NationStates Jolt Archive

What I'm wondering is why "Under God" shouldn't be left in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those against it claim it is a public establishment of religion. Okay, so it's okay to force-feed athiest beliefs (big bang, evolution (both unproven theories)) to the public, but not to acknowledge religion?

How is it psychologically damaging to hear the word "God" when it's not used in a curse? God's name is used like this constantly in Hollywood, but apparently that is acceptable to the athiests. However, hear it in a non-derogatory manner, and it's instantly "harmful." Will somebody please explain this?

By the way, a recent poll showed 83% of the population is for keeping the words "Under God" in the pledge. If there's any justice, this poll will reflect that.

One World, Under Our Feet.

Keep the goddamn phrase in the pledge. The people who want it removed are oversensitive pansies. How horrible is it to offer up a little lip service to God in the pledge. I'm an atheist and I do it just fine. It doesn't automatically mean you believe in it. However, if parents want to raise their child atheistic, and don't want him/her to say the pledge because of their beliefs, that kid shouldn't be forced to. I've heard of stories of kids getting detentions because they wouldn't say the pledge because their parents told them not to. Kids shouldn't be forced to say it if they don't want to.

I honestly don't care either way.

I am a firm believer in God and don't think that talking about God promotes religion (although it does promote spirituality and I don't agree that people should be forced to be spiritual if they don't wish to be), but saying we are a nation under God sounds like it is excluding other countries being under God as well. Isn't the big bang and evolution taught as a theory in school? Maybe they coudl also teach kids the basic tenents of ALL the different religions and that they are also different theories about our existence.

I think that the entire pledge should be changed if we are to continue saying it in school to something like:

We are a free people living in a free land that stands for equality for all. We are here to make our country as great as can be. I pledge allegiance to my fellow humans to continue to make The United States a beacon of hope to the entire world that the earth can be an intelligent, peaceful and loving place.

Take it out. The over-zealous anti-communist added it in the 50s. It does not belong.

This is a phrase that should never have been added in the first place. Why not revert to the original pledge, before they changed it in the 50s?

Personally...as a Pagan...i couldn't care less one way or the other, what I hate about this whole mess was that the Father used the little girl to foster his opinions in an area he personally had a problem with...knowing the mother of the child is fundamentalist Christian AND the daughter had no problems saying the Pledge with God in it...and I'm old enough to remember reciting the original pledge.

The words "Under God" is the basic tenant of our Nation. The Declaration of Independence Recognizes God. "And of Nature's God entitles them!."

It is my opinion that the phrase, with God in it, doesn't reflect the Christian God but God in all form being the Muslem God, the Jewish God, the Christian God, All of God's form regardless of religion.

If we take out God from our nation. Be it the national motto which is on our currency or from The Pledge, we will be violating the First Amendment of our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the worship thereof." When the 9th said it was unconstitutional, Congress immediately reaffirmed it. If it is removed, the public outcry would be so great that it could split this nation into two. Those supporting God and those opposing him.

Those supporting God and those opposing him.

How does one oppose God if one sincerely believes that God does not exist?

In 1954, the words 'under god' were added to the pledge of allegiance. Prior to 1954, the pledge contained no references to god at all. Therefore, those who argue that we shouldn't be changing the pledge, because it's The Pledge, by golly, ought to be all for returning it it's original form.

The original pledge was written by ex-baptist minister & socialist Francis Bellamy. In 1924 the National Flag Conference change the wording from " I pledge allegiance to my flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America." Bellamy objected.

One suspects that if he objected to this specification of the flag, he would not have appreciated the insertion of "under god", especially since he was forced out of his ministry for being a socialist! We cannot know that for certain, as Francis Bellamy was deceased by 1954. His granddaughter however, stated that he would not have liked it at all, not only because he had been forced out of the ministry but also because in his retirement he stopped attending church at all, citing the racial bigotry he found there as the reason.

What we need to do is to return to pledge to its original form. No one should be required to recite it. Only those who choose to make the pledge seriously should say it.

It is interesting to me that most people have no issues with a 5 yr. old child pledging to uphold and support a nation when many of them cannot yet pronounce the words within that pledge and even fewer have any hope of being able to define those words! Making the pledge should be a concious decision, not something learned by rote like the ABC Song!

well said Danzig!

Let me preface this by saying I am a recent convert to Christianity, having een Agnostic for over ten years, and I practice in a UU church. I thus consider myself a Unitarian Christian.

However, the words should be removed from the Pledge, becaus, as unpopular as it may be, the law is the law, and the addition of those words, in 1954, was a direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment of the Constitution.

Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. Go to The congressional Record, for 1954, and read about the floor debates in Congress over the law which added "Under God" to our Pledge...and you will find that the INTENT of the authors of the legislation was to establish a monotheism, and force schoolchildren to pay homage to that at least once a day.

President Eisenhower, in signing the bill, even remarked such. So, there was a clear INTENT, with the legislation, to establish a monotheism, to differentiate us for "Godless Communists." As such, there is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. So, if you're going to follow the Constitution, and the law of the land, the words ought to be removed.

However, I have always recited the Pledge and omitted the words "Under God." I still do...but for different reasons now. Back then, my Agnostic/Athiest views led me to refuse to say the words "Under God." This once caused me to be suspended from school.

When a schoolchild, in a public school, is thus compelled to pay homage and lip service to God" this establishes a monotheism, and is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Nowadays, I refuse to say those words becuse...

1) I view it as a violation of the law
2) I should be able to Pledge allegiance to my country WITHOUT pledging any allegiance whatsoever to any man's God. My relationship with the Lord and Savior is a personal one between Him and me, and I don't need any man to tell me that I should offer up false piety to Him while reciting the Pledge.
3) Under the current Bush Administration, I see NOTHING resembling Godliness in this country anymore. The milk of human compassion has dried up in this country, and we seem to go against the most basic precepts of Jesus' teachings in our everyday lives in this country. Therefore, I believe everyone else who is saying "Under God" is offering up false piety, and I find that to be insulting to our Lord.
4) Public opinion should never shape the law. The law is the law. The law is in place, mostly, to protect the minority from being run roughshod over by the majority. freedom of speech, for example, is designed to protect UNPOPULAR speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

Now all that said, it really isn't that big a deal...not as much as some people are making of it...BUT, if we are to follow the law of the land, the Constitution, it ought to be removed. Whether or not it is removed, I will continue to refuse to use those words in reciting the Pledge. In fact, I'm close to refusing to recite the Pledge anymore, because I no longer feel that this country is representative of me...or of anything even resmbling Godliness. And I certainly do not believe that there is any longer any such thing as "Liberty and Justice for all!" If there were, we wouldn't be talking about writing discrimination into the Constitution, in the form of the Federal Marriage (Discrimination) Amendment.

As an aside, check out http://www.dontamend.com if that don't work, try .org, but I think it's .com

It only violates the establishment clause if the Government or a Government Institution places into effect laws or regulations which require individuals to recite the pledge or face punishment.

There are no such laws.

Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge.

The pledge is a motto, not a law. Leave my motto alone.

The obvious solution (in my mind) is to remove it from the pledge in schools, but allow teachers and students to 'opt in' the extra line if they want.

The obvious solution is for people who are offended by the pledge, or just that line, to not recite the pledge, or not recite that line.

It only violates the establishment clause if the Government or a Government Institution places into effect laws or regulations which require individuals to recite the pledge or face punishment.

There are no such laws.

Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge.

The pledge is a motto, not a law. Leave my motto alone.

First, if you really feel that way, then you ought to be for removing it. Because they mucked with the original, back in 1954. what ever happened to "leave my motto alone" then?

Second, Texas schoolchildren ARE required, by law, to recite both the Pledge...and a Pledge to the Texas flag.


"Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

Third, hate to bust your bubble, but "In God We Trust" is NOT the U.S. Motto. In fact, the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" which, when translated from Latin means "One from many," and is a reference to how many colonies came together to form one nation...hence "one from many."

by the way...the reason I know the Texas Pledge is because I live in Texas in RL....and am a product of the Texas public education system.

Graduated class of 1989, from David Crockett High School, in Austin, Texas.

Second, Texas schoolchildren ARE required, by law, to recite both the Pledge...and a Pledge to the Texas flag.


"Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

Third, hate to bust your bubble, but "In God We Trust" is NOT the U.S. Motto. In fact, the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" which, when translated from Latin means "One from many," and is a reference to how many colonies came together to form one nation...hence "one from many."

by the way...the reason I know the Texas Pledge is because I live in Texas in RL....and am a product of the Texas public education system.

Graduated class of 1989, from David Crockett High School, in Austin, Texas.

Very odd.
:?
I grew up in Lake Jackson Texas (just south of Houston) and that is the first I have ever heard of a Texas pledge. Really.
(Also a product of the Mark White/Bill Clements era public schools. Class of 86, Brazoswood High School. GO BUCS! :D)

What I'm wondering is why "Under God" shouldn't be left in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those against it claim it is a public establishment of religion. Okay, so it's okay to force-feed athiest beliefs (big bang, evolution (both unproven theories)) to the public, but not to acknowledge religion?

How is it psychologically damaging to hear the word "God" when it's not used in a curse? God's name is used like this constantly in Hollywood, but apparently that is acceptable to the athiests. However, hear it in a non-derogatory manner, and it's instantly "harmful." Will somebody please explain this?

By the way, a recent poll showed 83% of the population is for keeping the words "Under God" in the pledge. If there's any justice, this poll will reflect that.

Several reasons in no particular order:

1) The Consitution says the Goverment and it's "outreach" (ie public schools) are supposed to be Religious Neutal. (G)od is Christian. (g)od is neutal.

2) Atheism is not a a religion.

3) Big Bang and Evolution are scientific theories that people have done experiements that suggest they are valid. How do you scientifically prove the existence of God.

4) Buddists are also concerned about it's use so it is not only Atheists.

5) As to Hollywood, it is not the goverment so the Constitution does not apply.

6) Under God is not even in the Original version. Ike added it during the Cold war.

7) Something to considered: The fact Under God is in the pledge an you are saying it to a flag, constitute totem worship?

8) What is gained from it being in the Pledge? Are we not supposed to give thanks every Sunday at our local Churches/whatever?

9) I am a beliver of the Consitution as such I am for it's removal.

10) No I am not an Athiest

whew.... ;)

It only violates the establishment clause if the Government or a Government Institution places into effect laws or regulations which require individuals to recite the pledge or face punishment.

There are no such laws.

Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge.

The pledge is a motto, not a law. Leave my motto alone.

:roll:

You were slammed on this before.

It is explained why your logic is wrong and yet here you are parroting the same thing again.

Hey take your fingers out of your ears! :roll:

It only violates the establishment clause if the Government or a Government Institution places into effect laws or regulations which require individuals to recite the pledge or face punishment.

There are no such laws.

Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge.

The pledge is a motto, not a law. Leave my motto alone.

First, if you really feel that way, then you ought to be for removing it. Because they mucked with the original, back in 1954. what ever happened to "leave my motto alone" then?

Second, Texas schoolchildren ARE required, by law, to recite both the Pledge...and a Pledge to the Texas flag.


"Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

Third, hate to bust your bubble, but "In God We Trust" is NOT the U.S. Motto. In fact, the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" which, when translated from Latin means "One from many," and is a reference to how many colonies came together to form one nation...hence "one from many."

by the way...the reason I know the Texas Pledge is because I live in Texas in RL....and am a product of the Texas public education system.

Graduated class of 1989, from David Crockett High School, in Austin, Texas.
Did I say it was the national motto? I said it was a motto. A motto, meaning, a phrase used inconsequentially.

25.082. SCHOOL[0] DAY; PLEDGES[0] OF ALLEGIANCE; MINUTE OF
SILENCE. (a) A school[0] day shall be at least seven hours each day,
including intermissions and recesses.
(b) The board of trustees of each school[0] district shall
require students, once during each school[0] day at each school[0] in the
district, to recite:
(1) the pledge[0] of allegiance to the United States flag[0]
You're referring to this? Easily changed not to require the United States pledge to be recited. Also, this law is a state law, and so is not the fault of the Federal Government, who you people seem to blame for this whole mess.

This is also the only law on the books, anywhere, that says students are required to say the pledge. It does not contain any punishments leveled against students who do not recite the pledge.

But, I guess you also missed this part of the code:
(c) On written request from a student's parent or guardian,
a school[0] district shall excuse the student from reciting a pledge[0] of
allegiance under Subsection (b).
Don't like it? Send a note.

The words "Under God" is the basic tenant of our Nation. The Declaration of Independence Recognizes God. "And of Nature's God entitles them!."

A common claim on the Religous Right. However, if you look at the Dec, the references are:

"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 with certain unalienable Rights"

That is the only references to a god or a creator.

They are rather generic for it to be a claim of the Christian God. In fact laws of nature and nature's god sounds almost pagan! ;)


It is my opinion that the phrase, with God in it, doesn't reflect the Christian God but God in all form being the Muslem God, the Jewish God, the Christian God, All of God's form regardless of religion.


Actually (G)od is Christian. If it was supposed to be neutral then (g)od would have been used.

Besides Muslims say Allah and I belive the Jews say Jehovah(I am not sure on this).


If we take out God from our nation. Be it the national motto which is on our currency or from The Pledge, we will be violating the First Amendment of our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the worship thereof." When the 9th said it was unconstitutional, Congress immediately reaffirmed it. If it is removed, the public outcry would be so great that it could split this nation into two. Those supporting God and those opposing him.

Removing Under God from the pledge does not take God out of the country. You can still worship can't you?

The motto does not reference God. It translates to "One from many" A reference to the colonies.

IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE! God was at the very essence of this nation's beginning. Those that argue that these words is a sanctioning of God by the Government is IDIOTIC!

Belamy was also a SOCIALIST!

I do know the full text Black Forrest. YOu don't have to quote them to me. Those words were included because the founding fathers realized how important GOD IS TO NATIONS! If God is removed, our nation will crumble. Besides we really shouldn't be worried about this anyway because not only is the 9th the most LIBERAL COURT in the US, it is also the most OVERTURNED!

Third, hate to bust your bubble, but "In God We Trust" is NOT the U.S. Motto. In fact, the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" which, when translated from Latin means "One from many," and is a reference to how many colonies came together to form one nation...hence "one from many."


Well, hate to burst your bubble, but "In God We Trust" IS A motto of the United States, but technically, so is "E Pluribus Unum."

"On July 30, 1956 a law was passed stating that "the national motto of the United States is hereby declared to be 'In God we trust'." (70 Stat. 732. 36 U.S. Code 186) The House Judiciary Committee recognized that the phrase E Pluribus Unum had also received wide usage in the United States, and the joint resolution did not repeal or prohibit its use as a national motto. In 1963 the Department of State took the following position: "'In God we trust'" is the motto of the United States. It seems to the Department, nevertheless, that there is ample basis both in history and I law for calling 'E Pluribus Unum' a motto of the United States." The Congress has used both."
(Source: http://www.usscouts.org/flag/sealmotto.html )

And in case anyone dislikes the Scouts,
"A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States"
(Source: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html )

So, since a second motto was recognized without the first being repealed, both may be interpretted to be correct.

"One nation... under nothing in particular..."

What? It's under about 600 miles of atmosphere!

GAHHH!!!

(Proceeds to run around in erratic circles whilst babbling loudly until he explodes. Pulls a Terminator two and steps out of the room, all eyes giving him the old "the funny farm will be getting many calls this night..." look)

Hello I am the UN delegate for the region of ALF we the people of ALF would like to invite you to our nation so please take a look and stop on in and make yourself at home.



Ironsides24 of North Alantis

Those against it claim it is a public establishment of religion.

wasn't it put in in the 50's to prove that america wasn't a bunch of atheistis communists?

Okay, so it's okay to force-feed athiest beliefs (big bang, evolution (both unproven theories)) to the public, but not to acknowledge religion?

evolution and the big bang are not atheistic theories. they do nto exclude the need for god. also, they are theories, presented as possibilities for what may have happened. the bible presents itself as fact.

Hello I am the UN delegate for the region of ALF we the people of ALF would like to invite you to our nation so please take a look and stop on in and make yourself at home.



Ironsides24 of North Alantis

way to just disregard the posting topic to be an attention whore, champ. post it in a separate thread.

and on the issue of the "under god" thing: yes, it was done in 1956 and so is technically correct. however, it wasn't really meant to override the other, i don't think: it was more like a "we're better than those 'russian commie bastards' and god will back our country up in the cold war, suckers!" type thing.

*shakes head* Why does everything always have to be a battle?

The whole situation could be resolved easily and everyone would be happy, and all it would take is a pair of these- (). Put 'Under God' in brackets. Those who want to say it say it, those that don't don't.

IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE! God was at the very essence of this nation's beginning. Those that argue that these words is a sanctioning of God by the Government is IDIOTIC!

Belamy was also a SOCIALIST!

I do know the full text Black Forrest. YOu don't have to quote them to me. Those words were included because the founding fathers realized how important GOD IS TO NATIONS! If God is removed, our nation will crumble. Besides we really shouldn't be worried about this anyway because not only is the 9th the most LIBERAL COURT in the US, it is also the most OVERTURNED!

Our nation will not crumble. Thomas Jefferson himself was a Deist.

If God is removed, our nation will crumble.

because not like it's already crumbling or anything..

Those against it claim it is a public establishment of religion.

wasn't it put in in the 50's to prove that america wasn't a bunch of atheistis communists?

Okay, so it's okay to force-feed athiest beliefs (big bang, evolution (both unproven theories)) to the public, but not to acknowledge religion?

evolution and the big bang are not atheistic theories. they do nto exclude the need for god. also, they are theories, presented as possibilities for what may have happened. the bible presents itself as fact.

A theory in science is different than a theory in law. In law, a theory is the equivalent of an educated guess. In science, a theory is something that has been supported by evidence and is generally accepted as fact.
The bible has no evidence to support it other than it says that it's true...
By the way, I myself am a Christian, but I don't think my pagan and buddhist friends should have to swear their allegiance to my God. Why don't we just say the original pledge?

Due to my beliefs as a Baptist Christian I firmly want the "Under God" to stay in the Pledge of Alliegence to the United States of America.

However, claiming myself as Open-Minded, I still wouldn't go with some Athiests belief on this subject for the grounds that IT DOES NOT force someone to believe in a Supreme Being, or God.

So, Beliefs and Non-Beliefs win out. There is no objection to the fact that someone dislikes it, no. They have a right to not like it, and CAN just not recite the pledge. Those who want to can, those who do not want to, do not have to.

Besides, no offense, but by what I am seeing, Athiests are trying to grab control of America too quickly. Sure America will fall soon, thats when Iseral becomes THE Super Power and can defend herself without the aid of America, at least thats what I hypothesis so far, may change but the fact that America will fall is relevent. It will be those who take God out of everything that will cause the United States to fall from the World Scene, thus it is irrelevent even if this case wins.

What is revelent, however, is the fact on how much time is from here to the US falling from World Super Power. Lord God willing, Athiests will be given a lesson, as with all who deny Lord Jesus Christ and Lord God Almighty. The Jewish belief does not count since they are Lord God's chosen people, and either way even if they view Lord Jesus or not it doesn't matter, God chose them.

Anywho, thats my view of the world mixed with Beliefs that are Facts, i.e. the existance of God Almighty and Lord Jesus Christ/America Falling from Power, and so on, and all that.

May Lord God Almighty, the Creator, and Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior, Bless you all. :D

If God is removed, our nation will crumble.

because not like it's already crumbling or anything..

thanks for misquoting me, there, guy.

thanks for telling me god's going to punish me for not acknowledging him, and then asking him to bless me.

it's like the "i beat you because i love you!" argument abusive parents use.

ah, contradictions. contradictions and religion are so inextricably mixed.

its fairly simple: School is for learning, church is for religion. You get both is you want and no one should complain.

If God is removed, our nation will crumble.

because not like it's already crumbling or anything..

thanks for misquoting me, there, guy.

didn't misquote. you said it.

and i'm not a guy. thanks for making assumptions-they make an ass out of you, you know.

thanks for telling me god's going to punish me for not acknowledging him, and then asking him to bless me.

it's like the "i beat you because i love you!" argument abusive parents use.

ah, contradictions. contradictions and religion are so inextricably mixed.

Let's see, I should Love thy Neighbor, intern I care for my Neigbor, thus I warn you what will come of your foolishness. Anywho....

thanks for telling me god's going to punish me for not acknowledging him, and then asking him to bless me.

it's like the "i beat you because i love you!" argument abusive parents use.

ah, contradictions. contradictions and religion are so inextricably mixed.

Let's see, I should Love thy Neighbor, intern I care for my Neigbor, thus I warn you what will come of your foolishness. Anywho....

thanks for preaching. consider the warning ignored, because i should have the freedom to make my own choices, damnit.

I don't say the pledge, but only because I don't want to swaer allegiance to this country. My two cents. =) -scurries away-

Due to my beliefs as a Baptist Christian I firmly want the "Under God" to stay in the Pledge of Alliegence to the United States of America.

However, claiming myself as Open-Minded, I still wouldn't go with some Athiests belief on this subject for the grounds that IT DOES NOT force someone to believe in a Supreme Being, or God.

So, Beliefs and Non-Beliefs win out. There is no objection to the fact that someone dislikes it, no. They have a right to not like it, and CAN just not recite the pledge. Those who want to can, those who do not want to, do not have to.

Besides, no offense, but by what I am seeing, Athiests are trying to grab control of America too quickly. Sure America will fall soon, thats when Iseral becomes THE Super Power and can defend herself without the aid of America, at least thats what I hypothesis so far, may change but the fact that America will fall is relevent. It will be those who take God out of everything that will cause the United States to fall from the World Scene, thus it is irrelevent even if this case wins.

What is revelent, however, is the fact on how much time is from here to the US falling from World Super Power. Lord God willing, Athiests will be given a lesson, as with all who deny Lord Jesus Christ and Lord God Almighty. The Jewish belief does not count since they are Lord God's chosen people, and either way even if they view Lord Jesus or not it doesn't matter, God chose them.

Anywho, thats my view of the world mixed with Beliefs that are Facts, i.e. the existance of God Almighty and Lord Jesus Christ/America Falling from Power, and so on, and all that.

May Lord God Almighty, the Creator, and Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior, Bless you all. :D

You seem to be saying somehow that God favors the US? How arrogant.
All world powers fade after a while. Rome did. France did. Great Britain did, Russia did.
You also seem to be saying that God doesn't like anyone who isn't jewish or a baptist christian, which I also find highly arrogant.
I don't think that closing the pores in the seperation between church and state will cause America's downfall... it seems somewhat unlikely to me.

I don't say the pledge, but only because I don't want to swaer allegiance to this country. My two cents. =) -scurries away-

Now thats use of Freedom of Speech, thanks for being Expresive! :D

If God is removed, our nation will crumble.

because not like it's already crumbling or anything..

thanks for misquoting me, there, guy.

didn't misquote. you said it.

and i'm not a guy. thanks for making assumptions-they make an ass out of you, you know.

I call everyone guy. I specifically said "If God is removed, our nation will NOT crumble" in response to someone who said the opposite.

anyway, back on track.

i just don't say the pledge because i don't feel any special bonds with the country.

Yeah, that's about how you could sum up my feelings too.

Due to my beliefs as a Baptist Christian I firmly want the "Under God" to stay in the Pledge of Alliegence to the United States of America.

However, claiming myself as Open-Minded, I still wouldn't go with some Athiests belief on this subject for the grounds that IT DOES NOT force someone to believe in a Supreme Being, or God.

So, Beliefs and Non-Beliefs win out. There is no objection to the fact that someone dislikes it, no. They have a right to not like it, and CAN just not recite the pledge. Those who want to can, those who do not want to, do not have to.

Besides, no offense, but by what I am seeing, Athiests are trying to grab control of America too quickly. Sure America will fall soon, thats when Iseral becomes THE Super Power and can defend herself without the aid of America, at least thats what I hypothesis so far, may change but the fact that America will fall is relevent. It will be those who take God out of everything that will cause the United States to fall from the World Scene, thus it is irrelevent even if this case wins.

What is revelent, however, is the fact on how much time is from here to the US falling from World Super Power. Lord God willing, Athiests will be given a lesson, as with all who deny Lord Jesus Christ and Lord God Almighty. The Jewish belief does not count since they are Lord God's chosen people, and either way even if they view Lord Jesus or not it doesn't matter, God chose them.

Anywho, thats my view of the world mixed with Beliefs that are Facts, i.e. the existance of God Almighty and Lord Jesus Christ/America Falling from Power, and so on, and all that.

May Lord God Almighty, the Creator, and Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior, Bless you all. :D

You seem to be saying somehow that God favors the US? How arrogant.
All world powers fade after a while. Rome did. France did. Great Britain did, Russia did.
You also seem to be saying that God doesn't like anyone who isn't jewish or a baptist christian, which I also find highly arrogant.
I don't think that closing the pores in the seperation between church and state will cause America's downfall... it seems somewhat unlikely to me.

Um, no, there is one Christianity, all can be apart of it, meaning all Religions that Believe in Lord Jesus Christ is in the catagory called Christianity. I said I'm a Baptist Christian because I go to a Baptist Church.

Now, be gone, I wish not to blabber vulger words at your degrading material.

I say leave it in, but hey - I never say the pledge anyway, as last time as started citing the pledge in school the entire male half of the class shouted "SHUT UP YOU DIRTY ####ING GERMAN!" at me.

It's really not a very important issue. Still, buddhists shouldn't have to acknowledge a god they don't believe in.

Oh, and By The Way, the only Nation that I see Lord God Almighty favoring is Isreal, or however you spell it.

Due to my beliefs as a Baptist Christian I firmly want the "Under God" to stay in the Pledge of Alliegence to the United States of America.

However, claiming myself as Open-Minded, I still wouldn't go with some Athiests belief on this subject for the grounds that IT DOES NOT force someone to believe in a Supreme Being, or God.

So, Beliefs and Non-Beliefs win out. There is no objection to the fact that someone dislikes it, no. They have a right to not like it, and CAN just not recite the pledge. Those who want to can, those who do not want to, do not have to.

Besides, no offense, but by what I am seeing, Athiests are trying to grab control of America too quickly. Sure America will fall soon, thats when Iseral becomes THE Super Power and can defend herself without the aid of America, at least thats what I hypothesis so far, may change but the fact that America will fall is relevent. It will be those who take God out of everything that will cause the United States to fall from the World Scene, thus it is irrelevent even if this case wins.

What is revelent, however, is the fact on how much time is from here to the US falling from World Super Power. Lord God willing, Athiests will be given a lesson, as with all who deny Lord Jesus Christ and Lord God Almighty. The Jewish belief does not count since they are Lord God's chosen people, and either way even if they view Lord Jesus or not it doesn't matter, God chose them.

Anywho, thats my view of the world mixed with Beliefs that are Facts, i.e. the existance of God Almighty and Lord Jesus Christ/America Falling from Power, and so on, and all that.

May Lord God Almighty, the Creator, and Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior, Bless you all. :D

You seem to be saying somehow that God favors the US? How arrogant.
All world powers fade after a while. Rome did. France did. Great Britain did, Russia did.
You also seem to be saying that God doesn't like anyone who isn't jewish or a baptist christian, which I also find highly arrogant.
I don't think that closing the pores in the seperation between church and state will cause America's downfall... it seems somewhat unlikely to me.

Um, no, there is one Christianity, all can be apart of it, meaning all Religions that Believe in Lord Jesus Christ is in the catagory called Christianity. I said I'm a Baptist Christian because I go to a Baptist Church.

Now, be gone, I wish not to blabber vulger words at your degrading material.

So in your opinion, everyone who is not either jewish or christian is disliked by God? That's odd.... I always thought that God loved everyone...

It's really not a very important issue. Still, buddhists shouldn't have to acknowledge a god they don't believe in. well it's a good thing that saying the pledge isn't compulsory.

It's really not a very important issue. Still, buddhists shouldn't have to acknowledge a god they don't believe in. well it's a good thing that saying the pledge isn't compulsory.

No, it's one of those "optional, but really actually mandatory" things.

It's really not a very important issue. Still, buddhists shouldn't have to acknowledge a god they don't believe in. well it's a good thing that saying the pledge isn't compulsory.

No, it's one of those "optional, but really actually mandatory" things. I never feel the need to say it...and I'm not that much of a free spirit. It's just something you do or don't do, and no one cares.

It's really not a very important issue. Still, buddhists shouldn't have to acknowledge a god they don't believe in. well it's a good thing that saying the pledge isn't compulsory.

No, it's one of those "optional, but really actually mandatory" things. I never feel the need to say it...and I'm not that much of a free spirit. It's just something you do or don't do, and no one cares.

I don't know about that... seems people always seemed to think you were doing something vulgar in public or something if you didn't say it, in my experience that is.

I don't know about that... seems people always seemed to think you were doing something vulgar in public or something if you didn't say it, in my experience that is. I'm sorry you've had that experience, but don't base all of your opinions off of that. Ask around...

I pledge alligience to the flag,
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under our guidance,
indivisable,
with liberty and justice for all.



*waves American flags and passes them out to everyone*

woot! now can we put this aside?

Well, I don't think this debate is really going to go much further, so I'm leaving for now, maybe I'll check back later, but I really don't see the point, as some of the people (cough cough Kernlandia cough cough) who are supposedly arguing on the same side as me have taken to misquoting me and then attacking me instead. Oh well.

Christianity has got to be the most pathetic religion in the world. It has never been able to last for long without being bailed out by the government. Every year, millions of tax dollars are handed over to Christian churches. Even with the monetary handouts, Christianity still can't maintain its membership without public schools encouraging students to join. The reason why Christians are so determined to maintain the "under God" part of the pledge and the public funding for their churches is because without the government's help with funding and recruiting, more people will realize how rediculous and stupid Christianity is. No other religion is like this. Every other religion has been able to survive on its own funding and its own recruiting. Christianity should be called the welfare religion. I think the words "under God" should be taken out of the pledge and the ten commandments kept out of the public school classrooms because then millions of impressionable children will no longer be tricked into believing the biblical bullshit the government keeps throwing at us.

edit: I hope the Christians prove me wrong instead of continuing to rely on the government

thanks for telling me god's going to punish me for not acknowledging him, and then asking him to bless me.

it's like the "i beat you because i love you!" argument abusive parents use.

ah, contradictions. contradictions and religion are so inextricably mixed.

Let's see, I should Love thy Neighbor, intern I care for my Neigbor, thus I warn you what will come of your foolishness. Anywho....

thanks for preaching. consider the warning ignored, because i should have the freedom to make my own choices, damnit.

Not until the UN resolution passes :)

*is an athiest*

You know what?

Ive got better things to wory about than a stupid little morning ritual that doesnt mean anything to most people anyway.

It wasnt there before McCarthyism....why should it be there now?

IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE! God was at the very essence of this nation's beginning. Those that argue that these words is a sanctioning of God by the Government is IDIOTIC!

Belamy was also a SOCIALIST!

I do know the full text Black Forrest. YOu don't have to quote them to me. Those words were included because the founding fathers realized how important GOD IS TO NATIONS! If God is removed, our nation will crumble. Besides we really shouldn't be worried about this anyway because not only is the 9th the most LIBERAL COURT in the US, it is also the most OVERTURNED!

Well, since you have such a problem with Bellamy...one wonders WHY you don't want to throw the whole Pledge out...and just stand under the flag every day, with your hand over your heart and say your Pledge...

Bellamy wrote every word in the current version of the Pledge, except for "Under God" and the fact that he wrote "...pledge allegiance to MY FLAG" instead of "...pledge allegiance, to THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

So...here should be your Pledge...
Face the flag like a dumb chimp...put your hand over your heart...stare at the flag, and repeat after me..."the flag of the United States of America, under God....the flag of the United States of America, under God...the flag of the United States, under God..." Because those are the only words in the current version of the Pledge NOT written by that "evil, horrible SOCIALIST," Bellamy! :roll:

well it's a good thing that saying the pledge isn't compulsory.

No, it's one of those "optional, but really actually mandatory" things.

hell, when i was in high school (in the suburbs of chicago, no less) they tried to tell me that it actually was mandatory. poor bastards went up against the wrong guy - the dean learned the hard way that he really shouldn't fuck with the activist kid who can cite supreme court cases.

The words 'Under God' are more of a spiritual thing than anything else. This entire issue is based upon the interpretation that to have any reference to religion (God/god) in or by the government is unconstitutional. This is quite a stretch. This nation was founded on religious freedom and tolerance.

The original colonizers came here from various parts of Europe to escape religious persecution. One of the most basic tenets of the government of the United States of America is to allow religious freedoms and is strictly forbidden to establish a 'State' religion which all must adhere to. The government is chartered to recognize religion as part of the freedoms enjoyed by its citizens and as such there should be no question that religion/spirituality is irrevocably entwined within the fabric of the nation. To remove such inferences and direct references from government is to go against the basics of the nation’s foundation.

I am not a deeply religious person nor do I belong to any organized church or sect. My beliefs are exactly that. I believe that people can only make such choices by being exposed to a wide spectrum of information, life experiences, and a desire to look around themselves.

I think that people that do not believe in a God/god or some form of higher power have the right to do so. I would do nothing to take that right away from them. They, and other minority special interest groups, seem to believe that they have the right to impose their will and beliefs upon others that do not share their views. Having references to God associated with the government was not put in place solely to challenge the position of non-believers or force them into recognizing a higher being. If that were the case it would be unconstitutional. Conversely, removing such references would since it denies religious freedom of expression.

I believe the pledge should be left as it is, I believe that it should be recited in school, I believe that each class day should begin with a short reading about our formation as a nation and the people and ideals they sought to preserve. Children should know why they are pledging allegiance.

If religion is to be removed from the government, stricken from all coins and paper currency, chiseled off of government building and removed from all government properties...... who is going to walk through the national cemeteries and remove the crosses, star of David, and other such markers from the gravesites of those who died for this country. The unfortunate aspect is that there would be some who would do just that and do it gleefully.

*shakes head* Why does everything always have to be a battle?

The whole situation could be resolved easily and everyone would be happy, and all it would take is a pair of these- (). Put 'Under God' in brackets. Those who want to say it say it, those that don't don't.

Becuase that would not satisfy the zealots who want to FORCE everyone else to pay homage to THEIR God. And this is a very polarized, and politicized country. Sometimes, I remain surprised that follks in this country of different political ideologies do not resort to violence against the other side.

I can tell you, more than once, I have overridden a very strong desire to reach for the nearest conservocreep, and grab their neck, and see how far I could twist the little twerp's head before somethig inside cracked!

And I bet there are conservocreeps who feel the same way about Libs like me.

Fact is, we drive each other literally nuts....

It's really not a very important issue. Still, buddhists shouldn't have to acknowledge a god they don't believe in. well it's a good thing that saying the pledge isn't compulsory.

No, it's one of those "optional, but really actually mandatory" things.

Problem there.

In 1943, the Supreme Court Ruled(I can name the case later) that the system can not make students recite the pledge if they don't want to.

I don't think my pagan and buddhist friends should have to swear their allegiance to my God. Why don't we just say the original pledge?

Right ON!!! Another TRUE Christian...not a freaking zealot!! Wish there were more of us TRUE Christians out there!!

If religion is to be removed from the government, stricken from all coins and paper currency, chiseled off of government building and removed from all government properties...... who is going to walk through the national cemeteries and remove the crosses, star of David, and other such markers from the gravesites of those who died for this country. The unfortunate aspect is that there would be some who would do just that and do it gleefully.

You were going well until that part. Sorry but that is nothing more then the sky is falling arguments. The people that would do that already do that. They are called vandals.

I am guessing the star of David comment is to reference Nazi actions in their early days.

The problem is that nobody is stoping people from worshiping.

Besides, no offense, but by what I am seeing, Athiests are trying to grab control of America too quickly.

Well...no offense here, but what I am seeing is that the fundamentalist yahoo whackos are trying to grab control of America too quickly!!

I dont believe the olege should be compulsory at all with or without that particular line because essentially kids are peldging to fight to the death for their country in times of war without even knowing it.

No, it's one of those "optional, but really actually mandatory" things.

Problem there.

In 1943, the Supreme Court Ruled(I can name the case later) that the system can not make students recite the pledge if they don't want to.

of course, the court has also held that things that are officially organized in a school environment are coercive - even if they are said to be 'voluntary'.

It's really not a very important issue. Still, buddhists shouldn't have to acknowledge a god they don't believe in. well it's a good thing that saying the pledge isn't compulsory.
It is if you are a public school child in Texas!

I pledge alligience to the flag,
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under our guidance,
indivisable,
with liberty and justice for all.



*waves American flags and passes them out to everyone*

woot! now can we put this aside?

No. Not until we really DO get "liberty and justice for ALL!!!"

How about "with Liberty, and justice for all those who can afford it."

the pledge isnt compulsory when youre in school. But are you ever told that? no. And even if you were it wouldnt matter because when youre that young you dont even know what the words mean.

Well 'The Black Forrest', you may be right about that last bit. It is late and I was getting out of sync. And the Star of David comment had nothing to do with the Nazi activities. It was simply ment to point out that the markers represent a myriad of religions, something that this nation supports.

I have had the honor to serve with people of various religious beliefs and backgrounds and a few that claimed to have none. I have seen a few lose their religious beliefs over circumstances and situations and even one who found beliefs he once denied having. It all comes down to what you as an individual value based on training, familiarity or extrodinary circumstance.

Guess that is what makes this land such a worthwhile place.

the pledge isnt compulsory when youre in school. But are you ever told that? no. And even if you were it wouldnt matter because when youre that young you dont even know what the words mean.

which is exactly why prayer that is led by anyone in a school environment is unconstitutional, even if it is 'voluntary'. and why the 'under god' bit fails - beyond its blatant failure of the lemon test.

They, and other minority special interest groups, seem to believe that they have the right to impose their will and beliefs upon others that do not share their views. Having references to God associated with the government was not put in place solely to challenge the position of non-believers or force them into recognizing a higher being. If that were the case it would be unconstitutional. Conversely, removing such references would since it denies religious freedom of expression.

...

If religion is to be removed from the government, stricken from all coins and paper currency, chiseled off of government building and removed from all government properties...... who is going to walk through the national cemeteries and remove the crosses, star of David, and other such markers from the gravesites of those who died for this country. The unfortunate aspect is that there would be some who would do just that and do it gleefully.removing "under God" from the pledge doesn't impose a belief on anyone. It stops the government from imposing beliefs on people. When those words were added to the pledge, it actually WAS done to challenge the position of non-believers because of a stereotype linking atheism to support for the Soviet Union. The legislators and president who added the two words were pretty clear about that. Meanwhile, removing the words does not mean denying religious freedom of expression because refusing to support something does not mean opposing it.

...

I'll let the Snopes people deal with your other claim.
"Gravestones in public cemeteries are not deemed to constitute a government endorsement of religion because they individually represent the private religious beliefs of the persons buried there..." http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp

the pledge isnt compulsory when youre in school. But are you ever told that? no. And even if you were it wouldnt matter because when youre that young you dont even know what the words mean.

There are plenty of ADULTS who don't know what the words mean. Otherwise, how would you explain the basic fact that there really ISN'T "liberty and justice for ALL"

i'm going to start out by saying a few things:

first off, i'm new here, so make me feel either welcome or hated at your discretion. second off, i am a young (19) Independant who favors Libertarian styles of governance. third off, i am an ordained pagan priest in the state of pennsylvania, so if anything i say is religiously ambiguous, then that should clear it up. also, i am a linguist, so i can and will pick apart any and all semantics and syntax.

next, time to rehash previous statements about the "under God" in the pledge, and give my opinion on each of them.

1) violates Establishment Clause

yes, it in fact does violate the Establishment Clause. the "under God" was added to the pledge, as noted before. it is not part of the original document. also, the term God with the capitol regers specifically to the Christian God. all pagan gods are refered to with a lower case, Buddhists don't believe in a true persona of the higher power, Jews refer to their god in writing as "G-d" (saying Jehova is actually forbidden), Zorastrians call him Ahura Mazda, Muslims Allah, Hindus have several gods, etc. the generic term for "all gods, any god, every god" is with a lowercase "g". specifically citing the term with a capitol "G" does in fact sanction the Christian faith, as they are the only religion that uses that term.

2) saying the pledge is not compulsory.

in some states, yes, it is very compulsory. i grew up in southern virginia, went to school in southern virginia, and left there as quickly as i could. when i was in high school, the state passed two notable laws: one calling for a "mandatory moment of silence to use for prayer and spiritual reflection", and the other calling for recitation of the Pledge during first period. i was given detention for refusing to pray or reflect during the moment of silence once, and another time i was nearly suspended for making a barely audible prayer to a pagan goddess. during the Pledge, i was once given detention for refusing to recite it, and a second time given detention for removing "under God" from it in my forced recitation of it. the principal told me that i was "corrupting traditional american values" and likened my actions to treason. if that's not compulsory, then i don't know what is.

3) the founding of this nation is based on God.

actually, the founding of this nation is based on people wanting to get away from other people's gods. if you have to bring God into the founding of our country, then at least give him the role he actually played. people came to this country because in their own countries they were banned from practicing their religion and forced to recite prayers and pledges that cited the gods of other religions. even this isn't entirely true: some of them (like the Puritans) were actually kicked out of their countries. if everyone who didn't want to say "under God" decided to do that again, then we could probably found ourselves a nice, self-sufficient nation of our own.

4) atheists are trying to take control of the country.

nope, not true. atheists are trying to get the government to acknowledge that certain religious references might be offensive. not only atheists are offended by statements as found in the pledge, many people of other religions are offended as well. it's just that the athiests don't have that whole "turn the other cheek" or "let others live in their own stupidty" thing that many religions teach to stop them from complaining about it.

5) Those words were included because the founding fathers realized how important GOD IS TO NATIONS! If God is removed, our nation will crumble.

God has already been removed. the Christians killed God by preaching that everyone should love and tolerate everyone, that all people are the same under the eye of God, then going and making things like the KKK (A Baptist organization to which my step-father belongs), killing people because they are gay, spawning morons like Rev. Phelps (who wanted to protest the congressional commendation of Mr. Rogers), et al. if a nation will crumble without God, then our nation should already be dead, because there is no God here for the most part. just a sad bunch of people who use biblical references to justify their own misdeeds. Christians were the ones who argued for slavery. Christians are now arguing against gay marriage. it was Christians in Tennesee that tried to illegalize homosexuality in a county there. people of all faiths and creeds can be hateful, but for some reason, the Christians seem to be the ones that are the loudest about it. sure there are some good Christians, i don't deny that. but those loudmouthed bigots who discriminated, abuse, and beat in the name of God certainly ruined it for the good ones. and they took every semblance of Rabbi Jesuah's (who you may know as Jesus) teachings out of this country long, long ago.

6) from the pledge itself: "With Liberty and Justice for all."

nope. not even close. if there truly was liberty and justice for all, then an amendment to extend voting rights to women, blacks, and native americans would never have needed to be made. if there were any semblance of liberty for all, then slavery never would have graced our nations shores. if there were truly justice, then hundreds of innocent men convicted on circumstantial evidence wouldn't be sent to death each year. if there were liberty, then the government wouldn't be worried about how letting two men marry is going to threaten their own marriage ("what if my wife only married me because she couldn't marry a woman?!?!?! must.... illegalize... gay... marriage.... can't allow sexuality to be threatened..."). you get the point.

maybe i'm a little green around the edges, but i grew up in the heart of Bible Country. i've seen the horrible things people do in the name of the Christian God. return the pledge to its original form, please. all you are doing is dragging God's name through the mud by lying about how our nation is so free and liberty permiates the very air we breath. if any good Christian were to truly look at the injustices in our nation, then they would beg to have their Lord and Savior's name removed from a pledge that lies about everything that goes on here.

whew, that was long.

*claps*

*joins the clapping*

What I'm wondering is why "Under God" shouldn't be left in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those against it claim it is a public establishment of religion. Okay, so it's okay to force-feed athiest beliefs (big bang, evolution (both unproven theories)) to the public, but not to acknowledge religion?
Now I get to explain this for the third time. EVOLUTION != ATHEISM!!!! There are many christians that accept evolution. As well I was never force fed Big Bang cosmology namely because the idea is incredibly complex and requires some abstract thought that quite clearly even some adults can't grasp. Finally while the validity of these theories can't be proven due to their empirical nature they have been tested repeatedly and not yet disproven. So please educate yourself:
(EVOLUTION && BIG BANG COSMOLOGY) != ATHEISM !!!!
Finally to the heart of the matter, I would hope that you quickly notice what is special about the phrase "Under God".... Give up? Notice that the letter "g" is capitalized that means that there is only one deity that this nation is under, the judeo-christian deity, God. How can you argue that this isn't favoritism of religion? However luckily, for those of you who don't wish to actually solve problems, but to complain that they shouldn't be, I have a solution, we simply use the phrase "epistemologically bound" this means that this nation is bound by our ability to search for truth not just through religion, but through other means such as agnosticism and atheism. It doesn't deny the possibility of existence of deities, it's perfect!


How is it psychologically damaging to hear the word "God" when it's not used in a curse? God's name is used like this constantly in Hollywood, but apparently that is acceptable to the athiests. However, hear it in a non-derogatory manner, and it's instantly "harmful." Will somebody please explain this?
I see so now we should start messing with free speech? Hate to break it to you, but Hollywood isn't a state run institution and thus is completely independent of that magical stuff. No one said it wasn't harmful, though I have my doubts, do you offer any proof that it is harmful to hear it in a derragatory manner? Back to hearing it in a non-derragatory manner: The pledge is a special case where the government has its hands and thus it must keep seperation of church and state, this would appear to be the state being for judeo-christian beliefs and thus would come under fire by the original ideals of the government.


By the way, a recent poll showed 83% of the population is for keeping the words "Under God" in the pledge. If there's any justice, this poll will reflect that.
Wrong again. The majority doesn't necessarilly do the rational thing. If 99.99% of the population believed 2+2 was equal to 100 2+2 would still not equal 100. The whole point in this debate is to protect the rights of the minority from getting taken away from the majority. It doesn't matter whether everyone believes something it is unconstitutional if it is unconstitutional and thus it must get struck down.

IMHO, our nation was founded based on the religious goals of others. Now we are hiding God, as if he is a secret. I believe we should allow God back into our homes, schools, and lives.

But hey, feel free to disagree. We also have that right here.

IMHO, our nation was founded based on the religious goals of others. Now we are hiding God, as if he is a secret. I believe we should allow God back into our homes, schools, and lives.

But hey, feel free to disagree. We also have that right here.

Why should Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or Atheist children have to pledge allegiance to a Christian God. It was wrong to ever put "Under God" in the pledge in the first place. The U.S. is a melting pot of all faiths and non-faiths. If you want your kids to pray to God in school then send them to a private school or do it at home. Public school is not the place.

God is not being "hidden" from anyone. If your children are able to think for themselves and not outright accept your God as their own without discretion, then I say that they have evolved in a very positive direction from their parents genes.

I see how you think the pledge is a prayer, but now-days, kids don't have to say it, even in public grade schools.

But I gave my opinion, and you gave yours. I hoe we can still respect each other for it.

"One nation indivisible...except for Texas."

I see how you think the pledge is a prayer, but now-days, kids don't have to say it, even in public grade schools.

But I gave my opinion, and you gave yours. I hoe we can still respect each other for it.

Yes they should be instructed before the class at least to replace "God" with the name of their own god or leave it out entirely depending on what they personally believe. That is if they dont take it out and revert to the original pledge.

Why force kids to pledge allegience to a nation anyway? I'll leave aside the discussion of 'under God' but it does piss all over the idea that the US is a secular nation...

But having to pledge alleigence to your country every day? Leave it out, those that are proud should be, those that aren't shouldn't have to parrot that they are.

i'm going to start out by saying a few things:

first off, i'm new here, so make me feel either welcome or hated at your discretion. second off, i am a young (19) Independant who favors Libertarian styles of governance. third off, i am an ordained pagan priest in the state of pennsylvania, so if anything i say is religiously ambiguous, then that should clear it up. also, i am a linguist, so i can and will pick apart any and all semantics and syntax.

next, time to rehash previous statements about the "under God" in the pledge, and give my opinion on each of them.

1) violates Establishment Clause

yes, it in fact does violate the Establishment Clause. the "under God" was added to the pledge, as noted before. it is not part of the original document. also, the term God with the capitol regers specifically to the Christian God. all pagan gods are refered to with a lower case, Buddhists don't believe in a true persona of the higher power, Jews refer to their god in writing as "G-d" (saying Jehova is actually forbidden), Zorastrians call him Ahura Mazda, Muslims Allah, Hindus have several gods, etc. the generic term for "all gods, any god, every god" is with a lowercase "g". specifically citing the term with a capitol "G" does in fact sanction the Christian faith, as they are the only religion that uses that term.

2) saying the pledge is not compulsory.

in some states, yes, it is very compulsory. i grew up in southern virginia, went to school in southern virginia, and left there as quickly as i could. when i was in high school, the state passed two notable laws: one calling for a "mandatory moment of silence to use for prayer and spiritual reflection", and the other calling for recitation of the Pledge during first period. i was given detention for refusing to pray or reflect during the moment of silence once, and another time i was nearly suspended for making a barely audible prayer to a pagan goddess. during the Pledge, i was once given detention for refusing to recite it, and a second time given detention for removing "under God" from it in my forced recitation of it. the principal told me that i was "corrupting traditional american values" and likened my actions to treason. if that's not compulsory, then i don't know what is.

3) the founding of this nation is based on God.

actually, the founding of this nation is based on people wanting to get away from other people's gods. if you have to bring God into the founding of our country, then at least give him the role he actually played. people came to this country because in their own countries they were banned from practicing their religion and forced to recite prayers and pledges that cited the gods of other religions. even this isn't entirely true: some of them (like the Puritans) were actually kicked out of their countries. if everyone who didn't want to say "under God" decided to do that again, then we could probably found ourselves a nice, self-sufficient nation of our own.

4) atheists are trying to take control of the country.

nope, not true. atheists are trying to get the government to acknowledge that certain religious references might be offensive. not only atheists are offended by statements as found in the pledge, many people of other religions are offended as well. it's just that the athiests don't have that whole "turn the other cheek" or "let others live in their own stupidty" thing that many religions teach to stop them from complaining about it.

5) Those words were included because the founding fathers realized how important GOD IS TO NATIONS! If God is removed, our nation will crumble.

God has already been removed. the Christians killed God by preaching that everyone should love and tolerate everyone, that all people are the same under the eye of God, then going and making things like the KKK (A Baptist organization to which my step-father belongs), killing people because they are gay, spawning morons like Rev. Phelps (who wanted to protest the congressional commendation of Mr. Rogers), et al. if a nation will crumble without God, then our nation should already be dead, because there is no God here for the most part. just a sad bunch of people who use biblical references to justify their own misdeeds. Christians were the ones who argued for slavery. Christians are now arguing against gay marriage. it was Christians in Tennesee that tried to illegalize homosexuality in a county there. people of all faiths and creeds can be hateful, but for some reason, the Christians seem to be the ones that are the loudest about it. sure there are some good Christians, i don't deny that. but those loudmouthed bigots who discriminated, abuse, and beat in the name of God certainly ruined it for the good ones. and they took every semblance of Rabbi Jesuah's (who you may know as Jesus) teachings out of this country long, long ago.

6) from the pledge itself: "With Liberty and Justice for all."

nope. not even close. if there truly was liberty and justice for all, then an amendment to extend voting rights to women, blacks, and native americans would never have needed to be made. if there were any semblance of liberty for all, then slavery never would have graced our nations shores. if there were truly justice, then hundreds of innocent men convicted on circumstantial evidence wouldn't be sent to death each year. if there were liberty, then the government wouldn't be worried about how letting two men marry is going to threaten their own marriage ("what if my wife only married me because she couldn't marry a woman?!?!?! must.... illegalize... gay... marriage.... can't allow sexuality to be threatened..."). you get the point.

maybe i'm a little green around the edges, but i grew up in the heart of Bible Country. i've seen the horrible things people do in the name of the Christian God. return the pledge to its original form, please. all you are doing is dragging God's name through the mud by lying about how our nation is so free and liberty permiates the very air we breath. if any good Christian were to truly look at the injustices in our nation, then they would beg to have their Lord and Savior's name removed from a pledge that lies about everything that goes on here.

whew, that was long.

And you made many of the same points I already did...and better than I did! You say you're 19?? Damn, you display a profundity far beyond your years! Welcome to NS!!

P.S. as a Unitarian Christian, I agree with virtually everything you said...especially the parts about Christians using the Bible to justify and excuse horrible acts against their fellow man...and the notion that including God in such an obviously false statement as the Pledge is tantamount to dragging God's name through the mud! Quite frankly, I think God would turn His back in disgust on this country, with all the hypocrisy and lies and greed! Except that God turns His back on NO ONE.

IMHO, our nation was founded based on the religious goals of others. Now we are hiding God, as if he is a secret. I believe we should allow God back into our homes, schools, and lives.

But hey, feel free to disagree. We also have that right here.

Since when has God NOT been allowed in your home or your life if you wanted Him there? As for schools...you want God there?? fine. Cough up the money and send your kid to a religious school! What you really want is the ability to FORCE your God onto other people, who may have different ideas, opinions, and faiths. And that is wrong.

The day we do not, in this country, allow God in our own homes or lives...that will be the day I will fight for the inclusion of God in those places.

My own beliefs aside, it is wrong to deny anyone their own unique spiritual beliefs...in their own lives, and in their own homes. It is also wrong for any majority to FORCE it's spiritual beliefs on everybody else.

However luckily, for those of you who don't wish to actually solve problems, but to complain that they shouldn't be, I have a solution, we simply use the phrase "epistemologically bound" this means that this nation is bound by our ability to search for truth not just through religion, but through other means such as agnosticism and atheism. It doesn't deny the possibility of existence of deities, it's perfect!


Yeah, let's just throw another impossible to pronounce word in there...a words that most adults wouldn't even know what it meant...let alone a grade-school student whose vocabulary isn't very developed yet! Yeah, let's just have a bunch of grade-school students with their heads full of mush say yet one more thing that they don't know what it means, what they are saying, and what they are actually pledging themselves to!

No one ought to say the Pledge unless they MEAN IT...and to mean it, one must first understand exactly what it is they are committing to when they say it. And the Pledge did just fine for years without any religious reference, until a bunch of McCarthyist assholes had to phuck it up! Go back to the original.

The United States was built and defended by very religious people. The Puritains and the Pilgrims came and founded the US to HAVE religious freedom. The quote "Under God" and "In God We Trust" are not trying to invoke religion in athiest people, it is mearly paying respect to the people who wich built the American Nation. I feel that "Under God" should be left in the pledge.

Even if it was made during the Cold War era. That fact is irrelivent.

So does that mean that Athiests, or Pagans, or Muslims, or Buddists, or Hindus, or whatever..are LESS american becuase they dont worship the Christian God?

So the stroy goes that the puritans left to escape releigious persecution amd being forced to worship one religion so how does making all kids recite a phrase that is meant for christians regardless of their religious beliefs in alignment with puritan ideals?

However luckily, for those of you who don't wish to actually solve problems, but to complain that they shouldn't be, I have a solution, we simply use the phrase "epistemologically bound" this means that this nation is bound by our ability to search for truth not just through religion, but through other means such as agnosticism and atheism. It doesn't deny the possibility of existence of deities, it's perfect!


Yeah, let's just throw another impossible to pronounce word in there...a words that most adults wouldn't even know what it meant...let alone a grade-school student whose vocabulary isn't very developed yet! Yeah, let's just have a bunch of grade-school students with their heads full of mush say yet one more thing that they don't know what it means, what they are saying, and what they are actually pledging themselves to!

No one ought to say the Pledge unless they MEAN IT...and to mean it, one must first understand exactly what it is they are committing to when they say it. And the Pledge did just fine for years without any religious reference, until a bunch of McCarthyist assholes had to phuck it up! Go back to the original.

I agree that no one SHOULD have to say it and that we SHOULD revert to the original pledge, however, I have become pessimistic and believe that we have become a nation run by irrational individuals that are commanded by some form of theocracy. I notice that these individuals have bitten in to this issue like a bulldog and thus I find that we have a choice:
1) compromise, in which case we get to some watered down pledge that neither affirms nor denies anything. This at least kills the issue.
--OR--
2) We can fight it, in which case the loudest get heard (The theocracy, or at best the irrational people) and thus we end up with some horrible pledge that the minority hates, but loud majority loves.

Thus I think that a moderate compromise is in order. Sure no one will know or care what it means, but at least everyone is moderately happier.

on the subtopic of puritans:

paying homage to the puritans is utterly wrong. no one should pay homage to them, i don't care how d**ned many of them carted their butts over here on a boat. when they got here, they cut down virgin forests, killed innocent native americans, and then killed innocent people in their own group. have people so quickly forgotten the Salem Witchcraft Trials? they were corrupt, and very sick individuals. they left England because they were about to be kicked out. they vandalized Anglican churches... they didn't leave england to escape religious persecution. they left England to bring religious persecution to a land that had never before known of such a thing. therefore, forcing children to recite a pledge that has within it references to a god that they don't believe in aligns perfectly with Puritan views.

if children want to be patriotic, then more power to them. but i haven't met a single elementary school student who knows what "republic," "indivisble," or even "liberty" even mean. i've met depressingly few high school students that could even tell me what a "republic" is. it's sad how many people think that america is a real democracy and not the representative republic that it truly is. in a true democracy the people themselves, not elected officials, vote on every proposed law. the only purpose of elected officials in a true democracy is to write out the laws that the people suggest, and stick them on the next ballot. that's not what they do here.

i suppose that you could replace "one nation, under God" with "one nation, under an unnamed deity that may or may not exist," but that gets a bit long, and i'm sure that would p**s someone off too.

and yes, Labrador, i'm only 19 :lol: i've led an interesting life to say the least...

and that is why i said the story goes....because american textbooks are of course biased in support of the puritans. But either way you like at it it just doesnt make sense to include under god in the pledge of allegiance and that is of course if you even support the pledge of allegiance in schools which i do not.

IMHO, our nation was founded based on the religious goals of others. Now we are hiding God, as if he is a secret. I believe we should allow God back into our homes, schools, and lives.

But hey, feel free to disagree. We also have that right here.


Ok How does saying "Under God" make you a better Christian?

Also, God is not being hid. You don't see people saying you can't buy bibles or go to church?

Relgious Neutal is what the Goverment is supposed to be!

on the subtopic of puritans:

paying homage to the puritans is utterly wrong. no one should pay homage to them, i don't care how d**ned many of them carted their butts over here on a boat. when they got here, they cut down virgin forests, killed innocent native americans, and then killed innocent people in their own group. have people so quickly forgotten the Salem Witchcraft Trials? they were corrupt, and very sick individuals. they left England because they were about to be kicked out. they vandalized Anglican churches... they didn't leave england to escape religious persecution. they left England to bring religious persecution to a land that had never before known of such a thing. therefore, forcing children to recite a pledge that has within it references to a god that they don't believe in aligns perfectly with Puritan views.


Damn! Give somebody else a chance to show off thier knowledge!

Let us not forget that:

1) They weren't the first people to establish here(not meaning the tribes, another other vistors) but the fact Jamestown was up and running first.

2) To add to the myth of religous freedom, it is interesting that the books fail to mention their stop over in Holland which was a sanctuary for groups like the Belgion Wollan(sp)and the Hugonaugts(sp). The English Sepreatiests(aka puritans) did not want to be integrated into Dutch society.

3) For the want of Religous Freedom, the did set up a quasi-theocracy where punishment and or banishment would result if you challenged the elders.

4) They were grave robbers. Many of their writings mention finding "Gifts from God"

I have to say I am impressed with your knowledge! Especially if you are 19! ;)

sorry, gotta show my own knowledge before someone jumps on this bit.

the first people (aside from the native americans, who aren't native at all, but are from asia way back in the day when the bering strate was a land bridge) to colonize this continent were the vikings under the leadership of Leif Eriksen. they deposited their unwashed, pagan, belligerent selves in Newfoundland first, then later expanded out to parts of modern day northern Maine and Canada. they had the first true working society in North America, a few hundred years before even Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

but they didn't found the USA, and neither did the puritans. none of them had a single hand in any of it. there wasn't even one puritan at the constitutional congress, not a single puritan signed the declaration. so even if the puritans weren't the f**ked up S.O.B.'s that they were, there is still no reason to do anything to homage them. so if the "under God" is in there to pay homage to the puritans that founded our great country, then.... take it out, because no puritans founded it.

At my school we say the pledge every single morning and not one kid complains about the "under God". Even if a law is passed that says you can't say "under God" I'm going to say it anyway. That's the way I've learned it and I don't have a problem with it. Besides taking it out would throw of the entire rhythm of the pledge.

so, throwing off the rythm constitutes returning it to the way it originally was written?

take the John Donne poem "Holy Sonnet" (please remember that in old poetry like this there is a big difference between the breathe spacing in a comma and a semicolon)

This is the way it is commonly written today.

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell;
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And Death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die!

now, let's restore the last line to its original form, as John Donne wrote it.

And death shall be no more, death, thou shalt die.

There's a comma there, not a semicolon. that shortens the breathe intake by a fraction of a second, but it's noticable if someone recites it correctly. also, in the original, the sentence ended with a period, not an exclamaition point. the modernized version makes it sound final, whereas the original makes it sound open. which is more correct? the version that sounds final and proper to us today? or the way that he wrote it? same with the pledge. what is more proper? the corruption of it that people recite today, or the original version that was actually written?

This is a phrase that should never have been added in the first place. Why not revert to the original pledge, before they changed it in the 50s?

According to the Gallup poll 90% of Americans believe in God.

This is a phrase that should never have been added in the first place. Why not revert to the original pledge, before they changed it in the 50s?

According to the Gallup poll 90% of Americans believe in God.

so? the majority of the population of the u.s. is white. does that mean that the black people should be enslaved?

also, the pledge seems to trivialize god... what kind of all-mighty being woudl give a shit about a country.

Well I don't really think that allowing "under God" in the pledge is as grave as slavery. Having said that who would you rather have get their way the 90% or the 10%.

On the second point that "All-mighty" would have to be a very loving one.

Its not about the majority or the minority getting their way its about the seperation of church and state and the governement shoving religion down kids throats

but why would this god prefer one country over another?

in any case, believing in god and having god in a meaningless pledge are two different things. the words under god were added to the american pledge of allegiance to prove that they weren't atheistic communists. the cold war is over, it is unnecessary.

aside from that, the 10% who don't believe in god are having other's beleifs pushed on them. how is that fair in any way? not to mention that as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, God refers to the christian god exclusively. while there may be 90% of the population that believes in god, not all of them believe in that specific god.

but why would this god prefer one country over another?

in any case, believing in god and having god in a meaningless pledge are two different things. the words under god were added to the american pledge of allegiance to prove that they weren't atheistic communists. the cold war is over, it is unnecessary.

aside from that, the 10% who don't believe in god are having other's beleifs pushed on them. how is that fair in any way? not to mention that as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, God refers to the christian god exclusively. while there may be 90% of the population that believes in god, not all of them believe in that specific god.

If your talking about America I don't know what your talking about. "Under God" is a statement from humans acknowledging their heritage. Nevermind the reason those words got in they are in now and will be delt with with an 8-0 vote to uphold those words. You've probably heard this, not recognizing God reflects atheistic beliefs. And lastly if God refers only to the Christian God where are all the Muslim fanatics sitting next to Michael Newdow.

Its not about the majority or the minority getting their way its about the seperation of church and state and the governement shoving religion down kids throats

Are children forced to say, "under God" heck William Saffire thought as a yougnin' the pledge opened, "I lead the pigeons to the flag."

Besides taking it out would throw of the entire rhythm of the pledge.

no it doesn't. "under god" actually throws off the rhythm - its a weird interjection into the flow of words. "one nation indivisible" vs "one nation under god, indivisible". god doesn't even fit there.

What I'm wondering is why "Under God" shouldn't be left in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those against it claim it is a public establishment of religion. Okay, so it's okay to force-feed athiest beliefs (big bang, evolution (both unproven theories)) to the public, but not to acknowledge religion?

How is it psychologically damaging to hear the word "God" when it's not used in a curse? God's name is used like this constantly in Hollywood, but apparently that is acceptable to the athiests. However, hear it in a non-derogatory manner, and it's instantly "harmful." Will somebody please explain this?

By the way, a recent poll showed 83% of the population is for keeping the words "Under God" in the pledge. If there's any justice, this poll will reflect that.

The big bang and evolution are NOT "atheist beliefs" (I presume you do not object to me correcting your spelling).

Both scientific theories are taught world-wide under all sorts of belief-systems, including Christian ones. It appears to only be that the American "Bible-belt" cannot reconcile science and religion. I have no idea why this should be the case.

Kindly do not use your religious biases to attack science. It only demonstrates your own ignorance.

This is a phrase that should never have been added in the first place. Why not revert to the original pledge, before they changed it in the 50s?

According to the Gallup poll 90% of Americans believe in God.

so? the majority of the population of the u.s. is white. does that mean that the black people should be enslaved?

also, the pledge seems to trivialize god... what kind of all-mighty being woudl give a shit about a country.Have you ever read the Old Testament? I'd hardly say that the words "Under God" existing in the pledge of allegiance can be compared to slavery. :roll:

To understand the "problem", we must look at the man who "idenfied" it.
"I am an Athiest. I don't believe in God. And every school morning, my child has to face the flag, put her hand over her heart, and say that her father is wrong."
This is what the man said. What he left out was that he never married the girl's mother, who is bringing her daughter up in a religious environment. He also left out that he doesn't have custody over and rarely visits his daughter. This man is using his daughter to further his own career as an attourney.

If your talking about America I don't know what your talking about. "Under God" is a statement from humans acknowledging their heritage. Nevermind the reason those words got in they are in now and will be delt with with an 8-0 vote to uphold those words.

Nevermind the way they got there, huh? So all the states that had confederate flags as the state flag and have been made to change that should just go back? I mean, they are just stating something about their heritage. Nevermind that they changed to those flags to purposely antagonize people. And we should go back to slavery too, I mean, it *is* part of people's heritage.

Also, even as a Christian, you should recognize the difference between God and god - I do. God refers to the Judeo-Christian deity. Therefore, someone who doesn't recognize God isn't necessarily an atheist, they might just recognize a different deity than yours. Religious freedom means allowing others their beliefs, you know.

What I'm wondering is why "Under God" shouldn't be left in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those against it claim it is a public establishment of religion. Okay, so it's okay to force-feed athiest beliefs (big bang, evolution (both unproven theories)) to the public, but not to acknowledge religion?

How is it psychologically damaging to hear the word "God" when it's not used in a curse? God's name is used like this constantly in Hollywood, but apparently that is acceptable to the athiests. However, hear it in a non-derogatory manner, and it's instantly "harmful." Will somebody please explain this?

By the way, a recent poll showed 83% of the population is for keeping the words "Under God" in the pledge. If there's any justice, this poll will reflect that.

The big bang and evolution are NOT "atheist beliefs" (I prseume you do not object to me correcting your spelling).

Both scientific theories are taught world-wide under all sorts of belief-systems, including Christian ones. It appears to only be that the American "Bible-belt" cannot reconcile science and religion. I have no idea why this should be the case.

Kindly do not use your religious biases to attack science. It only demonstrates your own ignorance.You may have missed out on "Debunking Evolution 101" and "Debunking the Big Bang 101." And yes, they are athiest beliefs. They cannot be proven. Likewise, they can't be disproven. God can't be proven or disproven, either.

Besides, when writing a topic for debate, somebody has to leave a bias or a hole in their arguement, that way there is an attack, followed by a counterattack, leading to the debate we see now.

You may have missed out on "Debunking Evolution 101" and "Debunking the Big Bang 101." And yes, they are athiest beliefs. They cannot be proven. Likewise, they can't be disproven. God can't be proven or disproven, either.

Not being able to be proven or disproven doesn't make it an atheist belief. Every atheist I know believes that murder is wrong - does that mean that being anti-murder is an atheist belief and us Christians should argue against it? No. Evolution is completely reconcilable with many religions (which means people that believe in some sort of deity ususally). The only "atheist belief" is "there is no god."
Please do remember that not agreeing with your personal view does not amount to atheism. If you don't, you make a bad name for those of us Christians who actually can think for ourselves enough to not be threatened by the fact that someone else might not agree.

Well I don't really think that allowing "under God" in the pledge is as grave as slavery. Having said that who would you rather have get their way the 90% or the 10%.

On the second point that "All-mighty" would have to be a very loving one.

Wrong. You said (without a source, mind you, but let's run with it) that 90% of Americans believe in God, not that they support this current version of the pledge. Believe it or not, wanting this addition removed does not constitute hating God. As someone else pointed out, some feel that it trivializes God. I think they're right.

As for the grand scheme of this, it is indoctrination. Children are made to say the pledge daily, and affirm a belief in God in doing so. Incidentally, for those of you who argued that the fairy tale with the homosexual ending took rights away from parents, I'd like to point out that this does as well. Don't tell me, "Oh, they don't have to say it if they don't want to." A child does a lot of growing mentally throughout grade and middle school, and such subtle indocrination is effective, and peer pressure will assure, far more often than not, that there is compliance.

Removing the phrase also does not discriminate against Christianity. This is one of the weakest arguments I've heard - not mentioning your God is not discriminating against your religion. This view was supported when they removed Ray Moore's monument. It failed then, and it's no more true now.

You may have missed out on "Debunking Evolution 101" and "Debunking the Big Bang 101." And yes, they are athiest beliefs. They cannot be proven. Likewise, they can't be disproven. God can't be proven or disproven, either.

Not being able to be proven or disproven doesn't make it an atheist belief. Every atheist I know believes that murder is wrong - does that mean that being anti-murder is an atheist belief and us Christians should argue against it? No. Evolution is completely reconcilable with many religions (which means people that believe in some sort of deity ususally). The only "atheist belief" is "there is no god."
Please do remember that not agreeing with your personal view does not amount to atheism. If you don't, you make a bad name for those of us Christians who actually can think for ourselves enough to not be threatened by the fact that someone else might not agree.

Unfortunately, this is just the sort of reaction one can come to expect from the god-botherers of the American Religious Right.

Any form of dissent from their beliefs is "atheist" or "heretic" or "witchcraft".

I had the misfortune of reading the posts "Debunking Evolution 101" and "Debunking the Big Bang 101." I made the same point in both of them, that a belief in scientific theory is not incompatable with holding a religious belief.

Unfortunately, the reverse does not apply.

I imagine Reynes would defend the Christians persecuting Galileo for the heretical "theory" that the earth is not the centre of the universe.

I will not attempt a "Debunking American Bible-Belt Fundamentalists 101" as I consider that the rest of the world has already left them in its wake.

To understand the "problem", we must look at the man who "idenfied" it.
"I am an Athiest. I don't believe in God. And every school morning, my child has to face the flag, put her hand over her heart, and say that her father is wrong."
This is what the man said. What he left out was that he never married the girl's mother, who is bringing her daughter up in a religious environment. He also left out that he doesn't have custody over and rarely visits his daughter. This man is using his daughter to further his own career as an attourney.

Here's an idea: why don't you quit with the character attacks and actually focus on the issue? We all know that this issue existed before this guy brought it up, so such attacks only betray the weakness of your position.

Why do liberals always want to destroy our values?

Why do liberals always want to destroy our values? I'd certainly hope you're joking. If not, head for the hills, because making gross generalizations like that tend to lead to flames galore.

Why do liberals always want to destroy our values?


We slowly want to destroy the last threads of decency and make everyone into hippie democrats........ :twisted:

Why do liberals always want to destroy our values?


We slowly want to destroy the last threads of decency and make everyone into hippie democrats........ :twisted:

At last a liberal willing to admit their vile agenda.

The government could establish Roman Catholicism as the official religion of the United States. You wouldn't have to be of that religion, and you could dispute it all you want, but it'd still be an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause.

While it is ultimately up to one to decide what he/she/it will utter in respect to their deity/deities/god/goddess/monkey/stick/mop/chicken...etc.
We should not have a federal mandate to remove God from a nation that was founded on the right to free assembly whether it be religious or otherwise.
So we at Mad aliens say whatever floats your boat is alright as long as I dont have to see you do it.
Mad Alien number one.

Why do liberals always want to destroy our values?

We do not want to destroy your values, we jsut want you to keep them to yourself.

I think it would be interesting to see how loud you would cry for change if you were forced to live in a society that claimed that all members were free and equal, so long as they agreed with a homosexual, pagan, majority.......

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.

You speak the truth.

i don't see how it is descriminatory to christianity to take out "under God." it would be descriminatory if the pledge said "one nation, under God, Allah, G-d, Ahura Mazda, Krishna, Buddha, the Goddess, Grandfather, etc," because then you would be excluding the Christian God from something in which other Gods are included. that would be descrimination. since the Christian God is solely the one mentioned in the current pledge, it is actually descriminatory to other religions, if you think about it. descrimination is setting one person or group above all others, and excluding the others from things that the one is allowed in/to do. the Christian God is allowed in the pledge, but no other gods are. therefore, the pledge descriminates against all religions except christianity.

if you want to start interpretting words, syntax, and symantics, then you need to do it when i'm not around. i majored in linguistics in college, i can pick apart any document word for word :wink:

Well I don't really think that allowing "under God" in the pledge is as grave as slavery. Having said that who would you rather have get their way the 90% or the 10%.

On the second point that "All-mighty" would have to be a very loving one.
Let's take a look at what you say might entail, If 90% of the US believed something that was logically inconsistent such as 1+1=3 then we should accept it as true. The point of this discussion isn't what the majority thinks, but instead what is logically consistent. Having "Under God" with the capital "g" quite clearly represents the judeo-chrisitan deity, this conflicts with the seperation of church and state clause, this causes an inconsistency with in the law.

The troble that liberals who are atheists have with the pledge is that the government IS their 'God' - in that there is no higher authority to them.

Those of any spiritual faith however, believe in an authority that IS higher than 'Government'.

The addition of 'under God' was never to endorse religion, but rather to assure the faithful that pledging to the flag is not idolotry or the displacement of their spiritual values. ie: 'government' is NOT the highest authority - which is one of the founding principals of the constitution.

The assumption that 'God' is a reference to the judeo-christian supreme being, 'Yahweh' is incorrect. Using the term 'God' in place of 'Allah' is no more discriminatory than using 'water' over 'agua'. Even Merriam-Webster makes no reference to a specific faith in their definition:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=God

The troble that liberals who are atheists have with the pledge is that the government IS their 'God' - in that there is no higher authority to them.

Those of any spiritual faith however, believe in an authority that IS higher than 'Government'.

The addition of 'under God' was never to endorse religion, but rather to assure the faithful that pledging to the flag is not idolotry or the displacement of their spiritual values. ie: 'government' is NOT the highest authority - which is one of the founding principals of the constitution.

The assumption that 'God' is a reference to the judeo-christian supreme being, 'Yahweh' is incorrect. Using the term 'God' in place of 'Allah' is no more discriminatory than using 'water' over 'agua'. Even Merriam-Webster makes no reference to a specific faith in their definition:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=God
You aren't paying attention the capitalized G means the judeo christian deity other wise the g would be lowercase. As well you are also wrong about the point in adding "Under God", the point in adding that phrase was to keep those evil athiest-communists at bay that explains why this arose during the 1960's rather than the creation of the pledge. Finally your assumption that the government is the "God" of the atheist is complete non-sense. I truly hope that you are a parody.

As an atheist, and as someone who is familiar with the social penalties that come from not reciteing the pledge or any part of it, I oppose the words "Under God" being in the pledge, or in any other government document.

First, let's look at the facts. Under God was added to the pledge by request of Lyndon Johnson, in order to differentiate us from the communist government of the Soviet Union, which was atheist. Johnson didn't want the "godless commies" to infect the morals of the United States, evidently.

Fast forward forty years. The USSR has fallen, and there is no longer any need for this line in the pledge (not that there ever was) and yet it stayed.

People don't like it when they see that the Establishment Clause is being violated. For those of you who say that it doesn't say that there is a separation between the church and the state, Thomas Jefferson, whose accomplishments need not be told here, said that the line was written "to erect a barrier between the church and the state". Note that the clause doesn't say freedom of religion either, but it is implied.

Then some people come along saying that this was founded a Christian nation, and that the founding fathers wanted it to be Christian, and blah blah blah.
Note that Washington, Jefferson, Addams, Franklin, and a good deal of other 'founding fathers' were best described as Deists, and less than ten percent of the population of the colonies at that time was a member of any Christian congregation. The founding fathers recognized that the church and the state had to be separated- they knew the effects of the two being bedded from the European monarchies, and they didn't want to repeat the same mistake.
Note also that the treaty of Tripoli had a line stating "the United States are not... founded a Christian nation". This was read before Congress, and it was approved unanimously.

Some think that this is a prosecution of Christians. I laugh at this. This is simply an attempt to keep the state secular, in order to allow for the free exercise of religion, and to help keep the States from devolving into a European-Style monarchy. This is no more persecuting Christians than not allowing Allah to be the national mascot of the United States is persecuting Muslims.

In summary; the original intention of this line has been fulfilled, the document is meant to imply a separation, this was not founded a Christian nation, and it is not persecuting Christianity.

Please respond however you wish.

Why do liberals always want to destroy our values?

Why do conservocreeps always want to destroy OUR values??

Why do liberals always want to destroy our values?

Why do conservocreeps always want to destroy OUR values??

As an Australian, I look to the US with utter amazement.

This thread, as I understand it, is about whether or not the words of some loyalty pledge should include a reference to God.

This from a nation that believes that "pre-emptive" strikes are just fine.

Where the current administration has either lied about WMDs or been so incompetent that it really thought they existed.

Where the whole concept of "just war" has been blurred.

Where the previous administration clearly lied about adultery.

Where the form of words is obviously more important than their meaning or context.

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

Nope, I'm there with you. I'm a Christian who doesn't think her atheist friends should feel that the government is against them. I also don't agree with it because it was added simply to discriminate against atheists (since it was once believed that atheist and communist were interchangable titles.)

The troble that liberals who are atheists have with the pledge is that the government IS their 'God' - in that there is no higher authority to them.if the Pledge of Allegiance led you to believe that crap, you can be used as further evidence that the pledge does indeed discriminate against atheists

The troble that liberals who are atheists have with the pledge is that the government IS their 'God' - in that there is no higher authority to them.if the Pledge of Allegiance led you to believe that crap, you can be used as further evidence that the pledge does indeed discriminate against atheists

Then explain to me what organization has authority that athiets place higher than their government?

The troble that liberals who are atheists have with the pledge is that the government IS their 'God' - in that there is no higher authority to them.if the Pledge of Allegiance led you to believe that crap, you can be used as further evidence that the pledge does indeed discriminate against atheists

Then explain to me what organization has authority that athiets place higher than their government?

Explain to me why the wording of a "pledge of allegiance" has anything to do with God?

Explain to me why a Christian nation, so-called, finds the wording of a pledge more important than the behaviour of its own government.

Explain to me what sort of God would find this rational, let alone forgiveable.

It only violates the establishment clause if the Government or a Government Institution places into effect laws or regulations which require individuals to recite the pledge or face punishment.

There are no such laws.

Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge.

The pledge is a motto, not a law. Leave my motto alone.

First, if you really feel that way, then you ought to be for removing it. Because they mucked with the original, back in 1954. what ever happened to "leave my motto alone" then?

Second, Texas schoolchildren ARE required, by law, to recite both the Pledge...and a Pledge to the Texas flag.


"Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

Third, hate to bust your bubble, but "In God We Trust" is NOT the U.S. Motto. In fact, the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" which, when translated from Latin means "One from many," and is a reference to how many colonies came together to form one nation...hence "one from many."

by the way...the reason I know the Texas Pledge is because I live in Texas in RL....and am a product of the Texas public education system.

Graduated class of 1989, from David Crockett High School, in Austin, Texas.

Rock on, Labrador!
--Traegonia, Georgetown High School Class of 2004

Then explain to me what organization has authority that athiets place higher than their government?governments have been overthrown many times throughout history, thus disproving the notion that they hold ultimate power. Meanwhile, if the Pledge of Allegiance made any contribution to your belief that all liberals who are atheists think of governments as gods, that is proof enough that the pledge is a religious endorsement

Well I don't really think that allowing "under God" in the pledge is as grave as slavery. Having said that who would you rather have get their way the 90% or the 10%.

On the second point that "All-mighty" would have to be a very loving one.
Let's take a look at what you say might entail, If 90% of the US believed something that was logically inconsistent such as 1+1=3 then we should accept it as true. The point of this discussion isn't what the majority thinks, but instead what is logically consistent. Having "Under God" with the capital "g" quite clearly represents the judeo-chrisitan deity, this conflicts with the seperation of church and state clause, this causes an inconsistency with in the law.

I knew somebody was going to post this, and I had a rebuttal to it but now I have seemed to forgotten it. :x

About your second argument I will concede that the capital g may well be a reference to the judeo-christian deity, but first off their is no such thing as a judeo-christian religion. Your either one or another. I am not sure though if this is reference is unconstitutional. Jefferson wrote we are "created" equally in the constitution. Creation? What atheist believes in creation? Is this the shoving of religion down the throat of an atheist?

NOw if I only could remember that first point... :?

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.
But the reasons for wanting to change it are rabidly anti-religious.
Rock on, Labrador!
She was proven wrong later, but I guess you didn't read that part.

Then explain to me what organization has authority that athiets place higher than their government?

The organization of the collected peoples. In other words, society.

By the way, it's "Atheist". The capital 'A' is optional, of course.

I feel that we should not even have to say the pledge. Kids are constantly forced to pledge allegience to the flag in school and if you really take saying it seriously then it means something. No one under 18 should have to show solidarity to any nation verbally or elsewise. It's a verbal contract and should not be spoken under duress.
Let's leave the pledge for the soldiers who really are loyal to this country through their actions and leave everyone else out of it.

-C-

I feel that we should not even have to say the pledge. Kids are constantly forced to pledge allegience to the flag in school and if you really take saying it seriously then it means something. No one under 18 should have to show solidarity to any nation verbally or elsewise. It's a verbal contract and should not be spoken under duress.
Let's leave the pledge for the soldiers who really are loyal to this country through their actions and leave everyone else out of it.

-C-
Hmm, I see one flaw in this argument, and that is that SAYING THE PLEDGE IS NOT COMPULSORY! But yes, no one takes it seriously, and usually it's just ignored, so honestly I don't see what the big deal is. I never have felt the need to say it, and could care less if it said "under god" or not.

About your second argument<,> I will concede that the capital 'g' may well be a reference to the judeo-christian deity, but <-> first off <-> <there> is no such thing as a judeo-christian religion. <You're> either one or another. I am not sure though if this reference is unconstitutional<:> Jefferson wrote we are "created" equally in the <Constitution>. Creation? What atheist believes in creation? Is this the shoving of religion down the throat of an atheist?


I was "created" when a little sperm cell met a little egg cell. So, no, it is not the "shoving of religion down the throat of an atheist". It's the acknowledgement that I was created through a biological process. I did not exist before it happened, but I definitely existed afterward. This would fit the definition of creation from what I last checked.

On More Dissidence's comment:
>>Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge. <<

Actually, there is chastisement of students for NOT reciting the pledge. We are also all forced to stand for the pledge, which brings us a step closer to being forced to say it. I also recall that through elementary and middle school we were forced to say it and punished if we didn't.
That's a definite sign that we should just stop saying it in schools at all.

-C-

On More Dissidence's comment:
>>Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge. <<

Actually, there is chastisement of students for NOT reciting the pledge. We are also all forced to stand for the pledge, which brings us a step closer to being forced to say it. I also recall that through elementary and middle school we were forced to say it and punished if we didn't.
That's a definite sign that we should just stop saying it in schools at all.

-C-

Actually, there is chastisement of students for NOT reciting the pledge. We are also all forced to stand for the pledge, which brings us a step closer to being forced to say it. I also recall that through elementary and middle school we were forced to say it and punished if we didn't.
That's a definite sign that we should just stop saying it in schools at all.

-C-
Well such is not the case in most schools. I would say that was a decision of that particular administration, and should be taken up with them.

at my school, you do not have to say the pledge. you are supposed to stand out of respect for the flag, which is ok.

Hrrub > nothing in the education codes of all 50 states contains details on punishment of students who do not say the pledge. By the way, read the whole thread, I quoted texas education code later. Read.

The troble that liberals who are atheists have with the pledge is that the government IS their 'God' - in that there is no higher authority to them.if the Pledge of Allegiance led you to believe that crap, you can be used as further evidence that the pledge does indeed discriminate against atheists

Then explain to me what organization has authority that athiets place higher than their government?

Explain to me why the wording of a "pledge of allegiance" has anything to do with God?

Explain to me why a Christian nation, so-called, finds the wording of a pledge more important than the behaviour of its own government.

Explain to me what sort of God would find this rational, let alone forgiveable.

That is not the topic at hand - change the subject rather than address the issue? Loser strategy.

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.
But the reasons for wanting to change it are rabidly anti-religious.
Rock on, Labrador!
She was proven wrong later, but I guess you didn't read that part.

Proven wromng WHERE?? It IS tbe law Texas schoolchildren recite the Pledge...and the Texas pledge. And if you don't want to, you have to get a note from your PARENTS. What if your parents won't give you one? Why can't a high school kid, for example, nearly an adult...make these decisions for themselves, WITHOUT needing a note from parents?

Why can you, as a teenager, be tried as an adult for some crimes...but can't even, as an adult, make up your own mind about whether or not you WANT to pledge allegiance this country, this state...with or without reference to God...or ANY god?

It only violates the establishment clause if the Government or a Government Institution places into effect laws or regulations which require individuals to recite the pledge or face punishment.

There are no such laws.

Texas law requires schools to have "Pledge Time", this is not a violation, since there is no mention in the law of the individual or chastisment of individuals for reciting the pledge.

The pledge is a motto, not a law. Leave my motto alone.

First, if you really feel that way, then you ought to be for removing it. Because they mucked with the original, back in 1954. what ever happened to "leave my motto alone" then?

Second, Texas schoolchildren ARE required, by law, to recite both the Pledge...and a Pledge to the Texas flag.


"Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

Third, hate to bust your bubble, but "In God We Trust" is NOT the U.S. Motto. In fact, the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" which, when translated from Latin means "One from many," and is a reference to how many colonies came together to form one nation...hence "one from many."

by the way...the reason I know the Texas Pledge is because I live in Texas in RL....and am a product of the Texas public education system.

Graduated class of 1989, from David Crockett High School, in Austin, Texas.

Rock on, Labrador!
--Traegonia, Georgetown High School Class of 2004

Ah...you live in that miniature police state to our north, Williamson county, huh? I'm sorry for you! Rock on...we got room for you in Austin if you want to escape The Fascist Republic of Williamson County!

You aren't paying attention the capitalized G means the judeo christian deity other wise the g would be lowercase. .


No, apparently you do not know what proper grammar is. when 'god' is used as a name, as in 'God, our father' it is capitalized. Just as 'Allah, our father' would be. or 'Bert, our Father.'. "fred, our father" would be incorrect.

When 'god' is used as a noun it would not be capitalized. "Our father thinks he is a god" would be correct. "Our father thinks he is a God' would be incorrect.

There, your grammar lesson is over. Please don't confuse good grammar with religion again, lest it too be banished from public schools.


As well you are also wrong about the point in adding "Under God", the point in adding that phrase was to keep those evil athiest-communists at bay that explains why this arose during the 1960's rather than the creation of the pledge. .

At least try to get your decade right. It takes away from your credibility. I would argue that any nation that thinks itself equal to or above God is not a nation of free men. Therefore 'under God' is a statement which not only defines the limited nature of the US government, but also clearly eliminates the pledge from the category of 'prayer' (which WAS a concern for the church in the 50s) If you don't understand why, a prayer does not specify limitations of the one prayed to.[/quote]


Finally your assumption that the government is the "God" of the atheist is complete non-sense. I truly hope that you are a parody.

Please, quote me rather than butcher me in a paraphrase. I specifically said: (and even included my typo)

The troble that liberals who are atheists have with the pledge is that the government IS their 'God' - in that there is no higher authority to them.
An no atheist has yet proposed to me what organization they hold higher than their government.

Keep the goddamn phrase in the pledge. The people who want it removed are oversensitive pansies. How horrible is it to offer up a little lip service to God in the pledge. I'm an atheist and I do it just fine. It doesn't automatically mean you believe in it. However, if parents want to raise their child atheistic, and don't want him/her to say the pledge because of their beliefs, that kid shouldn't be forced to. I've heard of stories of kids getting detentions because they wouldn't say the pledge because their parents told them not to. Kids shouldn't be forced to say it if they don't want to.

I was suspended for reading the Bible in class during a free time once. I never once thought to be a little B*tch about it; I took my suspension and didn't worry on it.

It was only added in an embarassing fit of national McCarthyism as a knee-jerk reaction against the "godless commies". It isn't even an original part of the pledge. Two big reasons jump out at me in particular:
1. A nation cannot have freedom of religion without freedom FROM religion, and unlike the "God" mentioned on money, which no one is forced to read, children are forced to pledge about a nation under god in school. This is wrong.
2. The addition kills the thing poetically. It doesn't even scan correctly anymore. Say it w/o the "under God" bit. It has much better flow without.

An no atheist has yet proposed to me what organization they hold higher than their government.

*poke* *points up*

Here's a better answer that is parallel to my previous answer:

We the people.

Edit: Apparently the server wanted to make absolutely sure that message was posted.

I see the words "Under God" on our currency, but I dont see these morons boycotting cash. Give me a better example of Hypocracy.

I'm an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegience. I consider it a part of our national herritage, seeing as how [parts] our country was founded for religious reasons.

I see the words "Under God" on our currency, but I dont see these morons boycotting cash. Give me a better example of Hypocracy.

I don't see an "Under God" anywhere on any of the bills or coins I have with me. I see "In God We Trust" on every bill and coin. I also see a really nifty little "Annuit Coeptis. Novus Ordo Seclorum" on the one dollar bill.

I see the words "Under God" on our currency, but I dont see these morons boycotting cash. Give me a better example of Hypocracy.

I'm an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegience. I consider it a part of our national herritage, seeing as how [parts] our country was founded for religious reasons.

They used to burn witches in Salem, citing God as an authority for their actions.

Perhaps that colourful tradition should be revived as part of the national heritage.

Teach 'em respect that would.

An no atheist has yet proposed to me what organization they hold higher than their government.

*poke* *points up*

Here's a better answer that is parallel to my previous answer:

We the people.

In otherwords, a democracy, which is a loose definition of our style of government (democratic republic to be more specific)

try again.

I voted yes. Not because im some religious nut, but because its an insignificant, stupid phrase that may have meant something once, in todays world is just a phrase, nothing more nothing less.

An no atheist has yet proposed to me what organization they hold higher than their government.

*poke* *points up*

Here's a better answer that is parallel to my previous answer:

We the people.

In otherwords, a democracy, which is a loose definition of our style of government (democratic republic to be more specific)

try again.

There is a nontrivial difference between stating "The people" versus "The government". The government would be an unique subset of the people - even in a truly democratic society not everyone participates in the activities of government. I propose that I hold the collected body of the people, being those people that compose not only the government but also those people that do not, as a higher authority than even the government. At any time, I reserve the right to choose a particular subset of the people to hold in higher authority or regard than any other. Whether or not this subset of the people is the same subset as those people which compose the government is neither always true nor always false.

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.
But the reasons for wanting to change it are rabidly anti-religious.
Rock on, Labrador!
She was proven wrong later, but I guess you didn't read that part.

Proven wromng WHERE?? It IS tbe law Texas schoolchildren recite the Pledge...and the Texas pledge. And if you don't want to, you have to get a note from your PARENTS. What if your parents won't give you one? Why can't a high school kid, for example, nearly an adult...make these decisions for themselves, WITHOUT needing a note from parents?

Why can you, as a teenager, be tried as an adult for some crimes...but can't even, as an adult, make up your own mind about whether or not you WANT to pledge allegiance this country, this state...with or without reference to God...or ANY god?
You were proven wrong by the fellow who quoted congressional acts that recognized both "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" as national mottos of the United States.

actually, though i do agree with your wonderfully sarcastic remark, Smeagol-Gollum, just to correct your facts, no "witches" were ever burned in Salem. they resorted to hanging, dunking, and pressing. the spell-casting whores of the devil were only ever lit on fire in europe.

and to the one from australia: i agree with everything you said as well, except for one detail... the bit about looking at a word form rather than the meaning... in the English language, capitolization and other word form mutations can be very important. it can mean the difference between "Peter" (name) and "peter" (childish term for penis). syntax, semantics, capitolization, even inflection in a person's spoken voice all change the meaning of a word or phrase. in most modern languages, you can't seperate word forms from meaning. "their," and "they're" both sound the same, but have different forms and thereby different meanings. they are technically the same pronoun (they), but the change in form changes the meaning. by the same token, "god" and "God" do in fact have different meanings. only the christian faith refers to their deity by the noun "God." in hebrew, His name is actually the tetrigrammaton: "YHVH" (commonly pronounced as Yaweh), but that is considered taboo, and therefore they refer to him as G-d. always with the hyphen when written. this is partially because vowels are not letters in Hebrew, but rather modifications of letters, and G-d is the closest way to directly translate it into Latin characters, but it is also out of respect. muslims call their deity "Allah" (as i'm sure you all know), and this does translate from arabic into "The God." however, no muslim will refer to Him as "the God." it is always Allah, be the muslim in question a speaker of Arabic, English, French, Mandarin Chinese, or whatever other language of which you can think. pagans refer to their gods by their name, which varies depending on tradition. Wiccans refer to their deities as the god and the goddess (capitolization is optional here, but the direct articles are not).

i've already been over the different names of deities in different faiths, so i won't rehash any more of it again. the point is, it is not "judeo-christians" that use the term "God" in reference to higher power. it is in fact only Christians. every other religion diferentiates it with articles, refusal to translate, real names (as opposed to titles and nouns that have been turned to names), and removed vowels. agnostics don't know (or sometimes even care) if any god exists, therefore don't have a proper term to use for one. as for atheists, i'm sure you know how they refer to the concept of deities.

as a linguist, i hate to say this: this is not a question about religion. this is a question about semantics and legality.

There, your grammar lesson is over. Please don't confuse good grammar with religion again, lest it too be banished from public schools.

The Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions recognize a single one god, so capitilization makes sense. Other religions recognize many gods, so you have to refer to them as a god or by their proper name. Capitilizing the word god means you are stating that there is a single deity that holds that is worthy of being called a god. Thus, saying "under God" establishes allegience to a specific religion much like saying "under the god, Zeus" would.

At least try to get your decade right. It takes away from your credibility. I would argue that any nation that thinks itself equal to or above God is not a nation of free men. Therefore 'under God' is a statement which not only defines the limited nature of the US government, but also clearly eliminates the pledge from the category of 'prayer' (which WAS a concern for the church in the 50s) If you don't understand why, a prayer does not specify limitations of the one prayed to.

None of this changes the fact that the motive for adding it was to discriminate against communists (who were thought to be the same thing as atheists at the time). The problem of it being much like a prayer (which is why Jehovah's witnesses are still not permitted to say the pledge) may have been a secondary concern, but the true motive was quite clear. Did you know that it is still illegal for the government to hire anyone that considers themselves a Communist. It's ok if you're a Fascist, Socialist, Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, etc. But if you're a Communist, you're not getting hired.

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.
But the reasons for wanting to change it are rabidly anti-religious.
Rock on, Labrador!
She was proven wrong later, but I guess you didn't read that part.

Proven wromng WHERE?? It IS tbe law Texas schoolchildren recite the Pledge...and the Texas pledge. And if you don't want to, you have to get a note from your PARENTS. What if your parents won't give you one? Why can't a high school kid, for example, nearly an adult...make these decisions for themselves, WITHOUT needing a note from parents?

Why can you, as a teenager, be tried as an adult for some crimes...but can't even, as an adult, make up your own mind about whether or not you WANT to pledge allegiance this country, this state...with or without reference to God...or ANY god?
You were proven wrong by the fellow who quoted congressional acts that recognized both "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" as national mottos of the United States.

He didn't PROVE jack shit. He made an assertion, and did not document or source it...just made an assertion. I fail to see how I have, as yet, been PROVEN wrong. And even if he IS correct, and can source it, I'm still not wrong, because E. Pluribus Unum IS still the motto of the United States, and has been around far longer than the phrase "In God We Trust." Whether or not that phrase is ALSO a national motto...I never said it was or wasn't, and I quite frankly don't give a rat's ass if it is. I'm not FORCED to SAY it. I just spend the cash.

Let's see him source The Congressional Record, where IF "In God We Trust" WAS adopted as a national motto, in addition to E Pluribus Unum, it would be documented. I want year, chapter, verse...I want credible, reliable documentation...not just some zealot's assertion. Until then, I'm not PROVEN wrong. Someone else just happens to have made an assertion, and not properly backed it up...but YOU just happen to like and agree with what HE said...so you'll accept his assertion as PROOF...because it affirms what you already want to believe.

Me, I'd like a citation from an unbiased and unimpeachable source. And that source, for me, would be The Congressional Record. Find it for me in there, and POINT TO IT. If you can do that, THEN...that's proof. Till then, it's just another foaming-at-the-mouth zealot spewing shit.

EDITED FOR TYPOS

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.
But the reasons for wanting to change it are rabidly anti-religious.
Rock on, Labrador!
She was proven wrong later, but I guess you didn't read that part.

Proven wromng WHERE?? It IS tbe law Texas schoolchildren recite the Pledge...and the Texas pledge. And if you don't want to, you have to get a note from your PARENTS. What if your parents won't give you one? Why can't a high school kid, for example, nearly an adult...make these decisions for themselves, WITHOUT needing a note from parents?

Why can you, as a teenager, be tried as an adult for some crimes...but can't even, as an adult, make up your own mind about whether or not you WANT to pledge allegiance this country, this state...with or without reference to God...or ANY god?
You were proven wrong by the fellow who quoted congressional acts that recognized both "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" as national mottos of the United States.

He didn't PROVE jack shit. He made an assertion, and did not document or source it...just made an assertion. I fail to see how I have, as yet, been PROVEN wrong. And even if he IS correct, and can source it, I'm still not wrong, because E. Pluribus Unum IS still the motto of the United States, and has been around far longer than the phrase "In God We Trust." Whether or not that phrase is ALSO a national motto...I never said it was or wasn't, and I quite frankly don't give a rat's ass if it is. I'm not FORCED to SAY it. I just spend the cash.

Let's see him source The Congressional Record, where IF "In God We Trust" WAS adopted as a national motto, in addition to E Pluribus Unum, it would be documented. I want year, chapter, verse...I want credible, reliable documentation...not just some zealot's assertion. Until then, I'm not PROVEN wrong. Someone else just happens to have made an assertion, and not properly backed it up...but YOU just happen to like and agree with what HE said...so you'll accept his assertion as PROOF...because it affirms what you already want to believe.

Me, I'd like a citation from an unbiased and unimpeachable source. And that source, for me, would be The Congressional Record. Find it for me in there, and POINT TO IT. If you can do that, THEN...that's proof. Till then, it's just another foaming-at-the-mouth zealot spewing shit.

EDITED FOR TYPOS
It isn't the congressional record, but it's a government source. Look at it before you dismiss it.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

Am I the only one who considers this matter from a purely legal perspective instead of from a rabidly anti-religious or rabidly religious perspective?

"Change it back to the original" is not rabidly anti-religious.
But the reasons for wanting to change it are rabidly anti-religious.
Rock on, Labrador!
She was proven wrong later, but I guess you didn't read that part.

Proven wromng WHERE?? It IS tbe law Texas schoolchildren recite the Pledge...and the Texas pledge. And if you don't want to, you have to get a note from your PARENTS. What if your parents won't give you one? Why can't a high school kid, for example, nearly an adult...make these decisions for themselves, WITHOUT needing a note from parents?

Why can you, as a teenager, be tried as an adult for some crimes...but can't even, as an adult, make up your own mind about whether or not you WANT to pledge allegiance this country, this state...with or without reference to God...or ANY god?
You were proven wrong by the fellow who quoted congressional acts that recognized both "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" as national mottos of the United States.

He didn't PROVE jack shit. He made an assertion, and did not document or source it...just made an assertion. I fail to see how I have, as yet, been PROVEN wrong. And even if he IS correct, and can source it, I'm still not wrong, because E. Pluribus Unum IS still the motto of the United States, and has been around far longer than the phrase "In God We Trust." Whether or not that phrase is ALSO a national motto...I never said it was or wasn't, and I quite frankly don't give a rat's ass if it is. I'm not FORCED to SAY it. I just spend the cash.

Let's see him source The Congressional Record, where IF "In God We Trust" WAS adopted as a national motto, in addition to E Pluribus Unum, it would be documented. I want year, chapter, verse...I want credible, reliable documentation...not just some zealot's assertion. Until then, I'm not PROVEN wrong. Someone else just happens to have made an assertion, and not properly backed it up...but YOU just happen to like and agree with what HE said...so you'll accept his assertion as PROOF...because it affirms what you already want to believe.

Me, I'd like a citation from an unbiased and unimpeachable source. And that source, for me, would be The Congressional Record. Find it for me in there, and POINT TO IT. If you can do that, THEN...that's proof. Till then, it's just another foaming-at-the-mouth zealot spewing shit.

EDITED FOR TYPOS
It isn't the congressional record, but it's a government source. Look at it before you dismiss it.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

We wasted time and taxpayer money putting this garbage into the Pledge, why waste more to take it out? The kids simply don't pay attention to it!

About your second argument<,> I will concede that the capital 'g' may well be a reference to the judeo-christian deity, but <-> first off <-> <there> is no such thing as a judeo-christian religion. <You're> either one or another. I am not sure though if this reference is unconstitutional<:> Jefferson wrote we are "created" equally in the <Constitution>. Creation? What atheist believes in creation? Is this the shoving of religion down the throat of an atheist?


I was "created" when a little sperm cell met a little egg cell. So, no, it is not the "shoving of religion down the throat of an atheist". It's the acknowledgement that I was created through a biological process. I did not exist before it happened, but I definitely existed afterward. This would fit the definition of creation from what I last checked.

Exactly how many people knew of this biological process in the 18th century. My guess is not that many. Created by a God is Jefferson's implication. Personally I think that pokes a hole in the 'wall' between church and state advocates.

I see the words "Under God" on our currency, but I dont see these morons boycotting cash. Give me a better example of Hypocracy.

I'm an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegience. I consider it a part of our national herritage, seeing as how [parts] our country was founded for religious reasons.

They used to burn witches in Salem, citing God as an authority for their actions.

Perhaps that colourful tradition should be revived as part of the national heritage.

Teach 'em respect that would.

They never burnt witches anywhere in America. Protestants, such as the Puritans hung witches, Catholics burnt witches.

Again...show me IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD where "In God We Trust" was adopted as a second motto, or a replacement motto. I'm not buying that web site...lots of government web sites have false information put in them by zealots. You think zealots don't work in government??

The Congressional Record...on the other hand..,is a record of all laws passed, and all floor debates, on every bill, for a given year, and it is published once a year.

For "In God We Trust" to have been adopted as a motto, this would have required an act of Congress. So where in the Congressional Record is it?

If it's there, this is another example of the violation of the Establishment Clause. Don't give a rat's ass if it's on the money, I just spend the cash. But if it is an official national motto, adopted by an act of Congress, it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause "Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of an official religion..."Yet, by acting in a manner that makes that a national motto...they are showing national preference to the Judeo-Christian God...in violation of the Establishment Clause...and the motto "In God We Trust" if it ever WAS adopted as a national motto...should be overturned...from a legal standpoint.

Ah, but you zealots don't see it that way. You care not for the finer points of law, as long as the result is something that allows you to cram your religion down everyone else's throat!!

Since, as posters before me have said, the "under God" part was inserted in 1954, I don't mind if it is removed. I'm not a member of any of the religions who worship "One God", (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), but it has never offended me to give the pledge. I can also sit in a friend's place of worship if something's going on that's important to that friend, and my attendance is desired. I don't know what the big deal is. If most Americans want to keep "under God", then let it stay. If most want it removed, then remove it. Period.

So, just let your Congresspersons or Senators know your preference, and when the time comes, they will be armed with your wishes. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

I was "created" when a little sperm cell met a little egg cell. So, no, it is not the "shoving of religion down the throat of an atheist". It's the acknowledgement that I was created through a biological process. I did not exist before it happened, but I definitely existed afterward. This would fit the definition of creation from what I last checked.

Exactly how many people knew of this biological process in the 18th century. My guess is not that many. Created by a God is Jefferson's implication. Personally I think that pokes a hole in the 'wall' between church and state advocates.

Um, I think pretty much everyone in the 18th century understood what happened when a man stuck his penis in a woman's vagina. They might not have known everything that was going on, but I think that if I told Thomas Jefferson that my "Creator" was a biological process that occurred due to the mixing of fluids inside of the woman's body, he would be smart enough to understand my point of view.

Again...show me IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD where "In God We Trust" was adopted as a second motto, or a replacement motto. I'm not buying that web site...lots of government web sites have false information put in them by zealots. You think zealots don't work in government??

The Congressional Record...on the other hand..,is a record of all laws passed, and all floor debates, on every bill, for a given year, and it is published once a year.

For "In God We Trust" to have been adopted as a motto, this would have required an act of Congress. So where in the Congressional Record is it?

If it's there, this is another example of the violation of the Establishment Clause. Don't give a rat's ass if it's on the money, I just spend the cash. But if it is an official national motto, adopted by an act of Congress, it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause "Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of an official religion..."Yet, by acting in a manner that makes that a national motto...they are showing national preference to the Judeo-Christian God...in violation of the Establishment Clause...and the motto "In God We Trust" if it ever WAS adopted as a national motto...should be overturned...from a legal standpoint.

Ah, but you zealots don't see it that way. You care not for the finer points of law, as long as the result is something that allows you to cram your religion down everyone else's throat!!

Whether it was adopted as a motto or not I don't know but I do know that the I'll call it statemeny was reaffirmed by the senate unaminously and almost all of the house.

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, cuz i don't feel like reading the whole thing...

The constitution never says separation of church and state. Look it up, it's not in there.

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

So, the under God thing could be considered unconstitutional, but so would taking it out.

Why not just leave it alone. It doesn't hurt you to say it, and you don't even HAVE to say the pledge at all anymore. So what's the big deal? I don't go around complaining every time someone says "God damn it!" in a movie, or hear it on the streets, etc., and I assure you, that offends me more than having the words "under God" offends you.

P.S. emphasis on NO law, for or against.

I think it should be changed to 'under Cthulhu'

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, cuz i don't feel like reading the whole thing...

The constitution never says separation of church and state. Look it up, it's not in there.



The Constitution of the United States doesn't explicitly state a lot of the rights that the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted to be buried in the language of the Constitution. It would be useful if you would actually read up on constitutional law before spouting useless rhetoric you've heard from someone else.

As for where the language of the "Separation of Church and State" came from, Thomas Jefferson penned the language in a letter to the Anabaptists who congratulated him for being a defender of religious freedom throughout the country.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

You would also do well to read what the father of the Constitution had to say concerning religious freedoms:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm



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

So, the under God thing could be considered unconstitutional, but so would taking it out.



How does taking the words "under God" prohibit your free exercise of religion? I would really like to know, so please explain this to me. The removal of the words prevents no one from including the words in the pledge of their own free will. It prevents no one from stating, "Amen" at the end of the pledge. Removing the words has no impact on the free exercise of religion in the United States of America.

If those two words are removed no one is harmed. No one's rights are impinged. No one in this country will lose a single thing if those words are removed from the pledge. In fact, Americans stand only to gain because they may insert whatever statement of belief into the pledge that they see fit and will no longer be forced to acknowledge that America is one nation under God. We only stand to gain by making the pledge religion-neutral because it will no longer contain language that is exclusive of those in this country that believe in multiple gods, no-god, or merely feel that the "God" being acknowledged is the Christian god to which they feel no allegiance.


Why not just leave it alone. It doesn't hurt you to say it, and you don't even HAVE to say the pledge at all anymore. So what's the big deal?

Actually, I like to say the pledge. This may sound funny, but everyday there is a session in the general assembly here in Georgia, I stand up and put my hand over my heart and say the pledge. And I'm watching it over a computer from my office across the street from the capitol. I like to say the pledge. I like to acknowledge that my country is great and glorious and that I have faith in it. And I would like to be able to say the pledge without having to mentally delete two words from it everytime I speak out loud.

Mind you, I can see that my officemates notice that I never say those two words.


I don't go around complaining every time someone says "God damn it!" in a movie, or hear it on the streets, etc., and I assure you, that offends me more than having the words "under God" offends you.


Your distaste for cursing containing "god" in it cannot even begin to measure up to the level of offense that I feel everytime I hear the words "under God" spoken aloud as part of the pledge. I feel the weight of discrimination that 250 million citizens have placed themselves under everytime it is spoken.

There is a nontrivial difference between stating "The people" versus "The government". The government would be an unique subset of the people - even in a truly democratic society not everyone participates in the activities of government. I propose that I hold the collected body of the people, being those people that compose not only the government but also those people that do not, as a higher authority than even the government. At any time, I reserve the right to choose a particular subset of the people to hold in higher authority or regard than any other. Whether or not this subset of the people is the same subset as those people which compose the government is neither always true nor always false.

Nice cop-out. I suppose the only rw example I can think of that could mirror that statement would be a street gang: The gang members are more loyal to each other than to their government. If you want to be a gang-banger be my guest..

There, your grammar lesson is over. Please don't confuse good grammar with religion again, lest it too be banished from public schools.

The Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions recognize a single one god, so capitilization makes sense. Other religions recognize many gods, so you have to refer to them as a god or by their proper name. Capitilizing the word god means you are stating that there is a single deity that holds that is worthy of being called a god. Thus, saying "under God" establishes allegience to a specific religion much like saying "under the god, Zeus" would.

At least try to get your decade right. It takes away from your credibility. I would argue that any nation that thinks itself equal to or above God is not a nation of free men. Therefore 'under God' is a statement which not only defines the limited nature of the US government, but also clearly eliminates the pledge from the category of 'prayer' (which WAS a concern for the church in the 50s) If you don't understand why, a prayer does not specify limitations of the one prayed to.

None of this changes the fact that the motive for adding it was to discriminate against communists (who were thought to be the same thing as atheists at the time). The problem of it being much like a prayer (which is why Jehovah's witnesses are still not permitted to say the pledge) may have been a secondary concern, but the true motive was quite clear. Did you know that it is still illegal for the government to hire anyone that considers themselves a Communist. It's ok if you're a Fascist, Socialist, Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, etc. But if you're a Communist, you're not getting hired.

Dang, I am chain-quoting. Curse the NS server for making me let this pile up...

Only one global religion is not monotheistic - Hindu. Some also could argue the holy trinity is actually polytheism. However, in a polytheism 'Under God' could still apply, to whichever god they choose, since none is named.

Re: Discriminating against commies. That is ok. It has been allowed for decades and is fully allowed. It is no less a crime than discriminating against terrorists or those who sympathise with them. In fact, commies have been responsible for far more loss of life than terrorists.

I think it should be changed to 'under Cthulhu'

My Lovecraft is a but rusty, but isn't Cthulu suberranian? (or submerged) Would it not be then ' Above Cthulu?"

Since, as posters before me have said, the "under God" part was inserted in 1954, I don't mind if it is removed. I'm not a member of any of the religions who worship "One God", (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), but it has never offended me to give the pledge. I can also sit in a friend's place of worship if something's going on that's important to that friend, and my attendance is desired. I don't know what the big deal is. If most Americans want to keep "under God", then let it stay. If most want it removed, then remove it. Period.

.

Ah...so if most American want all homosexuals rounded up and summarily executed that should happen, too, huh?

Or what if the majority of Americans want to go back to slavery?

There IS such a thing as the rule of law...laid our in the Constitution...and "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, whether or not that is a popular opinion does not matter. The fact is it violates the rule of law, and should be removed. QED.

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, cuz i don't feel like reading the whole thing...

The constitution never says separation of church and state. Look it up, it's not in there.

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

So, the under God thing could be considered unconstitutional, but so would taking it out.

Why not just leave it alone. It doesn't hurt you to say it, and you don't even HAVE to say the pledge at all anymore. So what's the big deal? I don't go around complaining every time someone says "God damn it!" in a movie, or hear it on the streets, etc., and I assure you, that offends me more than having the words "under God" offends you.

P.S. emphasis on NO law, for or against.

but it DOES hurt you, if you are forced and compelled to recite it...and it goes against YOUR religious belief. How would you like it, if you were a Christian, but the majority of this country were Muslim, and the phrase "Under Allah" were put into the pledge. then YOU would be forced and compelled, every day, to recite something that goes against YOUR religious beliefs. So, yes...it DOES hurt some people to have to say it..but you are obviously too insensitive to see that. Maybe the example I have laid out will awaken your sensibilities, and compassion for others who may believe differently than you do.

Dang, I am chain-quoting. Curse the NS server for making me let this pile up...

Only one global religion is not monotheistic - Hindu. Some also could argue the holy trinity is actually polytheism. However, in a polytheism 'Under God' could still apply, to whichever god they choose, since none is named.

Or maybe Buddhism, which I believe recognizes no particular god? Or Wicca (although small, it is global) which recognizes many?

Re: Discriminating against commies. That is ok. It has been allowed for decades and is fully allowed. It is no less a crime than discriminating against terrorists or those who sympathise with them. In fact, commies have been responsible for far more loss of life than terrorists.

It has been allowed for decades but that does not make it constitutional or right. Religious and politcal freedom means freedom to hold any beliefs. The government allows the Nazi party to state its beliefs, but since the Russians were Communists - we are allowed to discriminate against them? Terrorists actually harm people, someone who thinks we should go by a communists system, while misguided, do not.

I think it should be changed to 'under Cthulhu'

My Lovecraft is a but rusty, but isn't Cthulu suberranian? (or submerged) Would it not be then ' Above Cthulu?"

Well, I suppose that works until he rises to consume us all, yeah.

Nice cop-out. I suppose the only rw example I can think of that could mirror that statement would be a street gang: The gang members are more loyal to each other than to their government. If you want to be a gang-banger be my guest..

If that is the only real-world example you can think of then your experience in this world is quite limited.

Well, see now this is a tricky subject, isn't it? Personally, I say ditch the pledge in school. Now, before you jump up and start beating me with whatever your largest, heaviest national club/mace-like object is, hear me out.

In all the schools I have gone to, you were required to stand for the pledge. In this, I see two main problems: 1) It takes away from our freedom of speech and 2) It oppresses the minority religions.

It takes away from free speech because one should have the right as to whether or not they wish to support our country. If you support the green party and our government signs a bill to give clear-cutting rights to corporations (this is an extreme, completely hypothetical and unrealistic example, I know, but it helps me prove a point) but anyway, if the bill is signed, that green-party person will not want to support or for that matter, pledge allegiance to a country that just totally "dissed" their beliefs.

It opresses minority religions in a number of ways. When I was in Elementary School, I had a Jehova's Witness friend. Everyday the teachers would make us recite the pledge and everyday the entire class would stand but him because his parents wouldn't let him. He had to endure the ridicule of his peers, daily arguments with the teacher over why he couldn't stand, and even once got a detention. Yes, it's not fair-but it happens and the police aren't going to arrest a teacher for trying to make someone say the pledge...

so that my two cents - peace out ya'll...

It opresses minority religions in a number of ways. When I was in Elementary School, I had a Jehova's Witness friend. Everyday the teachers would make us recite the pledge and everyday the entire class would stand but him because his parents wouldn't let him. He had to endure the ridicule of his peers, daily arguments with the teacher over why he couldn't stand, and even once got a detention. Yes, it's not fair-but it happens and the police aren't going to arrest a teacher for trying to make someone say the pledge...


They should have reprimanded the teacher harshly. It's a violation of that student's civil liberties to detain that student for exercising a recognized civil right. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette found that forcing a student to salue the flag was an infringement of that student's civil liberties. Punishing someone for exercising their civil liberties is, likewise, an infringement of one's civil liberties.

Synopsis from an obviously biased source:

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_WVABarnette.htm

Court's decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624

Or maybe Buddhism, which I believe recognizes no particular god? Or Wicca (although small, it is global) which recognizes many?

actually, there are several hundred pagan sects each followed by a substantial number of people (dang, I hate being so general).
The definition of Pagan is, loosely, belief in more than one God/Goddess.
Even Dianists don't believe in solely Diana, they include hecate, innanah, artemis, etc. in their prayers.

actually, Christianity, Judeaism, and Islam (and their various offshoots and branches) are the only world religions that i can think of that are monotheistic. Buddhists recognize no deity, but rather a universal consciousness, and are therefore nontheistic. Zoroastrians recognize two gods, Ahura Mazda and Angar Manyu, one good and one evil (respectively), who at the beginning of time were one god that was all powerful but partially evil (he seperated himself so that he would be part wholly good and part wholly evil, but neither part all-powerful), and are therefore bitheistic. Paganism is a blanket term to cover anyone who believes in multiple gods and goddesses, and are therefore polytheistic. voodoo practitioners believe that one being made the world, then set down lesser gods (loa) to watch over it and rule it, which makes them difficult to classify. i think i covered the major ones. if anyone wishes to add tot his list, feel free. and if i am mistaken, and there are more monotheistic faiths than the three i can think of, then please tell me about them.

as stated before, many of the founding fathers were deists... even though this has been stated several times over, people seem to ignore it. i believe that this may be because the people who just must have Thomas Jefferson et al. be christians don't know what this term means. so i'll define it.

God, goddess, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Odin, or whoever made the universe. then he/she/it basically said "OOOOOOOOHHH! SHINEY THING OVER THERE!" and walked off to play with it, never came back, and doesn't have anything at all to do with the workings of the world or its people anymore. this is commonly called the Clockmaker Theory (the clockmaker puts a clock together with love and devotion, and though he still loves the clock that he created, he sells it or leaves it because the clock doesn't need him to run it, ithe clock can run all by itself).

and if the reason people were conveniently ignoring the Deist remarks wasn't because they didn't know what it meant, then you should apologize making me give a crash course on a belief structure :P

It is as offensive as saying "one nation without a god" to polytheists, atheists, and agnostics. Government should have no business supporting monotheism.

Let's just say....why not say 'why take them out'...

Let's ask...what GOOD do they do in our song? why do we even have to sing it...i'm not proud of this country...especially after our middle easy policy...and don't tell me to leave; i still want to live here, but shouldnt have to be FORCED to sing a song of PRIDE :?

Again...show me IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD where "In God We Trust" was adopted as a second motto, or a replacement motto. I'm not buying that web site...lots of government web sites have false information put in them by zealots. You think zealots don't work in government??

The Congressional Record...on the other hand..,is a record of all laws passed, and all floor debates, on every bill, for a given year, and it is published once a year.

For "In God We Trust" to have been adopted as a motto, this would have required an act of Congress. So where in the Congressional Record is it?

If it's there, this is another example of the violation of the Establishment Clause. Don't give a rat's ass if it's on the money, I just spend the cash. But if it is an official national motto, adopted by an act of Congress, it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause "Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of an official religion..."Yet, by acting in a manner that makes that a national motto...they are showing national preference to the Judeo-Christian God...in violation of the Establishment Clause...and the motto "In God We Trust" if it ever WAS adopted as a national motto...should be overturned...from a legal standpoint.

Ah, but you zealots don't see it that way. You care not for the finer points of law, as long as the result is something that allows you to cram your religion down everyone else's throat!!

Whether it was adopted as a motto or not I don't know but I do know that the I'll call it statemeny was reaffirmed by the senate unaminously and almost all of the house.

In which case, that affirmation would also be cited in the Congressional Record. And since that is an Act of Congress showing favoritism to one specific religion, it still violates the Establishment Clause. But again, zealots like you don't care, as long as you get your way.

Again, "God" is a very general term. Depending on the beholder, the word could refer to any religion.

By the way, the Congressional Record is quoted in the link I attached. Like I said, Labrador, READ it before disregarding it.