NationStates Jolt Archive

Clicky (http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D11531351)

TAR's sure gonna have a field day with this . . .

Good. I knew they would, simply because it's rather rediculous. However, the loony left out there will try again in a few years, trust me.

Well, if you dont beleive in God, just dont say 'Under God', 'One nation, with liberty and justice for all' sounds fine and nobody will give you a second glance.
The Seventh Day Adventists and my school dont even stand for the pledge, so I dont see anything wrong with somebody skipping a few words.

EDIT:
Funny story...
One time our county got into a debate about this, so for the entire week me and a few friends decided that during the Pledge we were going to shout 'Under God' as loud as we could...we got some funny looks, but then people started joining in, it was great :D

Good. I knew they would, simply because it's rather rediculous. However, the loony left out there will try again in a few years, trust me.You're really starting to turn, Purly. Once you were reasonable, able to get into an intelligent and reasoned discussion and willing to listen to opposing views. Now you're talking about "the loony left." What happened to you?

Besides, the court didn't even rule on whether or not the words "under god" were constitutional or not. It simply ruled that Michael Newdow lacked standing to bring the case.

Can you not believe in God but not want to have the nation be under Him? Even if I was Christain, I wouldn't like having to say that in the pledge. It's counter-productive.

And the case isn't closed, either. Yes, it will come back up.

Good. I knew they would, simply because it's rather rediculous. However, the loony left out there will try again in a few years, trust me.You're really starting to turn, Purly. Once you were reasonable, able to get into an intelligent and reasoned discussion and willing to listen to opposing views. Now you're talking about "the loony left." What happened to you?

Besides, the court didn't even rule on whether or not the words "under god" were constitutional or not. It simply ruled that Michael Newdow lacked standing to bring the case.

I have noticed that as well.

As to the Court, it was kind of a cop-out on their ruling.....

The court's decision rested in the fact that because that douchebag doesn't have custody of his daughter, he does not have the legal right to speak for her.

This tool will probably now try to sue for custody of his daughter, and if he wins, he'll then have the legal right to start this debate up all over again.

I truly believe that this is just a stunt by Newdow. He says he is an antheist, but really started his own chruch called the Universal Life Church. Besides that, he represented himself without any law expierance. Pretty impressive. This guy is probably one of the smartest men in the world, but his desire for fame is a shame for humanity. This guy could be doing stuff to help the world.

.
Besides that, he represented himself without any law expierance. Pretty impressive.

He had gone to law school about 10 years before (don't hold me to that number though), then took the Bar Exam and passed (I believe without any preparation). So yeah, the guy is a genius (as well as an emergency room physician) but he could be putting his brain to better use. By the way, the daughter is Christian.

.
Besides that, he represented himself without any law expierance. Pretty impressive.

He had gone to law school about 10 years before (don't hold me to that number though), then took the Bar Exam and passed (I believe without any preparation). So yeah, the guy is a genius (as well as an emergency room physician) but he could be putting his brain to better use. By the way, the daughter is Christian.
I had heard he passed the bar, but i looked at his bio and it said nothing of it. he represented himeslf in the 9th Circut. His docterate is in something like Dr. of the Universe or something kinda fishy like that. Still, it is such a waste to see someone like that trying to change something that in reality means nothing. AIDS, global warming, and stuff could really use his help instead.

I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want to say "Under God", then don't. Or don't say the pledge at all. But, I see no reason why a historical document should be changed.

Thats great shows that those stupid athiests wont always win :D

He says he is an antheist, but really started his own chruch called the Universal Life Church.

heh, that rocks. i'm also an ordained minister of the universal life church, in addition to being an atheist.
http://www.ulc.org/?destination=ordination&numina=780015799

I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want to say "Under God", then don't. Or don't say the pledge at all. But, I see no reason why a historical document should be changed.

because it is blatantly unconstitutional, both on the face of it and in light of the historical precendent set in other supreme court cases on the nature of 'establishment' and the special coercive nature of the school setting.

I had heard he passed the bar, but i looked at his bio and it said nothing of it. he represented himeslf in the 9th Circut. His docterate is in something like Dr. of the Universe or something kinda fishy like that. Still, it is such a waste to see someone like that trying to change something that in reality means nothing. AIDS, global warming, and stuff could really use his help instead.Dude--he's an M.D. Medical Doctor. Works in an emergency room. Helps heal people. Nothing fishy about it.

I agree that he's making a big deal out of something that isn't pressing at the moment--people have been saying "under God" for over fifty years and the world hasn't come to an end as a result--but come on, give the guy the credit he deserves for his education. he finished both med school and law school and is certified to practice both--that's damn impressive.

I am not an atheist and I dont want "under god" in the pledge because it was not in the original pledge for one and because noone should be forced to give lipservice to soemthing that they dont wish to. and people ARE forced to say the pledge in many schools, which I also find to be pretty stupid.

this is a sad day for freedom of thought

too bad we are such a right wing nation hell bent on converting everyone in it to christianity, when we are supposed to be secular and have freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state

because it is blatantly unconstitutional, both on the face of it and in light of the historical precendent set in other supreme court cases on the nature of 'establishment' and the special coercive nature of the school setting.

I can't speak for every school in the country, but most schools in the Northeast have the pledge as an optional thing. Which is what it should be.

I am not an atheist and I dont want "under god" in the pledge because it was not in the original pledge for one and because noone should be forced to give lipservice to soemthing that they dont wish to. and people ARE forced to say the pledge in many schools, which I also find to be pretty stupid.

this is a sad day for freedom of thought

too bad we are such a right wing nation hell bent on converting everyone in it to christianity, when we are supposed to be secular and have freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state

....which is why saying the pledge shouldn't be mandatory.

I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want to say "Under God", then don't. Or don't say the pledge at all. But, I see no reason why a historical document should be changed.

because it is blatantly unconstitutional, both on the face of it and in light of the historical precendent set in other supreme court cases on the nature of 'establishment' and the special coercive nature of the school setting.

What about all the Biblical inscriptions in the Supreme Court building? Surely that can't be considered unconstitutional.

Like it or not, religion has played a huge role in the creation of America. If you don't like the phrase "Under God," don't say it. It's that simple.

[edited to say that my post was not directed at Free Soviets]

What about all the Biblical inscriptions in the Supreme Court building? Surely that can't be considered unconstitutional.

Like it or not, religion has played a huge role in the creation of America. If you don't like the phrase "Under God," don't say it. It's that simple.

[edited to say that my post was not directed at Free Soviets]Here's the difference, according to the Supreme Court. There's nothing inherently wrong with religious inscriptions, symbols, etc on public buildings as long as they're part of a larger context and don't act as proselytizers for a particular religion or set of beliefs. In other words, while Moses appears on a mural in the Supreme Court building, it's not an issue because he appears alongside (I believe) Hammurabi, King John and the Magna Carta, Justinian, and other historical influences on the law.

It's hard to make the same argument for the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because of the reason it was inserted and because of the fact that it invokes a belief in a Supreme Deity, even though the government isn't supposed to take a stand on that matter.

As a student in America's schools forced to say this everyday, nobody actually cares about it. We just stand up, mumble the pledge, and sit down. We don't care. I don't see a reason to care. You know, we added it to distinguish our pledge from communist pledges.

History of the Pledge (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories//2002/06/27/national/main513592.shtml)

dp.

My friend and I often have fun making up entirely new pledges that bear almost no resemblence to the American one except for its rythm (we both live in the states). Proves to be entertaining to no end. Or we just begin to list off the gods of various religions. "One nation, under god, allah, buddha, krishna, shiva, confucious, etc . . ."

Good. I knew they would, simply because it's rather rediculous. However, the loony left out there will try again in a few years, trust me.You're really starting to turn, Purly. Once you were reasonable, able to get into an intelligent and reasoned discussion and willing to listen to opposing views. Now you're talking about "the loony left." What happened to you?

Besides, the court didn't even rule on whether or not the words "under god" were constitutional or not. It simply ruled that Michael Newdow lacked standing to bring the case.

I have noticed that as well.

As to the Court, it was kind of a cop-out on their ruling.....
Actually, Justices Reinquist, Thomas, and O'Connell did say that it was constitutional for teachers to lead the classroom in saying the pledge how they please, with or without "under God".
As for me, I've actually thought that I'm moving to the left a bit, not right. But that comment about the loony left was what I meant to say, because I've always thought that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was liberal to the point of wacko.

I had heard he passed the bar, but i looked at his bio and it said nothing of it. he represented himeslf in the 9th Circut. His docterate is in something like Dr. of the Universe or something kinda fishy like that. Still, it is such a waste to see someone like that trying to change something that in reality means nothing. AIDS, global warming, and stuff could really use his help instead.Dude--he's an M.D. Medical Doctor. Works in an emergency room. Helps heal people. Nothing fishy about it.

This is what is says from his Bio.

"Mike Newdow is an average guy who actually started his first religious institution while in junior high school in New Jersey. He finished high school there, and then undertook some university work in assorted locations. In 1977, he became an ordained minister, and has since lived his life according to the tenets of the Universal Life Church, which basically state: "Do what's right." In 1997, he started his second religious institution, the First Amendmist Church of True Science (FACTS). Although that ministry holds a firmly atheistic view of the world, it strongly supports the ideals behind the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

He is presently working on obtaining his Master of Public Health degree at the UCLA School of Public Health. In 1996, he was awarded First Place in the Delta Omega Honorary Society of Public Health Student Essay Contest, writing on "Empowering the Disadvantaged: Social Justice in Public Health." In 1998, he obtained his Doctor of the Universe Degree. The Rev. Dr. Newdow has the usual varied hobbies, including writing, music, theater, and sports. He has traveled fairly extensively, and dabbles in computer programming. "

The court's decision rested in the fact that because that douchebag doesn't have custody of his daughter, he does not have the legal right to speak for her.


It's still a copout. Custody of the child? That should have been answered at the lower courts.

They could have answered it once and for all. It is going to return and it's going to be about "Under God" the fact he didn't have full custody is bull.

Time to start a conspiracy theory: The shrub didn't want this during election time! ;)

It's still a copout. Custody of the child? That should have been answered at the lower courts.

They could have answered it once and for all. It is going to return and it's going to be about "Under God" the fact he didn't have full custody is bull.

Time to start a conspiracy theory: The shrub didn't want this during election time! ;)Actually, I'll bet Karl Rove was begging for the Supremes to at least be divided on this--talk about a way to stir up faux patriotism and throw the churches into a tizzy.

I can't speak for every school in the country, but most schools in the Northeast have the pledge as an optional thing. Which is what it should be.

yes, however the court has consistently ruled that it is unconstitutional for a school official to lead an optional prayer in school, or to have a student lead one with the air of school authority. the argument being that just calling something optional does not necessarily make it so, particularly in the school environment. and we know with absolute certainty that the words 'under god' were not added to the pledge to serve a secular purpose. which makes the pledge lose on several constitutional standards.

and then there is the fact that the only thing that saved me from getting detentions over my refusal to stand for the pledge in high school was the fact that i could cite cases at them.

It happens to be the case that the US of A. are not the only nation of the world that have christianity as their "mainstream" religion. Even communist nations have religions that believe in "god". I find it thus arrogant and offensive if a nation claims to have sole rights to the word/meaning "god" in any form or to abuse religion yet again to make a political stand. This mix of politics and religion must end once and for all - if it doesnt happen in the US of A., then I dont know where it will start.

simple enough though the words were added at a time when the soviet block was destroying anything related to any form of god in order to set up the people to only worship there leaders.

as for whether it should remain in the constitution i say why not? so you dont believe in a god? then they are just word. it isn't like you are going to be struck down by a higher being if you dont believe in one right? get over it.

or just say the pledge how you see it, leave out under god, really i dont se how thse two little words can hurt you people so much.

I wouldn't care at all about the words "umder god" and I didn't, in fact, until I found out that it wasn't part of the pledge. The only halfway decent reason I hear for leaving it is "well why change it" and that just doesn't cut it as an argument, since THEY CHANGED IT ALREADY. Don't "change" it...just restore it.

This does bring up one question for me.

What purpose would be, constuctively, served by removing the term, "Under God", from the Pledge?

The term seems to make some feel as if it makes the Pledge more meaningful to them. Therefore, it is helpful in making them more patriotic by using the term.

The term seems to make some feel ill at ease due to having a supreme being watching over them. Therefore, making them more mindful of their own actions.

The term seems to make some feel forced to accept a religious stance. This has not been shown yet, just expressed. You are only stating that the Nation is "Under God" not you individually are. We are a Christian Nation. This is a fact known globally. It is a simple matter of stating a fact to say that the United States is a nation "Under God".

I think removing the term,Under God", would have more negative impact, on the nation, than having it in the pledge, ever has.

Just so you know. If they ever take the "under god" out of the pledge, I will make sure to say it anyway, plus twice as loud. I don't care if I mess up the rest of the pledge and end a few seconds after everyone else.

What a bunch of utter crap. The Pledge didnt have "under god" in it until your administration decided - for purely political reasons - to add it. The US of A are NOT a Christian nation. Your President wants ot be a Christian, but you and your President trample the majority of Christian belief and laws with your feet at every opportunity!!!

What a bunch of utter crap. The Pledge didnt have "under god" in it until your administration decided - for purely political reasons - to add it. The US of A are NOT a Christian nation. Your President wants ot be a Christian, but you and your President trample the majority of Christian belief and laws with your feet at every opportunity!!!
Dude, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I find it kind of hard to use "God" in a general sense when not only is it capitalised as a proper noun, but it does not represent atheists and agnostics.

I have no power to decide on removing it. If I did, however, I would.

I no longer include "under God" when I do recite the pledge, and so help me <Whichsoever-Deity-You-Prefer>, I will refrain from reciting the pledge altogether if Bush gets reelected. Silent political protest, it may not be much, but <Deity>dammit, it's something.

The english national anthem is 'God Save the Queen'. Has this become an issue in England? I haven't heard any real complaint here about our national anthem, 'God Defend New Zealand' (although the Maori version is now always sung too)

For some reason, I don't really mind.

It would be worthwhile to note that God Save The Queen has been around for far longer than "Under God". "Under God" Was put into the Pledge at the same time when schools were making it required to say the pledge in schools, somtime in the 50's. "Under God" Was added to the pledge as a "We aren't commies" measure, because the composer of the pledge was, in fact, a communist. The biggest Fuster Cluck caused by the pledge was probably the hate crimes commited against Jehova's Witnesses, who believed it to be heresy to pledge allegiance to anything other than God. As a result, many of them were assaulted in school for being unpatriotic, and several were expelled.
A short History (http://americanhistory.allinfoabout.com/library/facts/pledge.html)

Behind the Jehova's Witnesses (http://members.ij.net/rex/commentary/pledge.html)

Who cares about the damn pledge, if you don't want to say it, you don't have to.

I never stood for it in high school, and no one said anything about it to me.

Yes, and in the past, Germans killed Jews. But that doesn't make today's Germans bad. The Pledge may have had a rocky history, but it's fine now. If you change it, you're just pandering to the athiests, rather than the theists.

1) 14 June 2004, the U.S. Congress adds the words "under God" in the previously secular Pledge of Alleigence.

2) Theism, the belief in God, in inherently a religious position of belief;

* a) Theism is a faith-based position on the question of the nature of Devinity, namely, that Devinity exists in the form of God;

* b) the claims of Theism are well established as underlying tennets of various established theistic religions, and thus Theism as a whole is an establishment of religion, or at the very least a corporate body of established religions.

3) Atheism, the belief in the non-existance of God, is an inherently religious position of belief;

* a) Atheism is a faith-based position on the question of the nature of Devinity, namely, that Devinity does not exist;

* b) Atheism and Theism are both establishments of religion, founded on mutually opposing faith-based hypotheses.

4) the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states, in part, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

5) therefore the actions of the 1954 U.S. Congress to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Alliegence were illegal under constitutional law.



- Rev. A.J. Harris

Why Waste Your Vote On the Old Coke-or-Pepsi Party?
Waste Your Vote On Me

I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want to say "Under God", then don't. Or don't say the pledge at all. But, I see no reason why a historical document should be changed.

Hrmm, by your logic then, we should never have said "under God" in the first place. As a "historical document" the original Pledge did not have the phrase "under God" in it. It was added several decades after. Sorry to burst your bubble.

By the way, I hate to say this, but I agree with New Auburnland's initial post. That's kind of scary to say.

Atheism is not the belief in the non-existence of god. It is the non-belief in the existence of god.. whichever you chose, it is not a religion. Contrary to Christians, Atheist people (like me) do not "believe" in anything higher neither do we believe in the non-existence of it. We base our stance on the facts of science and personal experience, contrary to Christians, who base their religion on a book and faith.

Atheism is not the belief in the non-existence of god. It is the non-belief in the existence of god.. whichever you chose, it is not a religion. Contrary to Christians, Atheist people (like me) do not "believe" in anything higher neither do we believe in the non-existence of it. We base our stance on the facts of science and personal experience, contrary to Christians, who base their religion on a book and faith.

We? As in all atheists? You speak for the group? Where did your group learn science? From a book? Perhaps you took faith in some of your hypotheses? Hrmmmm

I speak for the group because it really doesnt matter what we base our stance on as long as it is not the "belief" in something. Atheism = I do not believe in any higher power. I do not know that it exists neither do i know that it does not exist, so I will not believe in it until (if at all) I see proof that it exists. I prefer to not believe in something until I know that it is worth it.

I speak for the group because it really doesnt matter what we base our stance on as long as it is not the "belief" in something. Atheism = I do not believe in any higher power. I do not know that it exists neither do i know that it does not exist, so I will not believe in it until (if at all) I see proof that it exists. I prefer to not believe in something until I know that it is worth it.

So you do realize that scientists have discovered several things that they can't actually prove right? They just have faith that something is there, whether or not they can prove it.

I doubt atheism would ever be called a group, nor can you speak for the entirety. But, I think it is possible for someone to state that an atheist does express a belief that there is not a God. You said so yourself, thereby contradicting yourself.

The english national anthem is 'God Save the Queen'. Has this become an issue in England? I haven't heard any real complaint here about our national anthem, 'God Defend New Zealand' (although the Maori version is now always sung too)

For some reason, I don't really mind.

Of course, the Brits don't really believe in monarchy anymore either, so their affirmation of God and Queen shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Many people ask "why all the fuss", but as is clear from the ferocity of some of the posts (and letters to the editor, and political speeches, and debates) from both sides, it is a big deal to a lot of people. So why? After all, it is just two words, right?

Well, those words carry a lot of symbolism and weight. In the span of two words, you take an offical pledge, that is meant to affirm the patriotism and loyalty of ALL Americans, and you turn it into a confirmation of the country's Christian identity. Essentially, by endorsing or rescinding those words, you are making a big statement, about what sort of country this is. Is it a country in which majority rules, to the detriment of individual rights, or vice versa?

As has been pointed out, America has no state religion. Under the current interpretation of the Constitution, the government is forbidden from endorsing any specific religious group. (And if this interpretation changes, I suspect you'll have a large movement to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the government's religious neuterality.)

If you agree with that premise (I do), it follows that the government is in violation of the civil rights of everyone (yep, Christians too) by including endorsements to God in pledges, oaths, currencies, etc. I say Christians too, because what if you don't agree that America has God's particular grace shining on it?

But that last point is superfluous. Even if the civil rights of not a single Christian were being abridged, the rights of any group not believing in a higher power (or at least a higher power named God) clearly are. No, we don't have to say it (classroom coersion and peer pressure aside), but it is still a part of an official government statement, and we have a right not to be told by the government that God exists, or that our country is under him/her/it/them.

Removing the words "under God" from the Pledge does not deny this country's Christian origins. The pledge doesn't say "One nation, founded on Christian ideals" it says "One nation, under God" which is not the same thing. I thank Christians for founding this country, and for giving its government most of its soundest doctrinal ideas. That does not mean that I must accept a Christian government.

Nor should Christians have to accept an atheist government. I am not suggesting the idea that we change the Pledge to "One nation, there is no God, with liberty and justice for all..." I don't want atheists to rule. I hate the idea. Anyone who has ever sat through a "Freethinkers" meeting can understand why. I just want government to keep its damn hands out of religion.

The USA is not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, I can recommend several, but I don't think you'd like them. They seem to be concentrated in the Middle East.

If the Pledge, that great symbol of our American patriotism, is ever changed to reflect the legal dictates of the Constitution, I invite Christians to continue reciting "under God" if they so choose (as long as they aren't teaching it to a public school classroom). It is their right. That is free speech at its most outstanding.

But please understand that I, as an atheist, truly am made to feel like a second-class citizen by officially sanctioned government endorsement of the majority religious institution. It sucks going through life being told by your government that you can believe whatever you want...but you're wrong. The government doesn't have any business telling that to me (or anyone else). May not seem like a big deal to you, but it sure does to me.

Atheism is not the belief in the non-existence of god. It is the non-belief in the existence of god.. whichever you chose, it is not a religion. Contrary to Christians, Atheist people (like me) do not "believe" in anything higher neither do we believe in the non-existence of it. We base our stance on the facts of science and personal experience, contrary to Christians, who base their religion on a book and faith.

Then you are not an Atheist, you are an Agnostic. Sorry to burst your bubble.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ATHEISM[/url] ]
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=AGNOSTICISM[/url] ]
ag·nos·ti·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm)
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.


Actually, you are, as you have described your beliefs, an agnostic in actual etymological form but the above definition is based on common usage. Etymologically what is described in the quote above is Antignosticism. Actual Agnosticism takes no position on the potential for answers to such question, while Antignosticism posits that they can never be answered (at least during this life).

All a side point, as I have no (realistic) hopes of actually reforming the English language. And anyway you are taking a major side road. Agnosticism and Antignosticism, as well as non-Androtheistic beliefs such as Gynotheism, Polytheism, and Non-Anthropomorphotheism and as well as all non-Theistic but otherwise Devinity oriented beliefs such as Buddhism and Taoism all could have been included in my statement. Quibbling over the specific definitions of any of these belief systems is just a distraction.

- Dru for Prez

The english national anthem is 'God Save the Queen'. Has this become an issue in England? I haven't heard any real complaint here about our national anthem, 'God Defend New Zealand' (although the Maori version is now always sung too)

For some reason, I don't really mind.
The British are different from Americans. The British has a um....history of religous issues.

So I don't see why you guys would not want to say "God Save the Queen." You guys have always been doing it.

Us Americans? We left you guys for that reason and many others. 8)

*Streaks through thread*

Got me my diplomatic creds :D

If the disbelief in anything "above me" is called Agnosticism - then I'll accept that I am an "Agnostic" or whatever you call it.

*streaks through thread*

If the disbelief in anything "above me" is called Agnosticism - then I'll accept that I am an "Agnostic" or whatever you call it.

That would be atheism, agnosticism is admitting that you don't know whether there's a god or not.

I disbelief in anything above me because I dont know whether or not there is a god.

I disbelief in anything above me because I dont know whether or not there is a god.

That's.....tricky to define.

You don't believe in god because you can't prove it either way?

An Agnostheist?

Or maybe an Athenostic?

Its a mix of Atheism and Agnosticism I think. As long as nobody can prove its existence aand due to its nature, it cannot be proven nor disproven, I disbelief that there is anyhting above me. It would be.. insane to belief in something that is not there. Some people call that schizophrenia or paranoia or whatever forms of mental sickness there exist where people belief in things that dont exist or cant be proven to exist. Whatever you want to call it, its the opposite of Theism and no play of words will change it.

The english national anthem is 'God Save the Queen'. Has this become an issue in England?

Yes, the problem is that the queen lives in a big house, with barbed wire and guards with guns. Thats one saved fucking queen.
That's the problem, she's overly saved. She has no idea of the struggle of human excistence. We have to work for a living, raise a family. We don;t have nannies running all over the place.
So 'God save the queen', no! It's 'God attack the queen', that's what it should be.
'God attack the queen, send big dogs after her, that bite her bum.'
That's be fantastic. Then she'd have to fight the crazy dogs with her handbad with a brick in it.
'Crazy dogs! Crazy dogs!'
'Arrr! Kill the queen!'
'No! Crazy dogs!'
And maybe she'd kill the crazy dog. And everyone in Brittain would go 'Hell, fair play to the queen. Killed the crazy dog.'
And then the queen would have self-respect for the first time in her life!
Yes. If it'd work it would be fatabulous.

If the disbelief in anything "above me" is called Agnosticism - then I'll accept that I am an "Agnostic" or whatever you call it.

Seems to me maybe you should define what you mean by "disbelief".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=DISBELIEF[/url] ]
DISBELIEF

\Dis*be*lief"\, n. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.


It seems to me that although American Heritage only gave it one bullet heading the above quote describes at least two or three definitions. I am using the first. From what you said before, you seem to be using one of the latter two. But just to get this down, do you believe that:

a) God does not exist, although if you are given proof otherwise you think you will be open minded; or

b) God may or may not exist, but you have no proof either way?



Anyway this has been major threadjacking. My amateur legal opinion in the form of a logical argument is what seems to have set it off, and what I would much rather be talking about, and hearing your opinion of, is the forumites' takes on that post of mine. I know that I must sound at least a little egotistical here but at least it will be on topic.

- Regards
Druthulhu for Prezident

I would agree to a and b. Frankly.. god or not god.. if there is a god, good for him, if there isnt, good for him. As long as I see no proof of its existence I will not care either way. But since due to its nature, god cannot be proven nor disproven, I am confident that I will never have to bother believing in god. Thank god.

I would agree to a and b. Frankly.. god or not god.. if there is a god, good for him, if there isnt, good for him. As long as I see no proof of its existence I will not care either way. But since due to its nature, god cannot be proven nor disproven, I am confident that I will never have to bother believing in god. Thank god.

:roll:

You cannot agree to both. They are mutually exclusive. Either you do believe in something, or you believe in its absence/antithesis, or you believe in neither. You cannot BOTH disbelieve and also have no opinion on the truth or falsehood of a thing.

:roll:

- Dru4Prez

Dru, you were right the first time. Let's just get off it.

God may or may not exist, but if it is proven that he exists, i think i can be open minded. Right now I have no proof either way. There. Is that better?

Considering that it is unhealthy to believe in things that dont exist and that are unproven to exist, I will not believe in god until someone has proven its existence, which - as I said, due to its nature, is impossible... My non-belief in any higher being can be converted into belief by presenting undeniable proof of this being, to me.

So... about the Pledge. Any thoughts on that?

As I said in another thread, it would be good for a nation to have no governmental ties to religion of any form. No signs, no text and no pledge with clear religious meaning. A nation "under god" with a significant number of people, not believing in this "god" or not being certain that there is a "god", cannot claim that everyone is represented by this pledge. If it had no religious drift at all, it would accomodate all since being religious does not give you the right to have your religion in everything, which unfortunately is the case in the US of A, whereas the addition of "under god" clearly favours christianity.

So... about the Pledge. Any thoughts on that?

Yes.

As currenty worded it represents an unconstitutional and therefor illegal endorsement of an establishment of religion, namely of all religions, jointly and severally, that believe in a Devine Being called God.

Those who are opposed to changing that wording fall mostly into two camps:

1) "This is the way we've always done it."
American is great and if you mess with this you are messing with a great tradition, like you did with slavery and spousal chattel. Furthermore God Is real and He will Be pissed if we don't revere His Name in our public institutions. And if He doesn't do something about it then we are obviously expected to. Also since Theism is not one specific religion, promoting the belief in God as a general concept does not violate the Seperation Clause, which out Founding Fathers© intended only for the benefits of Chri... uhm... religious individuals anyway.

2) "Yeah, ok, but who cares?"
There are far more important issues to address than whether or not two little words are recited or not in a ritual directed for our most impressional members of society to participate, or decline to participate (do five year olds have free will? :roll: ) in by agents of our government, paid for by our taxes. There is the War on Terrorism©™ &/or on Iraq &/or on Drugs &/or on Illiteracy &/or on Teen Pregnancy &/or on the Disembodied Brains from Beta Centauri, etc. There are a million more important things for the courts and the media to give their attention to.

Both of these basic positions share two common tendancies:

1) they don't give a damn about the rule of law, one by replacing law with status quo, the other by simply relegating he rights of Atheists and Agnostics to the status of non-issues.

2) they don't give a damn about the rights of certain minorities, one by simply claiming hedgemony and effective oligarchy, stating that since their beliefs, that God exists, are correct then it is of constitutionally transcendant moral importance that their position be favoured, the other by again discounting the importance of the rights of non-Theists.



- Rev. A.J. Harris

The Pledge of Allegiance is not the National Anthem. The National Anthem is "The Star Spangled Banner" and in the first verse (the one most commonly sung) God isn't included in it.

I agree with the Court's ruling, but I disagree with the basis of that ruling. The law says that you have to have a particular claim on the issue before being able to file a lawsuit. (Such as Newdow not being in custody of the girl.) Under this law, I think the Court is right. However, I disagree with the law, I think some things just need to be done for the good of humanity.

The english national anthem is 'God Save the Queen'. Has this become an issue in England? I haven't heard any real complaint here about our national anthem, 'God Defend New Zealand' (although the Maori version is now always sung too)

For some reason, I don't really mind.

GB does not have a reference to Religious Neutrality in it's national laws.

In fact if memory serves, there is a reference to a national religion is there not?

The english national anthem is 'God Save the Queen'. Has this become an issue in England? I haven't heard any real complaint here about our national anthem, 'God Defend New Zealand' (although the Maori version is now always sung too)

For some reason, I don't really mind.

GB does not have a reference to Religious Neutrality in it's national laws.

In fact if memory serves, there is a reference to a national religion is there not?Unless something has changed, the Church of England is the national church, and the reigning monarch is the titular head of the church as well. I don't think the queen has much pull in either situation, and the cross-influence between church and state has been negligible for years, as far as I understand.

I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want to say "Under God", then don't. Or don't say the pledge at all. But, I see no reason why a historical document should be changed.

because it is blatantly unconstitutional, both on the face of it and in light of the historical precendent set in other supreme court cases on the nature of 'establishment' and the special coercive nature of the school setting.

Sorry just a 'B' grade. You missed that it isn't a document and that the pledge was ammended in the 1950's to add, "Under God".

Otherwise well done.

SHL

SHL is right. That particular portion of the pledge is simply a holdout from the Cold War. If people were willing to change it all willy-nilly (flying in the face of the seperation clause as well) to meet the politics of the day, then why can't we change it back to it's original (and actually constitutional) form?