banned from the political forums...
Sorry, misinterpreted what you wrote. Sometimes difficult to glean irony from a web post.

[Don't panic]

I personally think that the entire pledge is the kind of gimmick that only belong in an authoritarian regime.
No form of brainwashing propaganda should belong in public schools.

Strike the whole thing.

as far as the 'under god' thing, it so obviously unconstitutional that it's ridicolous it's even discussed.

[IJ Reilly]

As usual, arguments over semantics.

I did not say that "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto in the 1950s. I merely pointed out that the phrase has been in "official" use for more than the last 50 or so years.

I did not say that I do not believe in a "right to privacy". (Otherwise why should it not be legal to disclose everyone's SSN and personal credit info?) I merely was using a cliched example to argue against taking things too literally.

Geez, glad I'm banned from the political forums...

As usual, semantics matter. ;)

FWIW, you're only a few posts away from qualifying from posting in the snakepit, err, I mean the political forum again. And also FWIW, I appreciated your contributions to that forum before the minimum posts rule was applied. I for one would welcome you back if you decided to take the plunge.

[saunders45]

Get rid of all the God BS - it's just a front for Christian theocratic nonsense anyhow. Don't forget, the "under God" part of the pledge and "In God We Trust" was rammed down our throats during the Eisenhower administration in reaction to the "Godless Communists." *gasp*

Thanks to "Cowboy Judges" we also struck down such other Christian ideas as laws banning interracial marriage, and more recently, bans against Lesbians and Gays getting married.



Beat me to the punch - thanks! This has been sitting open without being submitted on my browser for almost an hour.


Well, it's quite obvious that you have no tolerance towards God, or religion so I will ignore the first sentence. As far as "rammed" down our throats.... if Ike and Ike only had made it, then yes, i'd say rammed, but i think it takes more than one or 2 people to make that decision, all of which were eleceted by the general population of the time.

And as far as "Christian" ideals promoting laws against banning interracial marriage... I'd like to see some proof, albeit not from a KKK member. =

[thedude110]

Explain to me how you people define God as a secular term. That will be neat.

Not so much a discussion of "God" as secular (or God as secular "term,"), but Emmanuel Levinas (http://home.pacbell.net/atterton/levinas/) spent much of the middle of the twentieth century developing an ethical system rooted in a secularized judaism. In short, he argues that the trace of God (whether you believe in a God or no) emerges in the face of the "other person." From this he writes several texts about how we are ultimately responsible for each other (as though each other were God).

And Paine's Common Sense takes great um ... pains to posit a theological system that's really an entirely secular argument against monarchy.

Ok. So the Paine isn't so relevant. But the Levinas is.

[nbs2]

Not taking one side or another, but I would prefer that people not be so absolute about America "always" having seperated church and state.

Declaration of Independence: "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...that they are endowed by their Creator"

Gettysburg Address: "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom..."

FDR Pearl Harbor Speech: "...With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God..."

All of this is in addition to the reference to the year of our Lord at the end of our documents. And don't forget "God save this honorable court." God is part of the heritage of the United States. To remove God from all of our national documents would be to deny your history. Remember, the reason communists didn't believe in a God was that the state was their God - the people's motivation, source of inspiration, and ultimate allegiance was to be in the state. That was part of the point of adding the under God - it was to portray that there was a force greater than the government guided its actions. To remove God, the Creator, and Providence would be almost impossible.

Anyway, the end of my lesson is this. The Supreme Court punted on the constitutionality, but in ruling that the father did not have standing to bring the suit the earlier decision was vacated. So, the Ninth Circuit ruling "never happened." All that the judge here did was grant standing (I would like to read his opinion on how he did so) in order try to force the SCOTUS' hand. In granting standing, the judge didn't do what people are demanding Judge Roberts do - honor precedent (I don't think the standing ruling will hold up).

[Don't panic]

Anyway, the end of my lesson is this. The Supreme Court punted on the constitutionality, but in ruling that the father did not have standing to bring the suit the earlier decision was vacated. So, the Ninth Circuit ruling "never happened." All that the judge here did was grant standing (I would like to read his opinion on how he did so) in order try to force the SCOTUS' hand. In granting standing, the judge didn't do what people are demanding Judge Roberts do - honor precedent (I don't think the standing ruling will hold up).

If I understand correctly, the previous round was vacated because he had filed on behalf of his daughter, of whom he was not anymore the legal guardian. Now he is just representing three families who have the right to file.

[IJ Reilly]

Not taking one side or another, but I would prefer that people not be so absolute about America "always" having seperated church and state.

...he said, proceeding to take one side over the other. Hey, it really is okay to take sides. No shame in that.

Yes indeed, the U.S. has always had a separated church and state. It's all right there in Amendment 1, in the Establishment clause. This is by no means the same principle as the state being hostile to religion or worship. Quite the opposite, in fact. The founders recognized that a government which officially promoted one faith would necessarily disadvantage the beliefs of those who did not subscribe to that faith. If you believe in free exercise -- that is, for everyone, not just yourself -- then I think this is a principle to cherish and promote, not to criticize and marginalize.

All of this is quite apart from the issue of which of the founders and the founding documents mention God, where they mentioned it, and how often. This is just a parlor game, as far as I am concerned. How the founders felt about entanglements between church and state is perfectly clear. It's in the Bill of Rights.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Not taking one side or another, but I would prefer that people not be so absolute about America "always" having seperated church and state.

None of the sources you cited, though, was the Constitution. There's a world of difference between a President invoking the blessings of God and enshrining the teachings of God in the Supreme Law of the Land. I'm not comfortable with either, but the latter is especially troublesome. I don't mind what the pledge says; I do mind that many people are required to repeat it. I'm not atheist, I'm not agnostic, I just don't care. And I don't care to invoke the blessings of God on country for which I have currently have little affection.

[ham_man]

As far as I know, you do not have to say the pledge, so therefore there is nothing wrong with having "Under God" in the pledge.

But while we are on the subject of Church and State, should we also not rid ourselves of using the months of Janurary, February, March, May, and June.. They are based on Roman Gods. As well as Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. They are based on the names of Roman and Norse Gods. Speaking of days, what about the seven day week. Isn't that based on Creationism?

I say that we just start calling days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Get rid of this spiritual bullcrap once and for all.

:rolleyes:

[Don't panic]

the irony is that originally the pledge was devised to promote a socialist utopian dream.

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

first 'equality' was dropped (wonder why)
than 'my' became 'of the united states'
than god was sneaked in to complete the 180

[IJ Reilly]

As far as I know, you do not have to say the pledge, so therefore there is nothing wrong with having "Under God" in the pledge.

But while we are on the subject of Church and State, should we also not rid ourselves of using the months of Janurary, February, March, May, and June.. They are based on Roman Gods. As well as Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. They are based on the names of Roman and Norse Gods. Speaking of days, what about the seven day week. Isn't that based on Creationism?

I say that we just start calling days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Get rid of this spiritual bullcrap once and for all.

:rolleyes:

Do you also have a serious argument to make, or just this one?

Obligatory roll eyes to follow.







:rolleyes:

[Don't panic]

Speaking of days, what about the seven day week. Isn't that based on Creationism?
no the Romans and other cultures had that already

[nbs2]

...he said, proceeding to take one side over the other. Hey, it really is okay to take sides. No shame in that.

Yes indeed, the U.S. has always had a separated church and state. It's all right there in Amendment 1, in the Establishment clause. This is by no means the same principle as the state being hostile to religion or worship. Quite the opposite, in fact. The founders recognized that a government which officially promoted one faith would necessarily disadvantage the beliefs of those who did not subscribe to that faith. If you believe in free exercise -- that is, for everyone, not just yourself -- then I think this is a principle to cherish and promote, not to criticize and marginalize.

All of this is quite apart from the issue of which of the founders and the founding documents mention God, where they mentioned it, and how often. This is just a parlor game, as far as I am concerned. How the founders felt about entanglements between church and state is perfectly clear. It's in the Bill of Rights.
I'm not arguing that "Under God" should or shouldn't be in the Pledge, just trying to address the issue Jefferson's "wall of separation." If you read the writings of the founders, their concern was the promotion of one sect or another - that one sect would become an official (or de facto) state religion. However, a judeo-christian history was an overriding influence. My point was that contrary to those who believe that the "God infusion" happened in the 1950s, it is part of American history - you could say we have relied on Providence to guide our country and her leaders.

As for how our fathers felt about church and state, you need to look beyond the 1st Amendment - most of our interpretation regarding what they meant does come from their other writings. The Declaration is the founding document for our liberties. The Constitution is what brought 13 countries together under a federal system. The Federalist Papers repeatedly refers to God's role in the state.

Finally, I address the 1st Amendment. Remember, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government (which it would in discussing the Pledge). A state that mandates the Pledge be recited in classrooms would not fall under that interpretation. And someone may need to correct me, but I don't believe that the SCOTUS has yet extended the 1st Amendment (via the 14th) to the state. Indeed, I believe they ruled that it could not be extended because of the explicit prohibition against Congress.

[iMeowbot]

When I was little I thought the phrase was "Underdog", and thought it was pretty cool.

[Sun Baked]

Yes reciting the pledge and having the 10 commandments in the classroom is going to emotionally scar the children and possibly have a low risk of installing some morals and fostering a little more national unity.

We don't need either, since the Republicans and Democrats fighting each other can always replace the WWF and toughman television.

And heck we don't need no stinking morals, look what those have done for Canadians lately.

[huck500]

As a teacher, I never make any student say the pledge, and I don't say the 'under god' part myself. There are teachers who do force it, though.

I really don't get the school prayer people, though...they want us to pray, but who gets to choose the prayer? The teacher? What if the teacher isn't a Christian? Is a Hindu prayer OK? If it's up to me, I'm choosing the most bizarre (non-EVIL) religion I can find. If I can find one that's non-EVIL. I might make the kids speak in tongues, that would be funny. They would love it.

Seriously, I wonder about people. Talk to god at home, what's the big deal. He's a big boy, he can deal with a bit less affirmation.

EDIT:

Yes reciting the pledge and having the 10 commandments in the classroom is going to emotionally scar the children and possibly have a low risk of installing some morals and fostering a little more national unity.

Yeah, Christians have such great morals compared to other religions...and since when does making children of other religions look at the 10 commandments and submit to god promote national unity? Are you kidding? :confused:

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not arguing that "Under God" should or shouldn't be in the Pledge, just trying to address the issue Jefferson's "wall of separation." If you read the writings of the founders, their concern was the promotion of one sect or another - that one sect would become an official (or de facto) state religion. However, a judeo-christian history was an overriding influence. My point was that contrary to those who believe that the "God infusion" happened in the 1950s, it is part of American history - you could say we have relied on Providence to guide our country and her leaders.

As for how our fathers felt about church and state, you need to look beyond the 1st Amendment - most of our interpretation regarding what they meant does come from their other writings. The Declaration is the founding document for our liberties. The Constitution is what brought 13 countries together under a federal system. The Federalist Papers repeatedly refers to God's role in the state.

Finally, I address the 1st Amendment. Remember, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government (which it would in discussing the Pledge). A state that mandates the Pledge be recited in classrooms would not fall under that interpretation. And someone may need to correct me, but I don't believe that the SCOTUS has yet extended the 1st Amendment (via the 14th) to the state. Indeed, I believe they ruled that it could not be extended because of the explicit prohibition against Congress.

I can't definitively answer your question about the application of the First Amendment to the states, but I had the impression this was all settled law and that as a general constitutional principle, the states can't infringe on rights guaranteed to the people by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights. We seem to have fought a rather nasty war over those issues.

Again, this "overriding influence" argument and its parallels (which tend to lead to "Christian nation" claims) is a bit of a parlor game. Interesting to play for some perhaps, but not especially relevant to any issue we face today. The founders clearly intended to provide religious liberty to all people, regardless of their faiths. They wanted the state to stay out of the church business, and I think they were unambiguous on this matter because they knew what sort of trouble it could cause. Precisely where that line falls, we still discuss.

Incidentally, one of the most important principles underpinning the founding the nation, distinguishing it from the governments of Europe from which the founders wanted themselves separated, was in the assignment of sovereignty, the authority to govern. In monarchies, only the king or queen is sovereign, and he or she derives that sovereignty directly from God. The founders of this nation conceived of the radical notion that it's the people who are sovereign. Much of the talk about God in the founding documents and related literature is in support of the previously unheard of concept that the people, not royalty, are sovereign -- not of a system of government based in any way on any given religion.

[IJ Reilly]

Are you kidding? :confused:

I sure hope so, because this is precisely where the entire issue goes to ground. A great many people are perfectly happy to force their religion on people of other faiths, and cannot understand why anyone would possibly object to such a thing.

[thvudragon]

As far as I know, you do not have to say the pledge, so therefore there is nothing wrong with having "Under God" in the pledge.
The reasoning is this. Students are left with two choices, to say it or not to say it. By saying it, a student is acknowledging that we are one nation "Under God" and therefore acknowledges the existence of God. By not saying, the student does not acknowledge "God"'s existence. Thus, by giving students these two choices with this particular pledge, schools are making them either acknowledge God's exisistence or not do so, which is something they have no right to do as that would violate that student's religous freedoms. Basically, it's equal to asking "do you believe in God?"

But while we are on the subject of Church and State, should we also not rid ourselves of using the months of Janurary, February, March, May, and June.. They are based on Roman Gods. As well as Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. They are based on the names of Roman and Norse Gods. Speaking of days, what about the seven day week. Isn't that based on Creationism?There's a difference between mainstream religions and arcane ones, and these months are wildly acknowledged to have secular meanings. "God" is hardly secular. The meaning of the word still has many current religous implications which are obvious. The Calendar is based on science, and yes the religions and cultures of past societies which are long extinct. Of course it's subjective, but the calendar is considered secular. Of course, those during the French Revolution would disagree...

Yes reciting the pledge and having the 10 commandments in the classroom is going to emotionally scar the children and possibly have a low risk of installing some morals and fostering a little more national unity.Huh? What does this have to do with anything? There are ethical implications in forcing students to acknowledge a "God" he/she does not believe in. This is about basic, fundamental, religous rights, not what you perceive as for the greater good.

[iGary]

Page 3. Still waiting for one of the pro God folks to explain to me how God is a secular term (sex in cars aside, Lacero :D)

[rainman::|:|]

i ain't afraid of no commies.

they have a decision, take out the religious bit, or the whole thing will go bye-bye. seems pretty clear-cut. i wish dems/repubs would work together to simply remove the (recently inserted) line, thereby keeping the pledge and ending this whole thing entirely. christians couldn't be any more offended by omission than atheists, on the subject of religion, because it wouldn't mention religion, as it was originally written.

[GFLPraxis]

As far as I know, you do not have to say the pledge, so therefore there is nothing wrong with having "Under God" in the pledge.


The teachers lead the class in saying it and in many classes the teachers will punish students that don't.

[saunders45]

The teachers lead the class in saying it and in many classes the teachers will punish students that don't.


The same as many children are treated as outsiders for not "celebrating" Halloween. Or for that matter, children who have "religion" rammed down their throats weekly in the form of a book.

[Sun Baked]

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? There are ethical implications in forcing students to acknowledge a "God" he/she does not believe in. This is about basic, fundamental, religous rights, not what you perceive as for the greater good.Even if you removed the word God and returned it to the pre-congress intervention people would still fight a national pledge these days.

I don't see anything wrong with Bellamy's pledge, and I see zero religious context tied to it, but that's me.

Congress screwed up, they made it a religious issue, reverse what they did.

The 10 commandments is the same, nothing wrong with words written if god and religion are absent 100%.

But both the Bellamy's pledge and 10 commandments (at least the moral imperitives not tied god) are so tied to religion, people cannot see past the religion and see them outside a religious context anymore.

[solvs]

And heck we don't need no stinking morals, look what those have done for Canadians lately.
Ok, now I know you're kidding. But for those who aren't, I'd rather have ethics than morals. You don't need to force your religion down kids throats to make them good people.

I do have a problem with the "under God" part. Have since I was a kid. I hate that I'm thought of as an atheist if I don't want to say it (which I'm not), and worse, I can't pledge allegiance to the country I love (though disagree with at times) because I disagree with something that wasn't in the original. Nor can anyone of a different religion, or no religion at all. The 2 should not be tied so closely together, even if you believe in both. To see this as an attack on Christianity is rediculous, as it should have nothing to do with religion, which (last I checked) you are still free to worship freely.

But you are also free not to worship... that's the beauty of the system. ;)

[ham_man]

There's a difference between mainstream religions and arcane ones, and these months are wildly acknowledged to have secular meanings. "God" is hardly secular. The meaning of the word still has many current religous implications which are obvious. The Calendar is based on science, and yes the religions and cultures of past societies which are long extinct. Of course it's subjective, but the calendar is considered secular. Of course, those during the French Revolution would disagree...
No it isn't. I do not like acknowledging a false God every day. I demand that we come up with a new calendar system.

The teachers lead the class in saying it and in many classes the teachers will punish students that don't.
They don't.

Ok, now I know you're kidding. But for those who aren't, I'd rather have ethics than morals. You don't need to force your religion down kids throats to make them good people.
This isn't the Lord's Prayer. It is a pledge to our country and the God of our countries founders and leaders. Get. Over. It.

[TheMonarch]

ham_man has a point. Change the calendar system. Lets see how many people agree with that...

[Nuc]

If someone doesn't believe in God, then they don't believe what they are saying. And if someone does believe in God, and they read the Bible, they should know that God does NOT TAKE SIDES IN WAR.

I wouldn't say that your comment about God not taking sides in a war is true. There are places in the Bible were God does take sides such as with the Israelites and the Romans. And there are plenty more.

Nuc

[ham_man]

I wouldn't say that your comment about God not taking sides in a war is true. There are places in the Bible were God does take sides such as with the Israelites and the Romans. And there are plenty more.

Nuc
True, but Jesus brought about teachings of peace and turning the other cheek. I guess it just depends on how you look at it... *shrugs*

[IJ Reilly]

ham_man has a point. Change the calendar system. Lets see how many people agree with that...

He might have a point, if anyone was actually talking about calendars. But since nobody was talking about calendars, he's got no point. This is called trivializing the subject. Now why would anybody want to do such a thing?

[ham_man]

He might have a point, if anyone was actually talking about calendars. But since nobody was talking about calendars, he's got no point. This is called trivializing the subject. Now why would anybody want to do such a thing?
This is about the separation of Church and State, and seeing as the government uses blatantly religious establishment in its calendars, I want a new one. How is that trivializing the subject?

[IJ Reilly]

This is about the separation of Church and State, and seeing as the government uses blatantly religious establishment in its calendars, I want a new one. How is that trivializing the subject?

Because no serious person has ever made the argument that the calendar is a religious document. This is not obvious?

[ham_man]

Because no serious person has ever made the argument that the calendar is a religious document. This is not obvious?
Perhaps because it is so ingrained into our culture? *gasp*

See what I am getting at here? You can have mentions of beliefs other than yours and go along with your life perfectly well...

[Dros]

This isn't the Lord's Prayer. It is a pledge to our country and the God of our countries founders and leaders. Get. Over. It.

It is not a pledge to the God of our country's founders. It is a pledge to a Republic, described as one nation under God. Your version is more chilling... how could anyone be expected to make a pledge to anyone else's God? However, the revised version that includes "under God" is also chilling... it is saying the nation is below this particular religion. Why would a person from a different religion want to hear that each day?

[solvs]

They don't.
And yet some do.

It is a pledge to our country and the God of our countries founders and leaders.
Except most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. And the "Under God" part was added in the '50s. As has been mentioned. Many times. Why should people have to pledge to a God to pledge to a country?

Get. Over. It.
Thank you for taking the discussion down a notch.

[TheMonarch]

Get. Over. It

Get over it?


Is that some new way of telling people to shut up or something? Because it adds nothing to the discussion.


>D.i.s.c.u.s.s.i.o.n.<


Its not useful to say that, because lots of people post to vent. It really won't calm things down much, as they will want to argue in spite of things.

[faintember]

Great discussion but...

Why did students ever have to say the pledge in public schools? What was the point?

School is for education, not for state sponsored propaganda/recitation of rhetoric that the students neither understand nor care about. We might as well make them recite their teachers grocery list.

[Sun Baked]

Great discussion but...

Why did students ever have to say the pledge in public schools? What was the point?

School is for education, not for state sponsored propaganda/recitation of rhetoric that the students neither understand nor care about. We might as well make them recite their teachers grocery list.But then you'd have Vegans, Vegetarians, and Hindus complaining about being forced to say ground beef, steak, etc.

Because these things are obviously sanctifying the consumption of cows.

[faintember]

Because these things are obviously sanctifying the consumption of cows. Excellent point Sun Baked. How about reciting the specs. of Windows Vista in lieu of the teachers grocery list? It keeps with the pointless waste of time idea.

[RacerX]

Not taking one side or another, but I would prefer that people not be so absolute about America "always" having seperated church and state.Well lets clarify some of these quotes of yours...
Declaration of Independence: "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...that they are endowed by their Creator"The Founding Fathers who wrote those great words were not talking about the Christian's God. These men were Deist, not Christians (though it should be noted that George Washington most likely said that he was deist for political reasons, there is evidence that he was actually a practicing Christian).

For those of you who don't know what Deism (and a Deist) is:[i]Deism \De"ism\ (d[=e]"[i^]z'm), n. [L. deus god: cf. F.d['e]isme. See Deity.]
The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of
those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny
revelation.
[1913 Webster]

Note: Deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those
truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to
discover by the light of reason, independent of any
revelation from God. Hence, deism implies infidelity,
or a disbelief in the divine origin of the Scriptures.
[1913 Webster]
Deist \De"ist\ (d[=e]"st), n. [L. deus god: cf. F. d['e]iste. See Deity.]
One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies
revealed religion; a freethinker.
[1913 Webster]

Note: A deist, as denying a revelation, is opposed to a
Christian; as, opposed to the denier of a God, whether
atheist or pantheist, a deist is generally
denominated theist. --Latham.Given that, I think that our Founding Fathers would have been classified as pagans by Christians. Which means that the God in the Declaration of Independence is the Christian God, it is in fact a pagan God. :eek:

I have no problems with that. :D
Gettysburg Address: "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom..."Gee... what a surprise there. Abraham Lincoln, part of the Republican party that added In God We Trust to our currency about a year later used the term God in a speech.

God is part of the heritage of the United States. To remove God from all of our national documents would be to deny your history... To remove God, the Creator, and Providence would be almost impossible.Not really. Most of the infringing references where added over time. They could just as easily be removed over time too.

The real problem is that there has been one religious group pushing all these additions, Christians.

[OnceUGoMac]

The U.S. was founded on religious tolerance and hence the emphasis on separation of church and state. Think about it. The U.S. *pioneered* this concept.

Nope, it was pioneered by the Puritan Roger Williams whom wrote "Life with Liberty: Seperation of Church and State" in the 17th century.

[Sun Baked]

Federal Judge: Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Is Unconstitutional (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1126688711891)

...The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.

"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the schoolchildren and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.... Oh well I guess the pdf of the opinion will probably be more interesting.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/newdowus91405opn.pdf

Sort of interesting to see similar laws/school policy lead to two different outcomes.

[TheMonarch]

...The real problem is that there has been one religious group pushing all these additions, Christians.



Well considering christians are the major religion, its no surprise. Why wouldn't it be pushed? So how is it a problem if thats how the majority wants it...




BTW, before you get all over my ____ for this, I'm not saying 90% are christian, but rather the single biggest religion. Look at it this way... What % of the population would want it changed? Certainly not the majority. Or else it would have been changed already.

[OnceUGoMac]

Yes indeed, the U.S. has always had a separated church and state. It's all right there in Amendment 1, in the Establishment clause.

Nope, the U.S. was established in 1776 and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

[OnceUGoMac]

Because no serious person has ever made the argument that the calendar is a religious document. This is not obvious?

No serious person made an argument that the Pledge is a religious document either. Is that not obvious?

[OnceUGoMac]

Except most of the Founding Fathers were Deists.



Do you even know what a Deist is? Desist do believe in God, you know. Your point is nonsensical.

[RacerX]

Well considering christians are the major religion, its no surprise. Why wouldn't it be pushed? So how is it a problem if thats how the majority wants it...Well, because the true importance of a government is to protect the minority from being persecuted by the majority.

Our Founding Fathers knew this, it was why we have both a Senate and a House of Representatives. To keep the more populous states from taking over.

The rights of the minority should never be disregarded for the whims of the majority.

And in the case of pushing religious views within government, all of it is a whim. There is no reason for Christians to need any of this stuff in government as their rights are already protected. This is solely to push their beliefs on others.

:rolleyes:

I guess you felt that slavery was a good thing when it was what a majority of the people wanted. :eek:

[RacerX]

Do you even know what a Deist is?We all know now. ;)

Desist do believe in God, you know.They don't believe in the Christian God or Jesus as God. Or any organized religion for that matter.

Within Deism there is a belief that the only way to truly know God is to study Nature (in other words, Science).

:rolleyes:

I would think that our Founding Fathers would have been very supportive of teaching evolution as it is part of a study of Nature. And for them, it doesn't discount their beliefs in a God.

[TheMonarch]

...I guess you felt that slavery was a good thing when it was what a majority of the people wanted. :eek:


Oh, NO.

But again, I grew up during this time, where the majority knows its bad. So I feel that it is/was wrong. I'm sure that if slavery was pushed during the time you grew up in, your answer wouldn't be as obvious.

[RacerX]

I'm sure that if slavery was pushed during the time you grew up in, your answer wouldn't be as obvious.Really? Funny, there are a lot of things going on today that seem pretty obvious to me, that the majority of our country is oblivious to.

This subject is an excellent example of that.


The only time people miss the obvious is when they are to lazy to take the time to think things through. Sadly, that is often the majority of the people.

But that having been said, I am now sure that if slavery was pushed during the time you grew up in, your answer would be obvious... and you would have fell in line with the majority without thinking about it (like you seem to be doing on this issue).

[thvudragon]

No it isn't. I do not like acknowledging a false God every day. I demand that we come up with a new calendar system. Look up the definition of January on dictionary.com. There is no mention of gods or even a past culture. Same for July, the month named after Julius Caesar. Words can evolve to have secular meanings as past cultures become extinct and farther in the past. There is also a big difference between the pledge and the calandar. By forcing a student to recite or not recite the pledge, one is forcing that student to either acknowledge, or not acknowledge the exitence of God. Public schools have no right to ask a student this question. Until you can prove that the pledge is secular, I don't see the point. The calendar we have was actually finalized by Pope Gregory XIII. One of the changes was the consistent leap year. The calendar is secular in many ways because no one is forced to acknowledge the existence of any god. If anything, it just shows how cultures of the past have long lasting effects on the future.

They don't.
Uhm, yeah they do. It isn't common, it's more the exception, but it does happen.

This isn't the Lord's Prayer. It is a pledge to our country and the God of our countries founders and leaders. Get. Over. It.
This is such a corruption to what freedom of religion is supposed to be. The fact that some of our founding fathers were Christians is totally irrelavent (and yes, most were Deists, who did not believe in the divine origins of Jesus, and therefore, were not Christians). The establishment clause prohibits the government from acknowledging, favoring, one religion over the other. Also, it says "establishment of religion" and not "establishment of a relgion." The lack of such an article prohibits them all, and further goes to emphasize the ideals that the founding fathers were trying to protect, and that includes tyranny of the majority.

Well considering christians are the major religion, its no surprise. Why wouldn't it be pushed? So how is it a problem if thats how the majority wants it...
Tyranny of the majority. Our system, as said by James Madison, was meant to protect us from such. The majority can be wrong too, of course, all that is subjective and subject to the convenience of hind-sight.

[thedude110]

Look up the definition of January on dictionary.com. There is no mention of gods or even a past culture. Same for July, the month named after Julius Caesar. Words can evolve to have secular meanings as past cultures become extinct and farther in the past. There is also a big difference between the pledge and the calandar. By forcing a student to recite or not recite the pledge, one is forcing that student to either acknowledge, or not acknowledge the exitence of God. Public schools have no right to ask a student this question. Until you can prove that the pledge is secular, I don't see the point. The calendar we have was actually finalized by Pope Gregory XIII. One of the changes was the consistent leap year. The calendar is secular in many ways because no one is forced to acknowledge the existence of any god. If anything, it just shows how cultures of the past have long lasting effects on the future ....

Tyranny of the majority. Our system, as said by James Madison, was meant to protect us from such. The majority can be wrong too, of course, all that is subjective and subject to the convenience of hind-sight.

Amen.

Secularly, of course.

[saunders45]

If you take out one thing, you have to take it all. No Halloween (after all, it supports witches, and Wicca is recognized religion by the government), no Thanksgiving (which was a special day of thanks dedicated unto God), no Valentine's day (sacrificing virgins anyone?) and all references to any religion whatsoever. The calendar must go, as must or modern dating system, you know the "In the year of our Lord" part....

I'm still waiting for a response to my last question also. What "christian" morals prompted a law to ban interracial marriage. Some KKK "christian" whacko, maybe, majority, no. And just remember don't generalize all of one religion into one group, aka christians try to push their religion on to everyone else / all muslims area radical extremist terrorists.

[saunders45]

Tyranny of the majority. Our system, as said by James Madison, was meant to protect us from such. The majority can be wrong too, of course, all that is subjective and subject to the convenience of hind-sight.

This James Madison right?


"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government."

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage . . . before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to government ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

"Religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;"

"The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."

"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, Chapter 20:2: 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts 9:33: 'And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'"

[thvudragon]

This James Madison right?

James Madison was a man trained by clergy and yes, a very religous man. Despite these beliefs, he too saw the dangers of religion in government. I don't consider him one of the Deists (I said most before, that was my mistake. I meant to say some) because of his beliefs, but he was a man of reason, one of objectivity that could still see the bigger picture.

"Civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretext infringed."

"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

Like most men in politics, what he says is inconsistent, so one can hardly paint a definitive picture of what he truly believed. Some of his views on the role religion plays in society are very relavent and telling. Like Voltaire, he did believe that religion was necessary, because it kept the people in line. It was/is an easy way to appeal to the majority.

[jsalzer]

I'm not gonna get any work done today. :)

Let's see if I can remember all the thoughts that were in my mind as I was reading the last few pages.

I do understand why a Pledge would be important to teach children. A newly formed country, especially, needs to get everyone to declare their allegiance to making it work. After all, these are the same fine folks who had just rebelled against the government they had formerly sworn allegiance to.

After all, no disagreement ever gets solved if both/all sides aren't dedicated to finding a solution.

As for teachers punishing students for not saying the pledge - of course it happens, even if not by conscious choice. You have 30 kids in the room. The only way to have a controlled, respectable pledge is to make all of them either say it or at least silently listen to the others say it. Not that I believe any child (we're talking the young ones here) would even fret about the words if their parents weren't antagonizing them over it, but bad parenting is another issue. ;)

Anywho - the biggest problem with the current wording stems from the fact that Christians chose a poor name for their god. Who names a god "God"? If it weren't for that, the generic word "God" could be used to reference the "First" or "Collective" deity of any religion.

But, since we're stuck with a Christian god named God, we could always change the words to "one nation under the gods". This fits everyone. The original Judeo/Christian religion, after all, did not deny the existance of other gods - just that those of a certain land were to dedicate themselves to the local god Yahweh. As for Athiests, I believe that a true Atheist would see any non-threatening use of the phrase "gods" as an interesting study of humanity's socio/historical self. To not want to see it anywhere would be the same as not wanting to see Chinese pottery or Babylonian tablets.

All in all, though, we have to keep in mind that separation of church and state works two ways. The church (and by this I mean specific deity workship - not moral influences or language influences) needs to stay out of the state, and the state needs to stay out of churches. We need to take serious looks at where the government uses words (such as God and Marriage) that overlap specific deities or specific religious institutions and rename them in governmental forums to clarify that a different set of rules applies - and that one set of rules should not dictate the other.

I know I'm forgetting several things, but it's a start. :)

[Lord Blackadder]

Wow, I thought this would have hit the political forums by now.

I don't think it's very useful to show how religion has played a role in past US government. Through most of its history the vast majority of US citizens were also practicing christians. Because of this there was no attempt to critically examine the intrusion of christianity into governement. Nowadays a significant proportion of the population is not christian, and does indeed look critically at religion in government.

It was then and is now clearly a violation of the seperation of church and state - even in Madison's time it was unconstitutional, but with everyone sharing his beliefs nobody would have thought it an issue or interpreted it that way. I don't necessarily place a negative judgement on this behavior in the past either - Madison, like all his contemporaries, was a product of his time and at that time to be American meant de facto being Republican (in the sense of beliving in a Republic) and Chrisitan.

I think that the seperation of church and state is a very important way that religion is protected in this country. By getting rid of the "under god" part of the pledge we are promoting liberty. No one religion or religions or lack of religion is promoted; all are equally protected under the law.

At the same time I hope it doesn't get to the point where somebody runs around Washington D.C. with an angle grinder removing every religious item from all our national monuments. I don't think that's likely but there is, of course, a limit to how much we need to purge. Religion (particularly christian)has a role in US history, and by attempting to erase all vestiges of our government's past that may be associated with a particular religion we would be attempting historical revisionism, which is wrong.

[thvudragon]

If you take out one thing, you have to take it all. No Halloween (after all, it supports witches, and Wicca is recognized religion by the government), no Thanksgiving (which was a special day of thanks dedicated unto God), no Valentine's day (sacrificing virgins anyone?) and all references to any religion whatsoever. The calendar must go, as must or modern dating system, you know the "In the year of our Lord" part....

The federal government does not officially recognize Halloween or Valentine's day as holidays, right? Also, Valentine's day is homage to St Valentine, where does sacrificing virgins come in? It was a pagan holiday that the Catholic Church "christianized." I thought thanksgiving, officially, is about thanks (lol, duh, I know). Everyone knows the story, pilgrims, helpful indians, blah (we just ignore the few decades after that...) It seems to be more about celbrating kindness to me. Also, on the calendar, I don't see why it should go as it has superceded any religous meanings it once had. If anything, it has more to do with politics and religous politics.

I'm still waiting for a response to my last question also. What "christian" morals prompted a law to ban interracial marriage. Some KKK "christian" whacko, maybe, majority, no. And just remember don't generalize all of one religion into one group, aka christians try to push their religion on to everyone else / all muslims area radical extremist terrorists.lol, I don't think you're going to find anyone who says it does. People did try to use it as proof though, and quite successfully for hundreds of years. The bible specifically speaks against interfaith marriage (not exactly in those terms), and this was corrupted as the bible forbidding interrace and intercultural marriage. At least, that's my understanding of the reasoning.

[Moxiemike]

Let's just put it all this way, and realize that Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the greatest president and writer of the declaration of independance clearly borrows from Greek Philosophy, and specifically teachings from Aristotle which are clearly not judeo-christian based.

As such, even though a religious majority has formed in the following years, religion shouldn't be a guiding force of this country. Unfortunately, since the 50's and before, but especially since the 50's, it's become a HUGE player in the mix.

That said, look at Italy. The frickin' HQ for the Jesus and his Henchmen is located there. The country is 99% catholic. But those religious influences don't play a role in their government. Granted, the gov't in italy is pretty shabby, but the thing we cannot discount is that they've not the obssession with religion that this country does.

Secondly, let's realize that the usage of judeo-christian morals and values as a guiding point in this country is hypocritical when compared to the VAST MAJORITY of writings.

"Thou shall not kill?"
Well. Unless they worhip Allah. Then it's ok to kill. And kill. And be killed.

"Love thy Neighbor"
Starts with slavery. Then women's rights. How about Japanese persecution in this country during WWII? All the way up to the muslim backlash, supposedly religious and worthy conservative radio hosts calling for racial profiling. The NOLA fiasco. And of course, us killing a ton of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, bot middle eastern AND american.

I could keep going... the judeo-christian god is supposedly a humble and forgiving god, a fair and just god, and a god who's only anger comes at major sin. If this country thinks that a judeo christian god is watching over them, that it gives them a divine right, that it is wholly responsible for the development and growth of this country.... insane!

If the judeo-christian god can justify a) the church and it's string of killing and persecution from all the way back to the dark ages and before and b) the current status of America being a country where individuality is only accepted if you're the same as the other individualists, then, frankly, I don't want a part of that god or his religion.

I think there's a sizable amount of people who, frankly, are disgusted with the selective use of religion and god to justify decisions made that aren't all that good, and thusly, would love to see the gov't actually take full responsibility for its actions, as opposed to consistently falling back on god as an excuse.

If that means that the pledge is changed, so be it.

But really, in the end, it's a group of the population who, in comparison to Apple, sees that the gov't is hiding behind religion, much like apple hides behind it's proprietary PowerPC stuff in its marketing.

I think that if the gov't had less to hide behind, we wouldn't be a country wastin gas in it's SUV spinning its wheels in the mud, going nowhere, with a costly war that's drained alot of rescources, a VERY OBVIOUS lack of ability to defend our country from natural or foreign attack (and believe me, NOLA shows us that we'd be screwed if another terrorist attack happened) and essentially a country that was once attractive for it's progressiveness become a country that's despicable for it's treatment of the people of the world as a unified whole.

[saunders45]

The federal government does not officially recognize Halloween or Valentine's day as holidays, right? Also, Valentine's day is homage to St Valentine, where does sacrificing virgins come in? It was a pagan holiday that the Catholic Church "christianized." I thought thanksgiving, officially, is about thanks (lol, duh, I know). Everyone knows the story, pilgrims, helpful indians, blah (we just ignore the few decades after that...) It seems to be more about celbrating kindness to me. Also, on the calendar, I don't see why it should go as it has superceded any religous meanings it once had. If anything, it has more to do with politics and religous politics.

lol, I don't think you're going to find anyone who says it does. People did try to use it as proof though, and quite successfully for hundreds of years. The bible specifically speaks against interfaith marriage (not exactly in those terms), and this was corrupted as the bible forbidding interrace and intercultural marriage. At least, that's my understanding of the reasoning.

Then why does almost every school in america have a Halloween party, and celebrate Valentine's day. And I would love for you to show me in the Bible where it says that interracial marriage is wrong. Expecially considering that God told Moses to marry and Ethiopian(sp?) woman.

And as for valentine's day, the original origin:

Celebrated on February 15, Lupercalia (known as the festival of sexual license) was held by the ancient Romans in honor of Lupercus, god of fertility and husbandry, protector of herds and crops, and a mighty hunter—especially of wolves. The Romans believed that Lupercus would protect Rome from roving bands of wolves, which devoured livestock and people.

Assisted by Vestal Virgins, the Luperci (male priests) conducted purification rites by sacrificing goats and a dog in the Lupercal cave on Palatine Hill, where the Romans believed the twins Romulus and Remus had been sheltered and nursed by a she-wolf before they eventually founded Rome. Clothed in loincloths made from sacrificed goats and smeared in their blood, the Luperci would run about Rome, striking women with februa, thongs made from skins of the sacrificed goats. The Luperci believed that the floggings purified women and guaranteed their fertility and ease of childbirth. February derives from februa or means of purification.

To the Romans, February was also sacred to Juno Februata, the goddess of febris (fever) of love, and of women and marriage. On February 14, billets (small pieces of paper, each of which had the name of a teen-aged girl written on it) were put into a container. Teen-aged boys would then choose one billet at random. The boy and the girl whose name was drawn would become a couple, joining in erotic games at feasts and parties celebrated throughout Rome. After the festival, they would remain sexual partners for the rest of the year. This custom was observed in the Roman Empire for centuries.


Ban this from schools too.

[thvudragon]

Then why does almost every school in america have a Halloween party, and celebrate Valentine's day. And I would love for you to show me in the Bible where it says that interracial marriage is wrong. Expecially considering that God told Moses to marry and Ethiopian(sp?) woman.
Huh? I never said the bible did forbid interracial marriage. My only point was to show that it didn't stop people from trying to say differently. It further goes to show how everything is open to interpretation. Also, I think you fail to realize the role of culture in our society and the role of government. Halloween and Valentine's day have secular meanings, despite the origins. No child is forced to acknowledge Pagan Gods or Catholic Saints. The remnants of religions permeates our culture, and that is understandable. We live in a society where we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and therin lies the difference. The pledge, something the government officially endorses and recoginizes, acknowledges a God of one religion. This is what is at issue as the pledge forces children to answer that fundamental question of "Do you recognize God?" or "Do you believe in God?"

And as for valentine's day, the original origin:

Ban this from schools too.
Words evolve to have different meanings, and holidays do as well. Valentine's day, though, is cultural. Ask most who celebrate this holiday. In doing so, is one recognizing Pagan Gods and their existence? Is one recognizing the sainthood of deceased men? No. Valentine's day is about love (and of course, candy). Love pays homage to no religion or culture. It is universal.

[Lord Blackadder]

As such, even though a religious majority has formed in the following years, religion shouldn't be a guiding force of this country. Unfortunately, since the 50's and before, but especially since the 50's, it's become a HUGE player in the mix.

That said, look at Italy. The frickin' HQ for the Jesus and his Henchmen is located there. The country is 99% catholic. But those religious influences don't play a role in their government. Granted, the gov't in italy is pretty shabby, but the thing we cannot discount is that they've not the obssession with religion that this country does.

On second thought, lets not look at Italy. Religious influence in government is very much an issue there, in the sense that everyone is Catholic. The apparent lack of conflict is the result of consensus. Kinda like 18th and 19th century America...

Henchmen? :confused:

"Thou shall not kill?"
Well. Unless they worhip Allah. Then it's ok to kill. And kill. And be killed.

"Love thy Neighbor"
Starts with slavery. Then women's rights. How about Japanese persecution in this country during WWII? All the way up to the muslim backlash, supposedly religious and worthy conservative radio hosts calling for racial profiling. The NOLA fiasco. And of course, us killing a ton of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, bot middle eastern AND american.

I could keep going... the judeo-christian god is supposedly a humble and forgiving god, a fair and just god, and a god who's only anger comes at major sin. If this country thinks that a judeo christian god is watching over them, that it gives them a divine right, that it is wholly responsible for the development and growth of this country.... insane!

If the judeo-christian god can justify a) the church and it's string of killing and persecution from all the way back to the dark ages and before and b) the current status of America being a country where individuality is only accepted if you're the same as the other individualists, then, frankly, I don't want a part of that god or his religion.

People are ultimately responsible or their own actions. A Renaissance pope may have had a murderous disposition, or a medieval pope may have decided to start the Crusades, but those events don't change my belief that killing people is morally wrong. You speak out laudably against profiling but you are doing it yourself by characterizing a religion based on the actions of some of its practicioners. When people behave hypocritically or interpret religion to serve their own ends they are responsible. This applies equally in the case of Bush as well as Usama Bin Laden.

I think there's a sizable amount of people who, frankly, are disgusted with the selective use of religion and god to justify decisions made that aren't all that good, and thusly, would love to see the gov't actually take full responsibility for its actions, as opposed to consistently falling back on god as an excuse.

I don't think that is what is happening here, though this is just opinion. Rather, I think the current administration has established credibility to voters by appealing to their religious fervor. They are not directly justifying individual actions by using religion, but they are keeping voters on their side by portraying their opposition (at home and abroad) as morally bankrupt or anti-religious. It's a clever strategy and makes heavy use of religion to maintain a political power base without going to extremes that would clearly violate the seperation of church and state and allow political opposition to be more effective.

I strongly disagree with the Bush administration partly because I feel that they are violating the separation of church and state with their moral stance on some issues.

Attacking a religion is not constructive, and angers people who are religious.

We should focus on upholding the constitution, and in this case that involves preventing any one religion or group of religions from gaining special privileges or favor to the detriment of other beliefs.


We should replace the "under god" reference with a reference to equality.

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps because it is so ingrained into our culture? *gasp*

See what I am getting at here? You can have mentions of beliefs other than yours and go along with your life perfectly well...

No, because its religious content is nil. It is not a set of beliefs by any definition. So really, you are "getting at" nothing.

[IJ Reilly]

Nope, the U.S. was established in 1776 and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Since you apparently assume I am unaware of this, may I also assume that you are unaware of the events which ensued between 1776 and 1791, including the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress?

[IJ Reilly]

No serious person made an argument that the Pledge is a religious document either. Is that not obvious?

No, it isn't. Religious content was deliberately injected into the Pledge for reasons which by now we should all be aware and I didn't think were a matter of dispute. And, in many situations, children in public schools are being compelled to recite the Pledge. This is why the Pledge has become an issue.

[stonyc]

We should focus on upholding the constitution, and in this case that involves preventing any one religion or group of religions from gaining special privileges or favor to the detriment of other beliefs.I would agree with that sentiment. I'm not an atheist, I was raised Catholic, but it didn't really take. :) I consider myself open to a diverse range of beliefs, and as such, I would consider the reference "under God" an endorsement of one religious belief over others.

[saunders45]

Huh? I never said the bible did forbid interracial marriage. My only point was to show that it didn't stop people from trying to say differently. It further goes to show how everything is open to interpretation. Also, I think you fail to realize the role of culture in our society and the role of government. Halloween and Valentine's day have secular meanings, despite the origins. No child is forced to acknowledge Pagan Gods or Catholic Saints. The remnants of religions permeates our culture, and that is understandable. We live in a society where we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and therin lies the difference. The pledge, something the government officially endorses and recoginizes, acknowledges a God of one religion. This is what is at issue as the pledge forces children to answer that fundamental question of "Do you recognize God?" or "Do you believe in God?"

Words evolve to have different meanings, and holidays do as well. Valentine's day, though, is cultural. Ask most who celebrate this holiday. In doing so, is one recognizing Pagan Gods and their existence? Is one recognizing the sainthood of deceased men? No. Valentine's day is about love (and of course, candy). Love pays homage to no religion or culture. It is universal.

I completely fail to see how reciting the pledge "forces" one to believe in God. And if, as some of you are saying, doing it will cause emotional scarring, then holy freakin' a, the kid is screwed for life and he is gonna be a psychological and emotional train wreck. That sounds like some Freud would say, and he wasn't a whack job at all.....

[stonyc]

Words evolve to have different meanings, and holidays do as well. Valentine's day, though, is cultural. Ask most who celebrate this holiday. In doing so, is one recognizing Pagan Gods and their existence? Is one recognizing the sainthood of deceased men? No. Valentine's day is about love (and of course, candy). Love pays homage to no religion or culture. It is universal.Love is universal. God for some people, is not.

[Sun Baked]

I completely fail to see how reciting the pledge "forces" one to believe in God. And if, as some of you are saying, doing it will cause emotional scarring, then holy freakin' a, the kid is screwed for life and he is gonna be a psychological and emotional train wreck. That sounds like some Freud would say, and he wasn't a whack job at all.....Dammit let's drop the cold war relic "under god", and switch back to the Bellamy salute. :p

Now that would really screw with a major class of people in the US, and create far more emotional scarring than you can ever expect. :eek:

[stonyc]

I completely fail to see how reciting the pledge "forces" one to believe in God. And if, as some of you are saying, doing it will cause emotional scarring, then holy freakin' a, the kid is screwed for life and he is gonna be a psychological and emotional train wreck. That sounds like some Freud would say, and he wasn't a whack job at all.....Then you should have no qualms about "under God" being changed to "under Allah" or "under Marduk".

For me, I disagree with the presence of "under God" in the Pledge because it endorses one god over others. That, right there, is what is being ruled as unconstitutional.

[IJ Reilly]

I completely fail to see how reciting the pledge "forces" one to believe in God. And if, as some of you are saying, doing it will cause emotional scarring, then holy freakin' a, the kid is screwed for life and he is gonna be a psychological and emotional train wreck. That sounds like some Freud would say, and he wasn't a whack job at all.....

I'm not sure that was the point being made here. The Pledge doesn't force belief, it compels acknowledgment, which is even more troublesome in a way. Nobody can be forced to believe, but they can be forced to acknowledge that their religious faith is in the minority, for all that this implies. If you were, for example, an American Hindu, might you might ask yourself why your government instructs you to take an oath which contradicts your own religious beliefs? Is the United States not supposed to be a nation where all are free believe as they wish?

Personally, I'm not a huge Pledge opponent. I recite it every week, even though I've never particularly liked it. I'm an adult, and I know it's voluntary. I can leave out the "under God" part if that bothers me (I don't, but I know quite a few who do). What concerns me is classroom situations where teachers effectively make its recitation by children mandatory. I'd have very little problem with the Pledge as it is now written if every teacher made it clear to every child in their classrooms that they aren't required to recite the pledge if they don't want to, or they can leave out parts that conflict with their beliefs.

If the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights this way, made this the rule, I'd have no problem with the Pledge, and would be happy never to debate it again. How do others feel? Would this be an acceptable resolution?

[FoxyKaye]

Well, it's quite obvious that you have no tolerance towards God, or religion so I will ignore the first sentence.
As I've said many times before: Nope, none the least. At least not that god and that religion.
As far as "rammed" down our throats.... if Ike and Ike only had made it, then yes, i'd say rammed, but i think it takes more than one or 2 people to make that decision, all of which were eleceted by the general population of the time.
See that's the beauty of Christian hypocracy. "Oh no, we're not ramming God down anyone's throats, it's just the way things are and should be - and look it was passed by Congress!" But, the minute some town or state government passes an anti-discrimination law that protects the Queer communities, or goodness forbid a domestic partnership law, suddenly they're "ramming their lifestyle down everyone's throats" and out come the videos of gay porn that air with PSAs.
And as far as "Christian" ideals promoting laws against banning interracial marriage... I'd like to see some proof, albeit not from a KKK member. =
Notice you conveniently left out the LGBT side of this, so I'll break it down for you. Don't have to look far for Christian ideals promoting laws against interracial marriage - it's in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 6:14 "What fellowship hath light with darkness?"; with ample support from Deuteronomy 7:3. Or are you willing to conceide that these quotes are as taken out of context and misinterpreted as Leviticus 18:22?

Hey - at least I'm completely up front about my bias: Christian propagandizing has no place in our laws or country's policies. The pledge and crap on our currency are highly symbolic representations of Christian ideals - overburdened with emphasis that to be an American you have to believe in the so-called Christian One-God. It's offensive, flies in the face of freedom of religion (including athesism - the choice of not having belief at all) in America, and was put in place as policy overwhelmingly by white, Christian men. Their normalization is now being challenged, and I'm sorry if that upsets everyone's carts, but they never should have happened in the first place. Hopefully, their elimination will set precedent that can help weed out Christianity from more public policies and laws as well.

Everytime MR gets into one of these discussions, I recommend the same reading: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039331524X/102-8364062-9928929?v=glance)

[Thomas Veil]

If the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights this way, made this the rule, I'd have no problem with the Pledge, and would be happy never to debate it again. How do others feel? Would this be an acceptable resolution?I suppose it'd work, but it would be a kind of wussy solution. Anyone not saying the pledge would still have to hear others doing it. Can you imagine being a little kid and (on your parents' advice, for example) being the only kid not to say the pledge? If you're, like, six years old, that sets up a conflict in your mind. "Why am I doing it differently? Are my parents wrong? Is everybody else?"

Why can't people just pledge their allegience to God in church and their allegience to their country outside of church?

Or does the idea of doing the appropriate thing at the appropriate time and place make too much sense?

[saunders45]

As I've said many times before: Nope, none the least. At least not that god and that religion.

See that's the beauty of Christian hypocracy. "Oh no, we're not ramming God down anyone's throats, it's just the way things are and should be - and look it was passed by Congress!" But, the minute some town or state government passes an anti-discrimination law that protects the Queer communities, or goodness forbid a domestic partnership law, suddenly they're "ramming their lifestyle down everyone's throats" and out come the videos of gay porn that air with PSAs.

Notice you conveniently left out the LGBT side of this, so I'll break it down for you. Don't have to look far for Christian ideals promoting laws against interracial marriage - it's in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 6:14 "What fellowship hath light with darkness?"; with ample support from Deuteronomy 7:3. Or are you willing to conceide that these quotes are as taken out of context and misinterpreted as Leviticus 18:22?

Hey - at least I'm completely up front about my bias: Christian propagandizing has no place in our laws or country's policies. The pledge and crap on our currency are highly symbolic representations of Christian ideals - overburdened with emphasis that to be an American you have to believe in the so-called Christian One-God. It's offensive, flies in the face of freedom of religion (including athesism - the choice of not having belief at all) in America, and was put in place as policy overwhelmingly by white, Christian men. Their normalization is now being challenged, and I'm sorry if that upsets everyone's carts, but they never should have happened in the first place. Hopefully, their elimination will set precedent that can help weed out Christianity from more public policies and laws as well.

Everytime MR gets into one of these discussions, I recommend the same reading: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039331524X/102-8364062-9928929?v=glance)

Well it's obvious that you dwell in hatred towards that which you don't understand, which in and of itself dicounts all you arguments about "religious freedom". It's also sad that you generalize what a few people do and blame the masses. Are all Muslims terrorists? Better yet, were all Germans, even German soldiers nazi's? Hardly, alll you have proven is that you are prejudice against those who don't agree with you. Sounds like a God complex to me.

An yes, you totally took those out of context. If the bible were against interracial marriage, why did God instruct Moses to marry someone of a different race?

[FoxyKaye]

But, since we're stuck with a Christian god named God, we could always change the words to "one nation under the gods".
Hey! That's pretty keen. If we have to have religious mottos on our currency and in our pledge, lump 'em all in. Covers a lot of ground: the old and vengeful pagan gods, the gods of Eastern religions, the Judeo/Christian god, the new age Wiccan gods. Now that would be interesting!

[stonyc]

I'm not sure that was the point being made here. The Pledge doesn't force belief, it compels acknowledgment, which is even more troublesome in a way. Nobody can be forced to believe, but they can be forced to acknowledge that their religious faith is in the minority, for all that this implies. If you were, for example, an American Hindu, might you might ask yourself why your government instructs you to take an oath which contradicts your own religious beliefs? Is the United States not supposed to be a nation where all are free believe as they wish?

Personally, I'm not a huge Pledge opponent. I recite it every week, even though I've never particularly liked it. I'm an adult, and I know it's voluntary. I can leave out the "under God" part if that bothers me (I don't, but I know quite a few who do). What concerns me is classroom situations where teachers effectively make its recitation by children mandatory. I'd have very little problem with the Pledge as it is now written if every teacher made it clear to every child in their classrooms that they aren't required to recite the pledge if they don't want to, or they can leave out parts that conflict with their beliefs.

If the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights this way, made this the rule, I'd have no problem with the Pledge, and would be happy never to debate it again. How do others feel? Would this be an acceptable resolution?Personally, no... I still feel that having the reference to God is in of itself unconstitutional. But I also feel that something along the lines of what you wrote (maybe allow people to insert their own deity instead of "under God") would be a compromise a good number of people would support.

[FoxyKaye]

Well it's obvious that you dwell in hatred towards that which you don't understand, which in and of itself dicounts all you arguments about "religious freedom".
Ayup, that's it - you hit the nail on the head there. :rolleyes:

It's also sad that you generalize what a few people do and blame the masses.
But wait, what happened to:
As far as "rammed" down our throats.... if Ike and Ike only had made it, then yes, i'd say rammed, but i think it takes more than one or 2 people to make that decision, all of which were eleceted by the general population of the time.
Certainly Congress isn't just a few people now, are they? Being democratically elected (as much as one can be) and all.


Are all Muslims terrorists? Better yet, were all Germans, even German soldiers nazi's?
Question 1: No, Question 2: No *cough - Benedictus XVI - cough* :D

Hardly, alll you have proven is that you are prejudice against those who don't agree with you.
And this is so different from the folks who are injecting our laws and policies with Christian ideals?

Sounds like a God complex to me.
Maybe, maybe not - maybe I'm just tired of being subjected to the tyrrany of the majority when it comes to my control of my body and my civil rights - the ultimate symbolization (sp?) of which resides in the "under God" clause of our pledge and "In God We Trust" on our currency.

An yes, you totally took those out of context. If the bible were against interracial marriage, why did God instruct Moses to marry someone of a different race?
Dodged that Queer bullet again - you're good.

[leftbanke7]

But, since we're stuck with a Christian god named God, we could always change the words to "one nation under the gods". This fits everyone.

Unfortunately, it doesn't fit everyone. Atheists are still "forced" to choose a god and there are some Eastern religions which do not believe in a God, so to speak. To make the pledge fully universal, any mention to any god has to come out.

[Don't panic]

If the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights this way, made this the rule, I'd have no problem with the Pledge, and would be happy never to debate it again. How do others feel? Would this be an acceptable resolution?
I don't think kids should be forced, directly or indirectly (peer pressure, need to blend in) to "pledge" to anything they are not in a position to understand properly and which is, however you want to turn it, a rethoric piece of propaganda.
the god reference makes it worse (and why would you want kids to learn that lying under oath is ok?).
And I can't believe some of the arguments on this board. If you like it, because you are christian and it promotes your religion, say so: you're entitled to your opinion. But the position that this is not an endorsement of a religion in untenable (or that it's the same as calendar references, please grow up).

[FoxyKaye]

Unfortunately, it doesn't fit everyone. Atheists are still "forced" to choose a god and there are some Eastern religions which do not believe in a God, so to speak. To make the pledge fully universal, any mention to any god has to come out.
D'oh - you're right. So much for "under gods" being keen.

[IJ Reilly]

I suppose it'd work, but it would be a kind of wussy solution. Anyone not saying the pledge would still have to hear others doing it. Can you imagine being a little kid and (on your parents' advice, for example) being the only kid not to say the pledge? If you're, like, six years old, that sets up a conflict in your mind. "Why am I doing it differently? Are my parents wrong? Is everybody else?"

Why can't people just pledge their allegience to God in church and their allegience to their country outside of church?

Or does the idea of doing the appropriate thing at the appropriate time and place make too much sense?

I can live with wussy. The Pledge, at least as it is now worded, is a bit of an antique, and I think in time it will be recognized as such. In the meantime, the main issue for me is compulsory recitation, particularly by children, in a government-controlled context.

[leftbanke7]

I can live with wussy. The Pledge, at least as it is now worded, is a bit of an antique, and I think in time it will be recognized as such. In the meantime, the main issue for me is compulsory recitation, particularly by children, in a government-controlled context.

The new pledge should be this:

I pledge allegance to my corporate masters
Who really run this country
And to their shareholders
For which they need to answer
One nation, under our Christian God because all other faiths are evil and will warp the fabric of our great nation
With liberty and justice for the rich and famous

[zimv20]

The Pledge, at least as it is now worded, is a bit of an antique, and I think in time it will be recognized as such.
then let's rewrite it for today!

I pledge allegience to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Red States
For which it stands
The Chosen People
Under God
With a chicken in every pot
And an SUV in every garage
For all time

[IJ Reilly]

I don't think kids should be forced, directly or indirectly (peer pressure, need to blend in) to "pledge" to anything they are not in a position to understand properly and which is, however you want to turn it, a rethoric piece of propaganda.
the god reference makes it worse (and why would you want kids to learn that lying under oath is ok?).

You've opened up a can of worms here. Everything kids do in school (with the possible exception of recess) is forced on them. It's also in the nature of education for kids to be faced with things they don't understand. So I don't think these are functional criteria for deciding what they can be required to do and say. I also don't want to promote an educational environment where religion is out of bounds.

[IJ Reilly]

then let's rewrite it for today!

I pledge allegience to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Red States
For which it stands
The Chosen People
Under God
With a chicken in every pot
And an SUV in every garage
For all time

My my, aren't we cynical today? :p

[Don't panic]

You've opened up a can of worms here. Everything kids do in school (with the possible exception of recess) is forced on them. It's also in the nature of education for kids to be faced with things they don't understand. So I don't think these are functional criteria for deciding what they can be required to do and say. I also don't want to promote an educational environment where religion is out of bounds.
I understand that and I agree with your point.
but to 'pledge' is a different thing than to be thought.

[OnceUGoMac]

Since you apparently assume I am unaware of this, may I also assume that you are unaware of the events which ensued between 1776 and 1791, including the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress?

So, how does this prove your previous statement "The U.S. ALWAYS had a seperation of church and state clause"?

[OnceUGoMac]

If you were, for example, an American Hindu, might you might (sic) ask yourself why your government instructs you to take an oath which contradicts your own religious beliefs?


Actually, Hinduism is an inclusive religion.

[TheMonarch]

...But that having been said, I am now sure that if slavery was pushed during the time you grew up in, your answer would be obvious... and you would have fell in line with the majority without thinking about it (like you seem to be doing on this issue).



What's your point? You seem to forget that Everybody is molded by society in some way. Whether right or wrong, everybody gets shaped. If any child grew up in a place where say, slavery (as you brought up) was ok, and they were taught that they were superior to others with different skin, and it was 'right' with everyone he cares about. Why would s/he ever think its wrong?
Would you blame that child, for 'falling in line'?


You shouldn't act like you're immune to the way society works, and that your way of thinking wouldn't be different depending on where you grew up.

Like I said, I don't think it was right.

[FoxyKaye]

then let's rewrite it for today!

I pledge allegience to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Red States
For which it stands
The Chosen People
Under God
With a chicken in every pot
And an SUV in every garage
For all time
You forgot to add "Amen" at the end. :D

[takao]

i don't think such a pledge/oath has a place in school at all, just like the crosses in the classrooms we have over here
i already had problem speaking the oath (lacking god ;) ) when i was in the austrian army .. i crossed fingers and only moved my mouth without speaking actually :D
i think that nobody should have to speak it unvoluntary .. even more so when being a minor



and for the whole "in god we trust/under god" discussion
"god is with us" ("Gott mit uns") was written on the belts of the prussian/german Reichswehr .. it's so 19th century/pre WW1 it's not even funny

edit: change it to "under gods" ;)

[pseudobrit]

and for the whole "in god we trust/under god" discussion
"god is with us" ("Gott mit uns") was written on the belts of the prussian/german Reichswehr

And we know how true that turned out to be.

[~loserman~]

Personally I think the whole pledge should be thrown out.
Why force people to pledge allegiance to a flag that they have the constitutional right to burn if they want.

[pseudobrit]

Why force people to pledge allegiance to a flag that they have the constitutional right to burn if they want.

One step at a time, now.

[saunders45]

Certainly Congress isn't just a few people now, are they? Being democratically elected (as much as one can be) and all. That makes no sense whatsoever. I wasn't even talking about congress in my statement. If you would have paid attention, what I was implying was that you take what a couple of whack jobs do, and automatically criminalize an entire group of people.

Question 1: No, Question 2: No *cough - Benedictus XVI - cough* :D
You didn't answer my question, are all Germans Nazi's? Should we have tried and hung them all?


And this is so different from the folks who are injecting our laws and policies with Christian ideals?

You know, I hate to break it to you, but these "ideals" that you aren't just "Christian". Ever heard of morals, yeah, um, pretty much every religion has them, and believe it or not, there is a heck of a lot of similarity. And um, nobody is forcing you to do anything you dont want to.

Maybe, maybe not - maybe I'm just tired of being subjected to the tyrrany of the majority when it comes to my control of my body and my civil rights - the ultimate symbolization (sp?) of which resides in the "under God" clause of our pledge and "In God We Trust" on our currency.

"Tyranny of the majority"...... bwahahahahaha.... thats a good one... no really I needed a good laugh. So the "majority" is forcing you to say" I believe in God, I recognize that their is only one God"..... riiiiiiiiight..... and no one is controlling your body....
unless you've been abducted by aliens :D

[vniow]

Assisted by Vestal Virgins, the Luperci (male priests) conducted purification rites by sacrificing goats and a dog in the Lupercal cave on Palatine Hill, where the Romans believed the twins Romulus and Remus had been sheltered and nursed by a she-wolf before they eventually founded Rome. Clothed in loincloths made from sacrificed goats and smeared in their blood, the Luperci would run about Rome, striking women with februa, thongs made from skins of the sacrificed goats. The Luperci believed that the floggings purified women and guaranteed their fertility and ease of childbirth. February derives from februa or means of purification.

To the Romans, February was also sacred to Juno Februata, the goddess of febris (fever) of love, and of women and marriage. On February 14, billets (small pieces of paper, each of which had the name of a teen-aged girl written on it) were put into a container. Teen-aged boys would then choose one billet at random. The boy and the girl whose name was drawn would become a couple, joining in erotic games at feasts and parties celebrated throughout Rome. After the festival, they would remain sexual partners for the rest of the year. This custom was observed in the Roman Empire for centuries.

My next Valentine's date just got a helluva lot more interesting.

[IJ Reilly]

So, how does this prove your previous statement "The U.S. ALWAYS had a seperation of church and state clause"?

Well you are so right, it isn't in the Articles of Confederation. But then, not much was. Ever since there was a Constitution and Bill of Rights, then. Happy?

So what was your point?

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, Hinduism is an inclusive religion.

Inclusive of what, exactly? Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. They don't believe in a God. They believe in gods.

[~loserman~]

One step at a time, now.

No lets not go One step at a time.
Even taking it out still leaves it unconstitutional so the whole pledge has to go.

A better example of separation of church-state and free exercise that is unconstitutional would be in god we trust on money.
That should be removed.

The most egregious example is swearing on the Bible in court or the President swearing on the Bible during his oath of office.
Both have to go.

[OnceUGoMac]

Inclusive of what, exactly? Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. They don't believe in a God. They believe in gods.

Apologies. Doctor Q likes to censor what I post. Hinduism is an inclusive religion compared to Christianity, which is an exclusive religion. Hinduism encompasses all religions. That means that according to Hinduism, Christianity is considered a Hindu religion.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't know that they both "have" to go, but I think they eventually will go. The country is becoming relentlessly more pluralistic and culturally diverse. It's a symptom of times like these that people will attempt to cast down arbitrary cultural anchors in a futile effort to stop that movement, or to persuade themselves that somehow it isn't really happening. We see it in this debate, we see it in the gay rights debate, we see it in conservative movements generally.

In another generation or two or three, I predict people will look back at the beginning of the 21st century and ask themselves, "What was that all about? Why did we consider swearing an oath to God to be a required act of patriotism?" It will be studied as an historical artifact of our day. It will be seen as something quaint, like buggy whips and stove pipe hats.

[zimv20]

We see it in this debate, we see it in the gay rights debate, we see it in conservative movements generally.

i hope you're right. for any civil rights issue, such as gay marriage, i think you will be proved correct. but for religion issues (read as: christianity), i'm skeptical.

much as muslims see the war on terror as a war on islam, i believe that some/many christians see this issue and others (e.g. swearing on the bible) as an attack on christianity. given the christian fervor in this country, i don't expect to see such changes in my lifetime, or that of my kids.* in fact, i think it will get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

yes, IJ, i'm cynical today :-)

* i don't have kids, just using the expression.

[RacerX]

Would you blame that child, for 'falling in line'?All I can say is that if you had a weak constitution and fell in line with what the crowd was doing while you were growing up, that has nothing to do with me... and yes, I would blame you for it.

You shouldn't act like you're immune to the way society works, and that your way of thinking wouldn't be different depending on where you grew up.Actually I can act this way as I have proven to myself time and again that I have no need for validation from others (be the group large or small) to know what is ethical.

I have one bench mark, and it has served me very well. That is if the shoe was on the other foot, and I was in the other persons place, would I be okay with the situation.

How long would that line of thought keep me in line around slavery? Once I realized that I wouldn't want to be forced to be a slave, I would have no choice but to acknowledge that it was ethically wrong. Period.

And any Christian of that period has no excuse. They would have been taught do onto others as you would have others do onto you. Which means that the path to the ethical truth of slavery was always right in their face.

Yes, I could blame them. Yes, I can say, without a doubt, that I would be one of the few who would have spoken out against it. Because I didn't fall prey to group think, or peer pressure while growing up, and I have continued to followed my own path since growing up.

:rolleyes:

Now, if you can empathize with people who blindly fall in line, that is a position that you are free to take... and you'll get no argument from me (I was only agreeing that what you had said would be true for you and that I believe you). I can't speak on your behalf, only you can in this matter.

But I would kindly ask that you pay me the same respect and not try to tell me what type of person I am when you have no idea. You know little or nothing about me, so you are in no position to say that I would or would not be immune to the ways of society.

You can say that you would not have been immune, but you have no standing to make that type of statement about me.

And that was my point. :D Clear enough?

[pseudobrit]

No lets not go One step at a time.
Even taking it out still leaves it unconstitutional so the whole pledge has to go.

I was being facetious with regard to your comment about flag burning.

Today, a pledge amendment. Tomorrow, the flag burners!

In fact, why not just use an omnibus amendment to cover the whole package of bigotry and nationalism?

Think of it:

School Prayer,
God in pledge and on your money
Flag burning
Fag burning (and ban same-sex marriages)

Maybe while they're at it they can eliminate forever unearned income taxes!

edit: oops, I forgot abortion.

[pseudobrit]

I have one bench mark, and it has served me very well. That is if the shoe was on the other foot, and I was in the other persons place, would I be okay with the situation.

How long would that line of thought keep me in line around slavery? Once I realized that I wouldn't want to be forced to be a slave, I would have no choice but to acknowledge that it was ethically wrong. Period.

And any Christian of that period has no excuse. They would have been taught do onto others as you would have others do onto you. Which means that the path to the ethical truth of slavery was always right in their face.

You forget that slaves (and Jews and Indians and the Irish...) were subhuman, and thus the golden rule could not apply to them no more than it would apply to a gnat.

[skunk]

What happens when you get your first Jewish President? What will he swear on? And will it be in front of the Chief Rabbi?


Our most notable Jewish PM, Benjamin Disraeli, refused to swear on anything but the Old Testament.

[IJ Reilly]

Our most notable Jewish PM, Benjamin Disraeli, refused to swear on anything but the Old Testament.

Did he do a lot of swearing? Not in front of the Queen, I hope!

[TheMonarch]

...You can say that you would not have been immune, but you have no standing to make that type of statement about me...

Listen. Don't get all exited when I use you as an example, especially after you say something about me.

You're right. I don't know you.
But you don't know me either. So calm down. Turn down those defenses, and breathe.


There is no way anyone could state how they would, or wouldn't act in a time that they didn't grew up in. You, nor me, could not state what would have happened. You may or may not have 'fallen in line', same with me.

[skunk]

Did he do a lot of swearing? Not in front of the Queen, I hope!He did have "a bit of a mouth on him", I think. Shocking, really.

[jsalzer]

Hey, Foxy - just because my "under gods" idea isn't keen any more, I hope that I'm still keen. :)

While I still think Atheists shouldn't mind, I do understand that there are religions with no god. So I'll accept that.

But, I had an idea earlier today. What about staying with Jefferson's "Creator".

"One nation under the Creator."

If you believe the Creator to be God or Temu or whoever, it works. If you believe Mother Nature to be the Creator, it works. If you believe Chaos Theory (which happens to produce amino acids from the sea) to be the creator, it works.

:cool:

I think the biggest shame in this country is that we don't teach school children the religion of the Indians / Native Americans local to their area. Talk about neglecting your land's heritage.

All that said, shouldn't the "version" of the pledge said be in the control of the local school board? Isn't education still the primarily the responsibility of the parents, who may combine their resources to form schools? When are we going to let the locals go back to controlling their own curriculum? Rather than having the feds holding funds over their heads. "Well, we really have no legal control over you, but nah, nah, nah nah nah - if you don't do what we want you to do, you don't get the massive funding we're going to give to your neighboring districts."

Grrrrrr.

;)

[IJ Reilly]

He did have "a bit of a mouth on him", I think. Shocking, really.

And that hair, even more shocking. It was a shock of hair! (Or is that a hair of shock..?)

Incidentally, I believe Disraeli was the only Jewish PM of Great Britain, though in reality he was raised in the C of E (which I believe makes him officially an agnostic. ;))

[skunk]

"One Nation Among Many"? Inter plures, unum.

[Don't panic]

All that said, shouldn't the "version" of the pledge said be in the control of the local school board? Isn't education still the primarily the responsibility of the parents, who may combine their resources to form schools? When are we going to let the locals go back to controlling their own curriculum? Rather than having the feds holding funds over their heads. "Well, we really have no legal control over you, but nah, nah, nah nah nah - if you don't do what we want you to do, you don't get the massive funding we're going to give to your neighboring districts."

no, there should be some minimal standards in education.

[RacerX]

Listen. Don't get all exited when I use you as an example, especially after you say something about me.I didn't have to say anything, you said it... remember?

You said:"So how is it a problem if thats how the majority wants it..."I didn't make you say that. I didn't put those words into your mouth.

I commented on the fact that your statement was seeming to be blind faith in the majority and that I would have guessed that you would have followed suit had this been slavery.

To which you said:"But again, I grew up during this time, where the majority knows its bad. So I feel that it is/was wrong."Again, re-enforcing the fact that you follow the majority. I didn't make you say that. I didn't put those words into your mouth.

You're right. I don't know you.
But you don't know me either. So calm down. Turn down those defenses, and breathe.My breathing is fine... how is yours?

At any rate, the problem started with this comment:"I'm sure that if slavery was pushed during the time you grew up in, your answer wouldn't be as obvious.That "I'm sure" statement was you making a statement to try and lump me in with your views. I never attributed any point of view to you that you had not already re-enforced with your own statements in this thread. But your statement attempted to paint a position on me based on nothing I've ever said or done.

You see the point, right?

Either you stand by your statements, or you don't. Don't be upset with me if the position you take makes you look bad in your own eyes. I didn't associate any of this with you... you associated this with yourself.

I don't know you, but I've trusted you to be what you've characterized yourself to be. That is all I have to go on... and it all came from you.

You do read your own posts to see how they are going to be interpreted, right? The old adage think before saying is a good one to remember.

I would rather you not be this way, but I don't have any say in how you are. And if you would rather not be seen this way, then you may want to reconsider what you have posted here.

There is no way anyone could state how they would, or wouldn't act in a time that they didn't grew up in. You, nor me, could not state what would have happened. You may or may not have 'fallen in line', same with me.Actually, I stated the only amount of reasoning that I would have needed to follow a similar course to that which I follow today. With that seed of reason, all other factors would have fallen by the waste side... as they did for me when I was growing up in my time.

But, this is a start. You are reevaluating a premise that you had put forward in an earlier post. That is at least a step in the right direction.

:rolleyes:

So before you post again about how I don't know you, take a little time to read your posts to see how you've projected yourself here. I think that if you take an honest look at what you said, you'll see that I didn't attribute anything to you that you hadn't already attributed to yourself in this thread.

And for the record, a well thought out response has nothing to do with being defensive. It is courtesy. Half thoughts can be misconstrued... as I think you may be starting to realize. :D

[ham_man]

Hey, Foxy - just because my "under gods" idea isn't keen any more, I hope that I'm still keen. :)

While I still think Atheists shouldn't mind, I do understand that there are religions with no god. So I'll accept that.

But, I had an idea earlier today. What about staying with Jefferson's "Creator".

"One nation under the Creator."

If you believe the Creator to be God or Temu or whoever, it works. If you believe Mother Nature to be the Creator, it works. If you believe Chaos Theory (which happens to produce amino acids from the sea) to be the creator, it works.
Not too say that your idea isn't all right, but "God" in our common terms is just shorthand for "The Lord". A God is really any deity or supernatural/all powerful being...

[TheMonarch]

...Again, re-enforcing the fact that you follow the majority. I didn't make you say that. I didn't put those words into your mouth.

......Either you stand by your statements, or you don't. Don't be upset with me if the position you take makes you look bad in your own eyes. I didn't associate any of this with you... you associated this with yourself.

...

I don't know you, but I've trusted you to be what you've characterized yourself to be. That is all I have to go on... and it all came from you.




Wow... Nice post.

Well. After your reply, and after re-reading my posts, you dug up the fact that I'm very bad at explaining myself. I still stand by what I said, but not in the way I made it seem like.

And for that I apologize.

I'm certainly not the way I made myself look like to be in these last posts, nor do I just follow the general group. And the "I'm sure" wasn't an effort at injecting my view into you, nor a way to make you seem like something you haven't made your self out to be, but rather an educated guess in the way lots of people behave, the majority you could say. (I'm bad at explaining this)....

You know what. Let me think about this a little more before I mess up, but I take it that by ending your post with a :D, that we're not sworn enemies, and for that, :D to you too.

[jsalzer]

Not too say that your idea isn't all right, but "God" in our common terms is just shorthand for "The Lord". A God is really any deity or supernatural/all powerful being...


Yup - like I almost said earlier - Christians should really rename their god, as we can all call our main god God. I sometimes refer to Temu as "God".

I think Stan would be a good name for Christians to use. Or they could go back to Yahweh. Or go with the more contemporary Allah, which could be a step toward world peace. :)

From the Pledge to world peace. See how simple that was. :cool:

[RacerX]

You know what. Let me think about this a little more before I mess up, but I take it that by ending your post with a :D, that we're not sworn enemies, and for that, :D to you too.Oh... no worries. I was only engaging you to make you think about my point of view on this stuff and to get a clearer view of your point of view (which I started to realize wasn't fully there yet).

I love debating issues, but I rarely let my feelings on those issues become my feelings for the person I'm discussing them with. If we all saw the world the same way, what a boring place this would be. :D

Also, if it feels like I'm picking apart every little thing, don't feel pressured to do the same. It is from years of critical reading and research, and it is a habit. I don't expect others to respond in that style, I'd rather hear honest opinions and thoughts in whatever way is most comfortable for whomever I am discussing issues with. And the criticalness is not meant as a reflection of how I feel about the person I'm having the discussion with (I'm the same way when discussing things with people I've been friends with for years).

But there is no pressure here. This isn't a test or homework... it should be an enjoyable mental exercise. I say this as it seems like you may have felt rushed to respond in the heat of the debate, and there really shouldn't be that type of pressure when thinking about these types of things.


I look forward to hearing your further thoughts on this issue... and thanks for the discussion so far. :D

[RacerX]

You forget that slaves (and Jews and Indians and the Irish...) were subhuman, and thus the golden rule could not apply to them no more than it would apply to a gnat.That is the saddest thing about people... their ability to dehumanize others.

While I still think Atheists shouldn't mind, I do understand that there are religions with no god. So I'll accept that.Maybe I can shed some light on this, at least from my point of view. Though I am classified as an Atheist, I realized long ago that my beliefs are very different from just about any other Atheist that I've met. So I'm speaking for me alone here.

First of all, my country (even with all it's little flaws and faults) is one of the most important things to me. With everything that my country does, whether it makes me proud or ashamed, I can not be pushed to divorce myself from it. We are linked, and nothing can come between that.

Second, honesty (from me) is very important. In my beliefs you are the collection of everything you've ever done. So following an ethical path is paramount to me, because if I stray... that becomes a part of me.

Now there are two issues I have with the modified Pledge of Allegiance.

First is that I can not say that pledge in it's entirety and have it stand as a true pledge because I said something that I don't believe in. And if any part of my pledge is false, then the pledge I've made is meaningless.

I can say the original Pledge of Allegiance and with clear conscience say that I would be willing to die to uphold that pledge, while the modified Pledge of Allegiance on the other hand has me stating something I don't believe.

Second is the placement of under God with in the modified Pledge of Allegiance.

We, the people of the United States, should be pledging that we are one nation, indivisible. Those words were side by side for a reason. We are a nation of people who have come from every corner of the world. We are unique in how divers we are. And yet we stand together as one nation that can not be divided... or at least we should be standing together as such.

The injection of a religious agenda into our government is actually more damaging than the injection of a corporate agenda into our government.

Now, I know that some people would argue that the corporate agenda is putting us all at risk, and I fully agree. But there is no greater risk to our nation than a religious group dividing up our people.

And even more frightening is the fact that even though those who have a corporate agenda are often corrupt, they are still open to possibilities and are willing to change as the need arises. Similarly those with a religious agenda are willing to over look corruption (and are even willing to take part in it if need be) to advance their goals, but they are unwilling to compromise those goals as they think that they are following some type of divine path.

It is the lack of compromise (and often tolerance) that makes the injection of a religious agenda so much more damaging.

And the perfect symbol of the damage that religion does to our nation is the fact that the term under God has come between our one nation and keeping it indivisible.

[leftbanke7]

While I still think Atheists shouldn't mind, I do understand that there are religions with no god. So I'll accept that.

May I ask why you feel we Atheists shouldn't mind?

This is something that has always bothered me. When I meet people and they find out that I am an atheist, it is like something comes on in their head. "Oh, hey, I bet with a little convincing, I can turn this misguided soul into another God fearing member of the flock.

I really hope you don't have the impression that I (and many other atheists) just came to the decision to become atheist because I wanted to erk a few religious folk by saying God doesn't exist. Just as members of various religions are devout and have a strong testimony and have come to this through careful thought, prayer and study, I came to my conclusion the same way. I just came up with a different answer.

And to say that we shouldn't mind having "Under God" in the pledge is asking us to pledge allegance to a country that clearly does not accept our belief system. It tells us that we have to accept that there is a God before we can truely be patriotic. It tells us that because of the lack of God in our lives, we are not true Americans.

Perhaps I'm being a little melodramatic here. I just hope to show a glimpse into our side of the issue. And I'm not here to try and convert people to the world of Atheism. I could care less what you believe. And I'm not here to knock the various churches. Hey, they all have some fault but, as a whole, they do a great service for both their members and their communities. But all I ask is that we be given the same consideration for our beliefs as you give everybody else.

[mactastic]

Inclusive of what, exactly? Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. They don't believe in a God. They believe in gods.
Oh my various gods! -Apu

Oh. Your. God. - Bender

And to say that we shouldn't mind having "Under God" in the pledge is asking us to pledge allegance to a country that clearly does not accept our belief system. It tells us that we have to accept that there is a God before we can truely be patriotic. It tells us that because of the lack of God in our lives, we are not true Americans.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists
:rolleyes:
Link'd (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm)
(BTW, this is Bush the Daddy, not the Shrub.)

[jsalzer]

May I ask why you feel we Atheists shouldn't mind?
...Oh, hey, I bet with a little convincing, I can turn this misguided soul into another God fearing member of the flock.

Oh, no, no, no. You've got me all wrong. Wipe those impressions from your mind. Remember that I'm the one who at least wants it changed to "under the gods".

My thoughts on Atheism (and, I'll face it, the front of my mind is Atheist while the back of my mind clings to Temu and that I am one of many gods) are as follows. Tell me where I'm going wrong:

Assume we have a true Atheist - let's call him Fred. Fred honestly believes that humans are the highest form of life that we have here. And we got here through physics, followed by chemistry, followed by biology.

Now, if I'm Fred, and I truly believe this (and not, as you say, just to be contradictory to the status quo), then I see people believing in God or any other god as being no different than people believing in Santa Claus. Both beliefs are similarly the childish beliefs of those who are too weak to accept that they don't have a supreme being to rely on.

And so I have a perspective from above (from an intellectual standpoint) and watch the religious around me with an interest in studying their psychology and sociology that one of them might find in studying a family of wolves. I would see myself as an archaologist ahead of his time studying the people of my time from the perspective that someone else will see them from a hundred years from now.

And, as an archaologist, why on earth would I be upset when the people I am studying follow their own culture or religion?

I'm just not seeing the argument that a true Atheist would have against that line in the Pledge. For anyone of a non-Judeo-Christian faith, including myself, I definitely see the problem, as I believe in one deity or set of deities and am being forced to praise another. But, the entire argument should be below an atheist. Any more than I am offended reading a story about Santa Claus, or watching a television show about Buffy the Vampire Slayer (who is really just a character performed by an actress).

Do you see where my mind is? Where am I going wrong in my thoughts?

Thanks for the help!

:)

[Sun Baked]

Just change "under god" to "outsourced"

[leftbanke7]

I'm just not seeing the argument that a true Atheist would have against that line in the Pledge.

Essentually, because it tells us we don't belong. "This is one nation under God, Indivisable". OK, I don't believe in God, where does this leave me? The Pledge says nothing about there being two nations; one under God and one not. I'm not a part of this indivisable mass of people who are under, and therefore believe in, God so do I not have a country? How can one be a part of something that represents something he doesn't believe in? Sure, I can pay lip service to it but that still doesn't resolve the fundamental issue of whether or not I belong.

I'm sure this all sounds jumbled and confused but it's hard to put in words this stuff.

[leftbanke7]

Oh, no, no, no. You've got me all wrong. Wipe those impressions from your mind. Remember that I'm the one who at least wants it changed to "under the gods".

That statement wasn't directed at you. Look at the location under my screen name. I think you can figure it out.

[jsalzer]

That statement wasn't directed at you. Look at the location under my screen name. I think you can figure it out.

Hehe - I actually saw that *after* my last post. I almost did another post saying, "OK, I understand, I'd be super defensive, too!" ;)

I took an online class through the University of Idaho and all of my classmates were from your area. It was very hard to have conversations with several of them.

The scariest (though it did give me a deeper understanding of their other arguments) was when I mentioned that I thought that several religions should be taught in schools (the major current religions, the local native-american religion, and from the major early civilizations). One man from Utah said that he didn't want his children having objective knowledge of other religions. He wanted to be able to taint their views that all people of other religions were evil, participated in all sorts of barbaric acts, etc.

His reason - in his belief system, his children will go to Hell if they don't believe that Jesus is the son of Godweh and that all other religions are 100% wrong (despite the fact that all religions have more in common than they have different.) And, given that he believes that, I can understand that he's following his fatherly instincts to protect his children from an eternity of torment.

I believe it was Augustus who introduced Satan and Hell to the Christian belief system. (Maybe my history's off.) You've got to admit, it's one heck of a good system for keeping the followers in line!!! It's not enough that you're a good person - you have to believe exactly what we teach you or this is what you get. Now that's a strangle hold. ;)

Thanks for the good conversation. I understand where you're coming from.

:)

[leftbanke7]

I suppose I should be fair. For the most part, the LDS community has been cool to me. Most of my best friends are returned LDS missionaries and we never have any issues. Even lived with an LDS family for a while in HS. But with the good there is the bad. Went to a dinner at a friend's house and there were some missionaries there with us. Things were fine (they had been asked not to discuss religion during the time me and some other non-LDS friends were there) until the younger of the two missionaries decided he needed to start convertin'! So he asks us about our respective religions and we answer. I was the last one he asked and when I told him that I didn't beleve in God, he asked if me and him could talk some time because he felt he could show me some things. My LDS friend jumped in and ended the conversation. The parents of one of my friends tried for a while to get me to go. He would come up to me and tell me that his folks wanted me to go to church, I'd tell him oh yeah, we'd stare and blink and each other and that was usually the end of the conversation. And it's not like I won't go to church. If a friend is having a baby blessing or some other function, I'll go to show my support, but in the process, I usually end up pissing somebody off because I'm not singing along with the hymns. Had one lady from a row behind during the middle of a hymn hand me a book with the page open for me to start singing. She wasn't much thrilled when I closed the book, set it down and returned to being respectully reverent during the rest of it.

So long story short...ummm...I don't think I had a point.

[pseudobrit]

My thoughts on Atheism ... are as follows. Tell me where I'm going wrong:

Assume we have a true Atheist - let's call him Fred. Fred honestly believes that humans are the highest form of life that we have here. And we got here through physics, followed by chemistry, followed by biology.

Now, if I'm Fred, and I truly believe this (and not, as you say, just to be contradictory to the status quo), then I see people believing in God or any other god as being no different than people believing in Santa Claus. Both beliefs are similarly the childish beliefs of those who are too weak to accept that they don't have a supreme being to rely on...

Do you see where my mind is? Where am I going wrong in my thoughts?

I'll tell you:

Your assumption that an atheist would automatically view a theist or polytheist with scorn, contempt, amusement, condescension or at least not be able to understand those who believe betrays your own lack of empathy for the atheist.

I've been an atheist.

I have more respect for atheists than I do for these evangelicals and even most of my fellow Catholics, who cling desperately to the belief systems of a child.

Atheists are at a more developed stage of their spiritual lives than are these childish little crusaders trying to shove their simplistic faith down the nation's throat.

[pseudobrit]

I would further posit that zimv20 (an atheist) and I (a Catholic) would be perfectly comfortable discussing our beliefs with empathy and understanding for the others' ideas.

And I would think such a discussion would be totally devoid of any sort of scorn or feelings of disappointment for the other (Me: oh, zim's a nice guy, it's too bad that zim's going to Hell; zim: boy, pseudobrit sure is gullible, a nice fellow but a real sucker).

[zimv20]

I would further posit that zimv20 (an atheist)
you remembered! :-)

[pseudobrit]

you remembered! :-)

I always make a mental note of people I know who are going to Hell.

[zimv20]

I always make a mental note of people I know who are going to Hell.
can i getcha anything while i'm there?

[pseudobrit]

can i getcha anything while i'm there?

Icewater.

[mactastic]

I always make a mental note of people I know who are going to Hell.
:D

I guess it's kinda hard to play hockey where the temperature is so high. I can see the need for religion in your case.

[jsalzer]

Your assumption that an atheist would automatically view a theist or polytheist with scorn, contempt, amusement, condescension or at least not be able to understand those who believe betrays your own lack of empathy for the atheist.

First off, you two are too funny! My favorite line is, "I need to head to the bathroom, can I pick you up anything while I'm there." ;)

OK - let's pull scorn, contempt, amusement, condescension, and lack of understanding off the table immediately. Not only did I say none of those things, but I don't believe a true atheist would have any of those things. I can't argue where you read between the lines.

I believe an atheist, as an intelligent and empathetic human, who was likely raised within a religion of some kind, can fully understand why someone would believe in a religion. And believe them to be no lesser than himself than anyone observing another's culture. When I talk about observing as an archaeologist (spelling optional), I do so in the same way that a Marketing student view the public. He is a member of that public and doesn't have scorn, contempt, amusement, condescension, or a lack of understanding for them. He is simply more able to take a step back and make an objective analysis of why the marketer is doing what he is doing and why the people respond how they do.

In the same way, I think of the *average* atheist as having a sharp mental abiity to stand back, observe what religious institutions do and how people respond. In no way does this imply any of the traits you added in.

I have enough trouble getting words out of my own mouth, without others putting more in there. :)

All that said, how can I have a lack of empathy for atheists when I've admitted that, deep down, I am one myself. Making a conscious effort to cling to some religious beliefs (based primarily on the Egyptian tradition), because, let's face it, I'm not that bright, not that talented, not that lucky, and really need something to cling to besides the anti-psychotics to maintain at least the appearance of sanity.

Inquiring as to the thought process behind a particular group's objection is far from an admission of non-empathy. It's a search for deeper understanding. Not only for me to understand why an atheist would have trouble with a statement of "under God" or "under the gods" or "under the Creator", but to help those are atheists to develop their own arguments.

I'm all about helping others grow. I don't care what a person's view is. I do care that he knows enough about his own and others' views as to be able to defend either side of the issue. Only then can a person truly say he has considered all sides and has come to a conclusion.

But, that's just the educator in me. I tend to play devil's advocate most of the time just to get people to open their minds. Sometimes people catch me pushing a view that is the opposite of something they've heard me push before. And I have to admit, I usually take the side of an issue that is underrepresented in the room and fight for it.

But now I'm just babbling and adding nothing to the issue at hand, so I'll shut up and wait patiently for FileMaker 8 to stop having its shipment delayed (derned iPod Nano's probably did it.)
:D :cool:

[pseudobrit]

OK - let's pull scorn, contempt, amusement, condescension, and lack of understanding off the table immediately. Not only did I say none of those things, but I don't believe a true atheist would have any of those things. I can't argue where you read between the lines.

I believe an atheist, as an intelligent and empathetic human, who was likely raised within a religion of some kind, can fully understand why someone would believe in a religion. And believe them to be no lesser than himself than anyone observing another's culture. When I talk about observing as an archaeologist (spelling optional), I do so in the same way that a Marketing student view the public. He is a member of that public and doesn't have scorn, contempt, amusement, condescension, or a lack of understanding for them. He is simply more able to take a step back and make an objective analysis of why the marketer is doing what he is doing and why the people respond how they do.

And that needn't be the case. An atheist doesn't need to be able to take a step back and observe. I dislike this generalisation. An atheist can be just as ignorant and caught up in his beliefs as the average evangelical.
Somehow this character of "atheist as outside observer" strikes me as a bit elitist.

In the same way, I think of the *average* atheist as having a sharp mental abiity to stand back, observe what religious institutions do and how people respond. In no way does this imply any of the traits you added in.

Again, I think a theist can do the same and still believe.

At the risk of sounding profound: Just because you have faith doesn't mean you can't have doubts.

[zimv20]

let us assume that the issue of whether to leave alone or remove the phrase "under god" causes mental distress to those who care one way or another.

i submit that the mental distress caused to atheists (by leaving the phrase in) is greater than the mental distress caused to christians (by removing the phrase) because the act of exclusion (only those who believe in god are patriots) is more harsh than the act of omission (pledge is recited irrespective of belief).

not sure i explained myself sufficiently, but that's the best i can do right now.

[IJ Reilly]

let us assume that the issue of whether to leave alone or remove the phrase "under god" causes mental distress to those who care one way or another.

i submit that the mental distress caused to atheists (by leaving the phrase in) is greater than the mental distress caused to christians (by removing the phrase) because the act of exclusion (only those who believe in god are patriots) is more harsh than the act of omission (pledge is recited irrespective of belief).

not sure i explained myself sufficiently, but that's the best i can do right now.

I think I get it. The words "under God" can't be removed from the Pledge because it would be politically incorrect.

[pseudobrit]

let us assume that the issue of whether to leave alone or remove the phrase "under god" causes mental distress to those who care one way or another.

i submit that the mental distress caused to atheists (by leaving the phrase in) is greater than the mental distress caused to christians (by removing the phrase) because the act of exclusion (only those who believe in god are patriots) is more harsh than the act of omission (pledge is recited irrespective of belief).

not sure i explained myself sufficiently, but that's the best i can do right now.

Imagine the mental distress caused to everyone when we all go to Hell for not saying "under God" in the pledge when we're children.

[zimv20]

I think I get it. The words "under God" can't be removed from the Pledge because it would be politically incorrect.
i didn't explain it correctly. i'm saying the hurt caused by leaving it in is greater than the hurt caused by removing it, the number of people affected aside.

lemme try this example.

"All men are created equal."

there are probably some white supremacists who are irked by that phrase. that hurt is less than the hurt caused by "fixing it" for them, by adding something explicit (and orwellian): "All men are created equal, but whites are more equal than others."

now an explicit phrase is hoisted upon everyone and hurts non-whites, just as the explicit phrase "under god" is hoisted upon everyone and hurts atheists.

[zimv20]

Imagine the mental distress caused to everyone when we all go to Hell for not saying "under God" in the pledge when we're children.
actually, i did say it, when i was a kid. because i was told to, even though, at that age, i didn't feel any connection to any kind of supreme being.

[pseudobrit]

actually, i did say it, when i was a kid.

Well I guess it turns out you're not going to Hell afterall. Saved by the pledge!

[jsalzer]

And that needn't be the case. An atheist doesn't need to be able to take a step back and observe. I dislike this generalisation. An atheist can be just as ignorant and caught up in his beliefs as the average evangelical. Somehow this character of "atheist as outside observer" strikes me as a bit elitist.

Just to go to prove that I had no intent of one side having superiority, can I say I'm confuzzled - which side strikes you as being elitist with the "atheist as an outside observer" scenerio? The atheist - as the one doing the observing. Or the religious - as the ones on the inside?

I guess the source of my confusion is that I'm generally pigeon-holed as anti-religious (as my role as devil's advocate tends to lead me there), and I feel like a simple question as to *why* atheists feel a certain way has gotten me pigeon-holed to the other extreme as a religious zealot, which is far from who I am.

All humans are observers of other humans - it is out nature. "A-theist" implies being outside of religion. Hence, an atheist is, by nature, an outside observer of religion. Nothing maliscious about that description.

And, yes, I agree that *any* human can step back and attempt to be an impartial observer. Some people are great at it. Some are terrible. Most are in between. In general, I would give a slight "edge" to atheists when it comes to being impartial on issues that span multiple religions, much in the same way that I'd be more likely to give an edge to impartiality to a judge who owns neither Apple nor Microsoft stock when it comes to anti-trust lawsuits.

And, as you say, just as any human can be impartial, any human can also be ignorant and unable to look past his own beliefs. I agree completely.

I think we agree more than we disagree but that semantics and the fact that my queries for better understanding come off as arguments are hurting us here.

That's what's so great about being a co-dependent basketcase. I never have to have my own beliefs. ;)

As someone who has been on both sides (I'm assuming from Christianity to Atheism to Christianity), I'd be interested in hearing more on your thoughts about the using the term (that you did use) "atheist beliefs" and the listing of atheism as a religion rather than a "none of the above" approach?

And, actually, I'm just now seeing that I'm very much at fault for using the phrase "both" sides, when there are obviously more than two sides. My guilty ex-catholic conscience apologizes:

a) Those who want the pledge to stay as is.
b) Those who want it changed because they believe government should not endorse a god named God over all the other gods (this would be me).
c) Those who want it changed because they believe government should not endorse religion over belief in no religion (I believe this to be you.)

I'm teaching a History of Math course in a couple of weeks (my first time with this particular course) and am truly appreciating these chats as a good way to prepare for how to teach evolution and several creation theories side by side. Thanks!!! :D

[IJ Reilly]

i didn't explain it correctly. i'm saying the hurt caused by leaving it in is greater than the hurt caused by removing it, the number of people affected aside.

lemme try this example.

"All men are created equal."

there are probably some white supremacists who are irked by that phrase. that hurt is less than the hurt caused by "fixing it" for them, by adding something explicit (and orwellian): "All men are created equal, but whites are more equal than others."

now an explicit phrase is hoisted upon everyone and hurts non-whites, just as the explicit phrase "under god" is hoisted upon everyone and hurts atheists.

I got that. But my interpretation of the defense of the "under God" clause is that removing it would cause offense to some religious people. The argument isn't legal or even practical, it's entirely emotional -- which strikes me as a perfect example of political correctness in action. OTOH, the argument against it is (whether you accept it or not), based upon Constitutional law.

[zimv20]

I feel like a simple question as to *why* atheists feel a certain way has gotten me pigeon-holed to the other extreme as a religious zealot, which is far from who I am.

All humans are observers of other humans - it is out nature. "A-theist" implies being outside of religion. Hence, an atheist is, by nature, an outside observer of religion.
this atheist arrived at my beliefs because the existence of a supreme being seems ludicrous to me. i see no evidence of such a being, am unable to see a compelling reason for one to exist, and it just strikes me as wrong.

add the blundering behavior of organized religion on top of it, and it's a real turn-off.

dunno if i would consider myself the outside observer of which you speak, but others' belief in the christian god does confound me.

[zimv20]

I got that. But my interpretation of the defense of the "under God" clause is that removing it would cause offense to some religious people. The argument isn't legal or even practical, it's entirely emotional -- which strikes me as a perfect example of political correctness in action. OTOH, the argument against it is (whether you accept it or not), based upon Constitutional law.
i see now. yes.

[pseudobrit]

And, yes, I agree that *any* human can step back and attempt to be an impartial observer. Some people are great at it. Some are terrible. Most are in between. In general, I would give a slight "edge" to atheists when it comes to being impartial on issues that span multiple religions.

I would tend to agree with this assumption if we're applying it to American culture.

As someone who has been on both sides (I'm assuming from Christianity to Atheism to Christianity), I'd be interested in hearing more on your thoughts about the using the term (that you did use) "atheist beliefs" and the listing of atheism as a religion rather than a "none of the above" approach?

When I was a child, I thought as a child. I reasoned as a child and I believed as a child. In my observations, most "Christians" in the U.S. are spiritual children.

I've heard atheism disparaged as being the belief in nothing (nihilism). It most certainly is not. Atheism is a specific term relating to the rejection of belief in a higher spirit, being or beings. It's not simply a "none of the above" because it still requires (at least) as much belief as does the most basic theistic religion.

a) Those who want the pledge to stay as is.
b) Those who want it changed because they believe government should not endorse a god named God over all the other gods (this would be me).
c) Those who want it changed because they believe government should not endorse religion over belief in no religion (I believe this to be you.)

I'm teaching a History of Math course in a couple of weeks (my first time with this particular course) and am truly appreciating these chats as a good way to prepare for how to teach evolution and several creation theories side by side. Thanks!!!

The government, including the public school system, has no business promoting or disparaging any religious beliefs, including the beliefs of atheists. As stated earier, a fair pledge to atheists would contain the phrase "under no God" instead of "under God" or "under gods".

My mother, a science teacher, refuses to teach creationism. If a student brings it up while she's going over evolution, she simply says "that's a belief that some people have" and moves on.

[jsalzer]

I don't know why this is hitting me right now (probably because I should really be working), but way back, someone talked about pledging allegiance to a flag that we give the right to burn.

My question, did the author(s) of the original Pledge mean flag as in "I pledge allegiance to this object" or a more abstract "I pledge allegiance to the symbolic representation of this government"? I've always thought of it as the latter, with flag not actually meaning the piece of cloth. Then again, "and to the republic for which it stands" would make that repetitive, wouldn't it?

I guess I'd like to see:

"I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. To its land, to its people, and to its principles. One nation, indivisible. With liberty and justice for all."

Or something that flows better but is more like that. No pledging to a god or a piece of cloth, but to the land, the people, and the principles that make a country.

Dunno. ;)

[pseudobrit]

I'll clear that last post up to get to the point:

-Atheism is the rejection of theistic faith, it is NOT simply a lack of theistic faith.

-the pro-"under God" set believe that taking the phrase out is an acknowledgement and endorsement of atheism because they don't understand that atheism is an active belief rather than a passive belief.

-Removing the phrase "under God" redresses a wrong that was done to atheists and polytheists when it was put in.

[pseudobrit]

My question, did the author(s) of the original Pledge mean flag as in "I pledge allegiance to this object" or a more abstract "I pledge allegiance to the symbolic representation of this government"?

Yes. The flag is, technically, intangible. The cloth embodiment of it is given due respect.

[jsalzer]

I've heard atheism disparaged as being the belief in nothing (nihilism). It most certainly is not. Atheism is a specific term relating to the rejection of belief in a higher spirit, being or beings. It's not simply a "none of the above" because it still requires (at least) as much belief as does the most basic theistic religion.

I can't say I completely understand the distinction. I'm seeing an "active rejection" (achieved by thoughtfully reaching the conclusion that there are no beings more supreme than humans) and a "passive rejection" (achieved by reaching the conclusion that there are no beings more supreme than humans.) Perhaps I'm too focused on starting at the conclusion (and how being at that conclusion affects one's participation in a culture of many religions) than how people got there. Hmmmmm....

To me, a "none of the above" wouldn't discount the thought I put into my belief any more than I'd feel the need to write something in the "maiden name" area to differentiate between myself (a male) and someone who has none because she is an unmarried woman. But, I understand that there may be many who would see a "none of the above" as justifying their beliefs that atheists are less thoughtful, so I can understand wanting to see it listed as a religion. :)

The government, including the public school system, has no business promoting or disparaging any religious beliefs, including the beliefs of atheists. As stated earier, a fair pledge to atheists would contain the phrase "under no God" instead of "under God" or "under gods".

I totally agree with the first part, which is why it would be nice to see the phrase removed. I wouldn't want to see "under no god", though. Though perhaps a phrase to indicate that equality goes to all people, no matter what god they claim. "One nation with all under the same human law, regardless of their religion." Though that's too wordy. Easier to drop the whole thing. ;)

My mother, a science teacher, refuses to teach creationism. If a student brings it up while she's going over evolution, she simply says "that's a belief that some people have" and moves on.

The biggest problem she's likely facing is that those pushing for the teaching of creationism are only pushing for the teaching of *Christian* creationism. In that situation, I'd be right with your mom in refusing. Though I'd rather be given permission to teach *several* creation stories.

I have no way to avoid evolution, as I need to discuss math in nature, the dispersal of humans on the planet, etc. I also have no way to avoid the various creation stories, as these play a role in the culture, and hence the math, of each of the civilizations we will be studying. So, I figure the best thing to do is to start out on the first day addressing:

a) The theory of evolution (what we think happened - creation of species).
b) The fact of evolution (what we know happens - changing characteristics within a species)
c) A blanket identification of the main characteristics of creation theories (what most cultures have in common in their stories).

My main point will be that, while I don't expect you to add any of what I teach in these areas to your belief system, you will be expected to understand them all well enough to explain them.

Should be fun!!! :cool:

[jsalzer]

Oops - sorry, bud. You explained the active versus passive philosophy while I was busy typing up my last post asking you about exactly that.

Thanks!!!!

;)

[zimv20]

I can't say I completely understand the distinction.
it's an important one.

i don't believe in god. it doesn't mean i believe in nothing. i believe that a person's two most valuable assets are themselves and those with whom they surround themselves. i believe that society should be kind, especially to those who are at a disadvantage. i believe the true mark of a person is in how they treat others, both those they know and strangers. i believe that responsibility and authority should go hand in hand. i believe that those who spend all their energy in this life planning for the next are missing the point.


I'm seeing an "active rejection" (achieved by thoughtfully reaching the conclusion that there are no beings more supreme than humans) and a "passive rejection" (achieved by reaching the conclusion that there are no beings more supreme than humans.)
i don't think it's about supremacy, maybe that's where you're being thrown off. that man is at the top of the food chain has no bearing, imo, on the existence of a supreme being.

i think a reposting of my atheist's prayer is in order:

Let us bow our heads and
Consider how infinitesimally small we are
In the context of the universe
And how we're made up of atoms and stardust
Chemicals interacting
Physics ruling those interactions
Bits of electrical impulse
At the base of our consciousness

Let us consider
How lucky we are
That we won the lottery of life
It was bound to happen somewhere

And let us remember
That all we have is each other
And how we treat others and ourselves
And that the true mark of a man or woman
Is how others remember them
Once they're gone
And all that remains of them
Is the slow process of returning
Those borrowed atoms to the universe

Amen

[jsalzer]

it's an important one.
i don't believe in god. it doesn't mean i believe in nothing.

That distinction I have a full grasp of. Someone else brought up that one. I never did have questions on that.

What I'm still attempting to grasp is the difference between actively believing there are no supreme beings and passively believing there are no supreme beings.

I see the difference in the process on an individual (those who thoughtfully consider all options and come to that conclusion versus those who just jump to that conclusion), but once a person is at that conclusion, I don't quite have a handle on active atheism versus a simple statement that "I don't believe there to be any such supreme beings." And how those differences lead to reactions about things that happen in the world around you (the Pledge, how you want to be distinguished on a form, etc.) But you guys are helping. :)

i believe that a person's two most valuable assets are themselves and those with whom they surround themselves.

Definitely. No god or order that I'd want to be associated with would have any criteria for judging a life other than "how did you treat your fellow humans." This is why Christianity lost me at a very early age. I believe I was in second grade when I got in trouble for asking a summer bible school teacher why her God would punish (kill and then send to Hell) someone who worshipped a statue if that's what he was raised to believe, so long as he was a good person and good to the others in his village. I don't remember the exact answer she gave, but that's when I said, "these adults have it wrong - I need to figure this out for myself."

i don't think it's about supremacy, maybe that's where you're being thrown off. that man is at the top of the food chain has no bearing, imo, on the existence of a supreme being.

Probably a poor choice of words on my part. It was easier to write us at the top than to write the non-existance of anyone above us. It's always easier to write a positive than a negative. I was just lazy. :)

i think a reposting of my atheist's prayer is in order:

I actually really liked something one of the characters on Babylon 5 once said. About how we are simply the universe making pieces of itself conscious to study itself. ;)

[pseudobrit]

What I'm still attempting to grasp is the difference between actively believing there are no supreme beings and passively believing there are no supreme beings.

I think you answered it for yourself. You can't passively believe in something.

People who have no faith either way are agnostic.

[Don't panic]

Jsalzer,
I enjoy your posts. I don’t have time for a long deep analysis of atheism but I’d like to throw a few snippets as food for thought:
“Fred honestly believes that humans are the highest form of life that we have here. And we got here through physics, followed by chemistry, followed by biology. “
This particular Fred does not believe that humans are the highest form of life, the pinnacle of evolution. We are A form of life, which HAPPENS to have developed selfconsciousness and larger means than most other species to observe and influence its environment. We are ‘superior’, but only from an anthropomorphic point of view.

then I see people believing in God or any other god as being no different than people believing in Santa Claus. Both beliefs are similarly the childish beliefs of those who are too weak to accept that they don't have a supreme being to rely on.
The Santa part is obviously true. Santa IS, to 4 ys old believers, a divinity. Similar in many ways to lesser ‘gods’ in old and contemporary polytheistic religions, or to saints or angels (which in christianity fill in their place).
His limit is that he was endowed with an easily disprovable story.
Modern religions have ‘evolved’ (:)) to more sophisticated belief systems: they have adapted to weed out all the elements that were obviously unsustainable and in most cases have moved or are moving from literalist interpretation of their holy texts to symbolic ones which allow for flexibility and, ultimately, survival of the religion (today’s fundamentalist’s positions, whether christian, muslim or wathever, where once mainstream).
However, kids don’t believe in santa because they are ‘weak’, but because they are told to do so by sources they trust. Religion is the same on a grander scale (with the significant difference that in many cases those who teach religion believe it to be true themselves).
In most cases, I think, an atheist position is not the result of ‘superior inner strenght’, but knowledge and logic.

to teach evolution and several creation theories side by side.
It is commendable that you want to compare different cosmogonies/mythologies, but is important that if you do that along evolution, you make clear that they are NOT alternative explanations.
Evolution is a scientific theory supported by evidence which has been refined through the years to the current model, whereas in contrast other creation myths are stories made up by people who lacked the knowledge and are NOT supported by any evidence and are NOT consistent with what we know today.
It is a very important distinction and you’d be making a great disservice to your students shouldn’t you emphasize that.
That said, I think myths should be thought in history, literature or phylosophy classes, depending on grades. Or in History of Science, if you start with the various creation stories and you move to greek naturalist phylosophers, early evolution theories and current evolution theories.

As far as the pledge, I stated already that I would just eliminate it altogether, but in alternative I present this variant:
“I pledge allegiance to the men, women and children of this world and the lands they inhabit, with equality, liberty and justice for all”

[zimv20]

kids don’t believe in santa because they are ‘weak’, but because they are told to do so by sources they trust.
and what if, when kids start asking around whether or not santa really exists, everyone quite seriously said he did. how would the belief in santa be different from the belief in a christian god?

[RacerX]

Well, this has to be one of the strangest impressions as to what an Atheist is that I have ever read... lets look at some of these statements (made by jsalzer).

Assume we have a true Atheist - let's call him Fred. Fred honestly believes that humans are the highest form of life that we have here. And we got here through physics, followed by chemistry, followed by biology.This is an odd statement in that Atheism has nothing to do with forms of life... it has to do with the lack of belief in an omnipotent consciousness responsible for the creation of everything (including itself). In other words, it is the not believing in a deity or deities.

The fact that you characterized your Atheist Fred as you did, shows that you have a hard time understanding where Atheists in general are coming from.

I, an Atheist, didn't choose not to believe. I have no choice in this matter. I can not believe what I don't believe. I have no evidence or experience that makes me believe that any form of deity exists. The best I could achieve is to pretend I believe, but that is not truly believing.

Now, if I'm Fred, and I truly believe this (and not, as you say, just to be contradictory to the status quo), then I see people believing in God or any other god as being no different than people believing in Santa Claus. Both beliefs are similarly the childish beliefs of those who are too weak to accept that they don't have a supreme being to rely on.This is odd... why would an Atheist look down on others because of their beliefs? Why would an Atheist characterize the beliefs of others as childish or weak?

I, personally, find the beliefs held by other people to be quite interesting. And in many cases, inspiring. The belief in a religion has been the catalyst for some of the most extreme achievements (both good and bad) that mankind has produced.

When channeled in an ethical way, some individuals have produced some of the most extraordinary art the world has known. I listen to masses by Mozart and Gregorian Chants... it doesn't mean I believe in God, it just means that I find them beautiful and enjoy listening to them.

There are many examples of these types of inspired works, and just because I don't believe in the same things as the artists doesn't diminish my respect for them or their beliefs.

And so I have a perspective from above (from an intellectual standpoint) and watch the religious around me with an interest in studying their psychology and sociology that one of them might find in studying a family of wolves...

And, as an archaologist, why on earth would I be upset when the people I am studying follow their own culture or religion?Again, this shows Atheists as having some form of distain for others who believe differently (based on "from above" and equating others as a "family of wolves"). This is a rather bizarre impression of Atheists.

I'm just not seeing the argument that a true Atheist would have against that line in the Pledge.Just because Atheists don't believe in a deity doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. And it doesn't mean that when reciting a pledge we wouldn't like to be making a full and honest statement.

You seem to be associating Atheism with a contempt for everything else... which, again, is rather bizarre. Are you saying that Atheists would consider the Pledge below them too?

OK - let's pull scorn, contempt, amusement, condescension, and lack of understanding off the table immediately. Not only did I say none of those things, but I don't believe a true atheist would have any of those things. I can't argue where you read between the lines.Sadly, the lines are right there (quoted in this post) and didn't require anything extra. The terms childish and weak when referring to the beliefs of others really can't be interpreted as anything else. And equating your Atheist's position as "from above" and the position of others to a "family of wolves" were your choices of words in describing the position of your true Atheist.

Maybe you can tell us how "childish", "those who are too weak", "from above" and "family of wolves" were not part of your post? There doesn't need to be any reading between the lines to find those.

And believe them to be no lesser than himself than anyone observing another's culture. When I talk about observing as an archaeologist (spelling optional)...

In the same way, I think of the *average* atheist as having a sharp mental abiity to stand back, observe what religious institutions do and how people respond. In no way does this imply any of the traits you added in.First, that is assuming that an Atheist would even care to study others... that is a big assumption!

As for traits that anyone reading your post added in, lets recall what you said Fred was thinking about people who follow different beliefs:...no different than people believing in Santa Claus. Both beliefs are similarly the childish beliefs of those who are too weak to accept that they don't have a supreme being to rely on.These are your words... nothing extra needed.

I have enough trouble getting words out of my own mouth...You can say that again!

All that said, how can I have a lack of empathy for atheists when I've admitted that, deep down, I am one myself. Making a conscious effort to cling to some religious beliefs (based primarily on the Egyptian tradition), because, let's face it, I'm not that bright, not that talented, not that lucky, and really need something to cling to besides the anti-psychotics to maintain at least the appearance of sanity.Maybe you can explain this one... being Atheist isn't (at least for me) a choice. I can't consciously decide to cling to a belief that I don't have. That would be, well, self-delusional.

If you are able to do this, then you're in a more interesting state of mind than I can relate to.

Not only for me to understand why an atheist would have trouble with a statement of "under God" or "under the gods" or "under the Creator", but to help those are atheists to develop their own arguments.What you seem to be missing is the fact that the statement "under God" is a statement which I, an Atheist, would need to recite while saying the Pledge of Allegiance in it's current form. I would be making a statement within my pledge that I didn't believe... and stating something I believe to be false while making a pledge weakens that pledge. And I personally believe that the Pledge of Allegiance should be a strong and heart felt pledge (rather than something that we recite in passing without really meaning it).

which side strikes you as being elitist with the "atheist as an outside observer" scenerio? The atheist - as the one doing the observing. Or the religious - as the ones on the inside?Characterizing the beliefs of others as childish (along with the other things you said) is what makes your Atheist Fred an elitist.

All humans are observers of other humans - it is out nature. "A-theist" implies being outside of religion. Hence, an atheist is, by nature, an outside observer of religion. Nothing maliscious about that description.The beliefs of Atheists does not predispose them to studying the beliefs of others any more than being Jewish predisposes that group to studying Christians.

It is not what makes an Atheist an Atheist. The only thing that makes someone an Atheist is the lack of belief in a deity (or deities). Any assumptions you make beyond that are meaningless when describing Atheists as a group.

...I'd be interested in hearing more on your thoughts about the using the term (that you did use) "atheist beliefs" and the listing of atheism as a religion rather than a "none of the above" approach?I, personally, wouldn't consider Atheism a belief, it is a group characterized by everyone in the group sharing a lack of belief in a deity (or deities). Beyond that I would think that you would run into as much trouble trying to push generalities on atheist beliefs as you did pushing the idea that all Atheist must be interested in observing the childish beliefs of others.

a) Those who want the pledge to stay as is.
b) Those who want it changed because they believe government should not endorse a god named God over all the other gods (this would be me).
c) Those who want it changed because they believe government should not endorse religion over belief in no religion (I believe this to be you.)I think there is a difference between the believing government should not endorse religion and the fact that people should be able to state the Pledge of Allegiance without having to recite a phrase that they do not believe in.

Probably a poor choice of words on my part. It was easier to write us at the top than to write the non-existance of anyone above us. It's always easier to write a positive than a negative. I was just lazy.I think you still miss it. Being Atheist does not preclude the possibility that there could be something above us... only that whatever that something is, if there is something, is not omnipresent or the creator of everything.


On a side note to the topic... could you explain how a course on the History of Math would have anything to do with evolution or creationism? I could teach a 3 year course on that subject and never even need to bring up either. The history of mathematics is so rich that it seems like spending any amount of time on evolution or creationism would be, well a waste of time.

[jsalzer]

Well, this has to be one of the strangest impressions as to what an Atheist is that I have ever read,

Hey, Bud. Let's slow down. No need to attack. We're on the same side of the issue at hand, but for different reasons. I am simply attempting to understand one group's reasons for choosing that side. No attacks intended from my side - and if you take any offense, I do apologize.

This is an odd statement in that Atheism has nothing to do with forms of life... it has to do with the lack of belief in an omnipotent consciousness responsible for the creation of everything (including itself). In other words, it is the not believing in a deity or deities.

I mention in my later posts that this was, indeed, a poor choice of words on my part. Saying that a $100 dollar bill is the largest bill rather than saying there are no bills greater in value than $100, etc., etc.

The fact that you characterized your Atheist Fred as you did, shows that you have a hard time understanding where Atheists in general are coming from.

As you say, they don't come from anywhere in general. They all come from different places. I can only suppose the position that *I* would take on different issues if I allow myself to start from the axiom that there are no gods. :)

This is odd... why would an Atheist look down on others because of their beliefs? Why would an Atheist characterize the beliefs of others as childish or weak?

Again - the Santa example, while having the benefit of being something we're all familiar with, does have too much other baggage. I much prefer the Marketing Student example used in later posts.

I, personally, find the beliefs held by other people to be quite interesting. And in many cases, inspiring. The belief in a religion has been the catalyst for some of the most extreme achievements (both good and bad) that mankind has produced.

Exactly! And I think you're in a great position (as an atheist) to do just that. To be able to see the positives and the negatives of how different approaches to different religions affect the lives around you. Very cool.

I listen to masses by Mozart and Gregorian Chants... it doesn't mean I believe in God, it just means that I find them beautiful and enjoy listening to them.

Salve regina! I'll take singing in Latin over singing in English any day. ;)

Again, this shows Atheists as having some form of distain for others who believe differently (based on "from above" and equating others as a "family of wolves").

I told you words get the best of me sometimes. "From above", as in "from a stepladder and with a slightly less obstructed view", not as in "from a superior place. As with the Marketing student example.

I don't remember exactly where the wolves fit in, but I remember trying to pick an animal that wouldn't conjure up "inferior". I probably ended up with "savage" in choosing wolves. I meant neither. In fact, I love wolves.

Just because Atheists don't believe in a deity doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. And it doesn't mean that when reciting a pledge we wouldn't like to be making a full and honest statement.

The first part I've always gotten. The second I'm now getting from the wonderful the posts of others - it was the original question I had posed way back when.

You seem to be associating Atheism with a contempt for everything else... which, again, is rather bizarre.

Nope. I don't see football as enjoyable and hence have no favorite football team. In no way do I see myself as having contempt for those who have various favorite football teams. You and I don't see deities as a plausible explanation for the universe and hence ascribe to no religion. It doesn't mean we haven't spent large fractions of our lives contemplating the universe or that we have contempt for those of other religions any more than my views of football imply a lack of athletic ability or a contempt for those who somehow find enjoyment from it.

Are you saying that Atheists would consider the Pledge below them too?

A pledge is an important piece of any government wishing to maintain the loyalty of its people. In this sense, no, the pledge is not below them. But, if we're discussing levels of offense, as someone earlier was attempting to do, I think the line "under God" is more offensive to those who actively believe in non-Christian religions than it is to Atheists. But, as made obvious by several posters, including yourself, I give too much credit to the "shrugging off" ability of atheists. :)

My own fault. As I said, all I have to go off of is how *I* see myself reacting to an issue when beginning from each different axiom.

Maybe you can tell us how "childish", "those who are too weak", "from above" and "family of wolves" were not part of your post? There doesn't need to be any reading between the lines to find those.

I think I hit all those either above or in previous posts. Football was also discussed in my posts, but it doesn't mean I believe the religious go around tackling people. It's difficult to come up with non-human and non-religious examples of the things we're discussing. Each example has one point. If attempting to draw other points from an example, the wrong points will be drawn.

First, that is assuming that an Atheist would even care to study others... that is a big assumption!

I know. I know. Which is why we can never talk about "all" the people in a group but only hope to hit the "average" person in the group. I may have missed the mark on the average atheist here (as I've never taken a poll), but at least I got you (as you said you are fascinated by the beliefs of others.) ;)

Maybe you can explain this one... being Atheist isn't (at least for me) a choice. I can't consciously decide to cling to a belief that I don't have. That would be, well, self-delusional. If you are able to do this, then you're in a more interesting state of mind than I can relate to.

Yup - I've spent most of my life being abused. You get really good at self delusion. (And, yes, I'm extremely dependent on others for what little esteem I have - so please be gentle with the attacks here.) ;)

If truly pressed, I'm an atheist who is fascinated with religions and how people react to and participate in them. But, having found/developed what i consider to be a palatible (sp?) religion, I can convince myself in its reality for lengths of time. (My brain cells were fried long ago, making them easy to fool.)

What you seem to be missing is the fact that the statement "under God" is a statement which I, an Atheist, would need to recite while saying the Pledge of Allegiance in it's current form. I would be making a statement within my pledge that I didn't believe... and stating something I believe to be false while making a pledge weakens that pledge.

Actually - I think I've got that now (from this statement.) I was looking at your ability to overlook a statement on a pledge as being equivalent to your ability to appreciate the beauty of a religious-based painting. But, you're right, there is a difference. If the pledge is to be an oath-like statement of truth, you're right. All the more reason that it has to go. :)

The only thing that makes someone an Atheist is the lack of belief in a deity (or deities). Any assumptions you make beyond that are meaningless when describing Atheists as a group. I, personally, wouldn't consider Atheism a belief, it is a group characterized by everyone in the group sharing a lack of belief in a deity (or deities).

We hit the "lack of belief in a deity" versus "belief in no deity" issue here. I think it's safe to say atheists disagree on how they see this.

I think you still miss it. Being Atheist does not preclude the possibility that there could be something above us... only that whatever that something is, if there is something, is not omnipresent or the creator of everything.

I did say "anyone" and not "anything". ;)

On a side note to the topic... could you explain how a course on the History of Math would have anything to do with evolution or creationism? I could teach a 3 year course on that subject and never even need to bring up either. The history of mathematics is so rich that it seems like spending any amount of time on evolution or creationism would be, well a waste of time.

Evolution - Why are oranges spherical and not cubic? Maximum volume with minimal surface area. Minimal blockage of sunlight going to the leaves. Maximum ability to roll away from the Mama tree and hence disperse the species. Do aminals have an inate number sense? Do babies have such a sense prior to acquiring language? Etc.

Creationism - there's simply no way to appreciate early civilizations' cultures without understanding why they believe they are on the earth.

But, we're straying here. My original question was why an atheist would have a stance on the issue. Several people here have made it clear that they would like a pledge to have "real" meaning and not be something simply recited and ignored. With that in mind, I understand and appreciate an atheist wanting the phrase removed - where my primary concern before was with those of other religions.

Thanks for your patience. :D

[Chip NoVaMac]

No **** gary. You're right on with that submission thing. And it makes it easier to justify some of the things we do as a country.

Take this war in Iraq. God is on our side. God bless us for fighting this fight. God this. God that. Doing god's will. God, god ****-in' god.

It becomes a nice way to slip through the cracks. We're doing god's will. We can question god, right?

I'm all for removing "under god" from the pledge, removing "In god we trust" from EVERY national document, removing ANY religious based icons from government buildings (i.e. ten commandments in front of courthouses), et. al.

I mean, really... if you're a muslim on trial, and you walk into court and see the ten c's emblazoned on the building... it'd make me think "oh. i'm royally screwed"

Futhermore, the very idea that we're doing work sanctioned by god re: occupying iraq, is preposterous! A quick cursory glance throughout the bible will illustrate this wonderfully.


I have to say this is one post of yours that I can totaly agree with. :D

The issue that seems to escaping some is that the use of "God" in our government is a relatively new things. For the Pledge, it took the Knights of Columbus almost two years to get Congress to make the change. Some forget that the author originally wanted "equality" mentioned, but since we were a racist nation in some states, that was dropped.

Times have changed. We are no longer a "majority" nation that believes in "God". We now believe in a number of different deities. Nor are we a "religious" based nation/state like Israel. Some would like it to be, but that does not make it so.

We are a nation that was based on freedom from religion ordained by the government. What we practice locally should have no bearing as we are ruled by our government.

I am sue that the Founding Fathers are shaking their heads in dismay, that we have in 200+ years co-opted their basic principles to make things fit in our view.

[RacerX]

Hey, Bud. Let's slow down. No need to attack... No attacks intended from my side - and if you take any offense, I do apologize.I wasn't offended... just curious enough to put forward honest questions/comments on what I had read. And while the questions/comments were in rapid succession (covering a number of posts in one post), it wasn't meant as an attack.

Yup - I've spent most of my life being abused. You get really good at self delusion. (And, yes, I'm extremely dependent on others for what little esteem I have - so please be gentle with the attacks here.) ;) Again, these are hard questions, and it wasn't meant to feel like an attack... I was just saying that the ability to straddle those concepts is beyond what I have experienced (or could relate to).

And none of this was intended to deflate your esteem... just to point out how some of the comments you had made had been construed (at least by me) and to request clarification on some of them.

Besides, my realization came at an early age (about 8 years old)... so I don't even have a clear recollection of what it was like when I did believe.

And as has been brought up, at that early age it is questionable if you could call it a belief (as in faith) or just trust (as in believing those you trust to tell you accurate information at that age).

Evolution - Why are oranges spherical and not cubic? Maximum volume...

Creationism - there's simply no way to appreciate early civilizations' cultures...Okay... well I guess I was just thinking of the history of pure math and where some of the concepts came from and how those that put them forward had thought of them to begin with.

I would have most likely pushed the subject towards the area of mathematics that I studied and did research in.

[jsalzer]

Okay... well I guess I was just thinking of the history of pure math and where some of the concepts came from and how those that put them forward had thought of them to begin with. I would have most likely pushed the subject towards the area of mathematics that I studied and did research in.

Thanks for the kind words. I get down pretty easily. I can sleep now. ;)

For the math - I've taken History of Math twice (once as an undergrad and once as a grad), and both took the traditional approach (the Babylonians and Egyptians were there but not important - let's start with the Greeks, let the Arabs play custodians for a while, and pick back up with Greek knowledge in Europe.)

That would be soooo much easier to teach. But, as I'm teaching teachers, rather than Math Majors, following the development of mainstream math and getting quickly to Calculus is less important than hitting how many cultures (including Maya, Inca, Indian, Chinese, and other "non-contributors") developed the basics. Hence opening their minds to other approaches that could have become mainstream had history unfolded differently. Hopefully, they'll leave being able to make the parallels between the way math developed and the way students learn it and, where appropriate, be able to explain "why" we do math the way we do, rather than falling back on "because that's the way it is."

And, of course, I spent way too much time here today when I was supposed to be studying Mayan hisotry. ;)

Thank the gods for Sunday. :D

[solvs]

Do you even know what a Deist is? Desist do believe in God, you know. Your point is nonsensical.
Well, that's already been disproved, but I still want to touch on this. I believe in God too you know. But I also believe in freedom, and that includes religious freedom. If I am free to believe in what I believe, others should have that same freedom. Also includes the freedom to not believe. I won't tell you that your post is nonsensical, mostly since insults and general rudeness are prohibited, but a belief in God does not automatically dictate a desire to force that belief on others. At least, not in a free society it doesn't. And telling someone they have to pledge to God to pledge to the country doesn't sound much like religious freedom to me.

But hey, that's just my opinion... wouldn't want to force it on you. ;)

[Don't panic]

and what if, when kids start asking around whether or not santa really exists, everyone quite seriously said he did. how would the belief in santa be different from the belief in a christian god?

it wouldn't and it isn't. It's just more easily disproved, because it relies on hard facts (the presents being delivered). but if a coalition of the willing was assembled that carried the conspiracy long and wide enough, Santa would become just as any other god: a supernatural being that does supernatural things (and a better one than most).
That is the reason that most religion evolved the reward/punishment to the 'afterlife': when one finds out it's a scam it's too late to tell anybody. As an added benefit, it doesn't necessarily implies maliciousness from the high hierarchies of the church (obviously, it doesn't exclude it either).

[zimv20]

It's just more easily disproved, because it relies on hard facts (the presents being delivered).
i suppose, once 25 december rolls around and there are no presents, that it could be explained with, "well, you were obviously bad sometime in the last year."

santa is a difficult god to please.

[jsalzer]

santa is a difficult god to please.

Careful research has indicated that there is a direct correlation between the gifts that Santa-God bestows upon his followers and the state of the economy. It displeases him, especially, when unemployment numbers are high and the cost of living increases.

And that list of his - economic indicators in a spreadsheet.

:)

[Don't panic]

Careful research has indicated that there is a direct correlation between the gifts that Santa-God bestows upon his followers and the state of the economy. It displeases him, especially, when unemployment numbers are high and the cost of living increases.

And that list of his - economic indicators in a spreadsheet.

:)

I wouldn't mind gettin my hands on that list a couple of weeks before.
probably a few good investment tips