Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by saunders45, Sep 14, 2005.
Freakin' cowboy judges piss me off.....
What is secular about the word "God?"
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
Only when it's used inside a car with steamed windows.
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?
Political forum ho!
Why do people think that "God" should be in the pledge? What justifiable argument is there for it?
From the cited article:
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..
Which,if I remember, was the ruling that was struck down by the supreme court.
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...
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.
"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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." -Adolf Hitler
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.
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.
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 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.