NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a Wisconsin student. A recent piece of a Wisconsin statute, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0118.pdf, made in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, included the provision below.

118.06
(2) Every public school shall offer the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem in grades one to 12 each school day.* Every private school shall offer the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem in grades one to 12 each school day unless the governing body of the private school determines that the requirement conflicts with the school's religious doctrines.* No pupil may be compelled, against the pupil's objections or those of the pupil's parents or guardian, to recite the pledge or to sing the anthem.


I usually like what the USA does, and I like to honor the people I know who fought for it. So, I like to say the pledge of allegiance when we do morning announcements, which conveniently occur at the start of my law class. The teacher is extremely socialist about economic issues and extremely libertarian about social issues. This gives me a wonderful opportunity to use my right to free speech. I always say it in this way:

"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except atheists and agnostics."

I do, in fact, recite the Pledge of Allegiance within this. (I must admit that this clever scheme is only partially original, though.) Still, I think it makes a great point. The government is giving a special privilege, an endorsement, to religions that support this specific religious idea. The government is declaring that the national symbol, the flag, represents a country that believes in God. People who believe in God have the right to acknowledge God in an official, government-recognized way, but those who do not believe in God do not have the right to acknowledge their beliefs in the same way.

This is a double offense because, by the First Amendment,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
and by the Fourteenth Amendment,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....

If you want to refute me, don't use the argument that "Congress" only means the US Congress because it simply does not. The US Supreme Court has already ruled it to mean both US and State Legislatures based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

In short, as far as I can tell after studying this out and deliberating it for quite a long time, the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form clearly violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

... as far as I can tell after studying this out and deliberating it for quite a long time, the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form clearly violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Well, you should probably make an effort to get use to it because it's not going to change.

Well, you should probably make an effort to get use to it because it's not going to change.

I wasn't speculating that it will change. I was only showing that it was wrong and why. We both know fully well that many of the people making decisions in the USA (or perhaps anywhere) do not make them for the benefit of everyone.

The "under god" part of the pledge only originated because of Mcarthyism in the 60's, and it sounds like Mcarthism violates it too, based on what you have said.

1. It doesn't establish a religion. That is not what "establishment" means.

2. The 14th ammendment doesn't work that way.

This is where we get caught in the middle of how to balance individual liberty with running an efficient government. While religion must be a personal choice, or else we defeat the purpose, it is true that society will always have a common religious/philosophical view. Granted, we are talking about averaging out over 300 million people, but there will still be something there, and our laws will reflect it. So governement will "establish" religion in a very general sense, even if it does not officially endorse a certain religion or denomination. And, if memory serves, the Supreme Court also defined atheism as a religion in a little known case in the early '50's. So either way we have an establishment of religion.

Besides, historically speaking it has been Christianity that has been the prevalent religion in this country. It can even be seen in the Constitution. The concept of seperation of powers comes directly from Swiss Protestants. They believed in it so strongly that they seperated the powers geographically as well as in the governmental structure. This comes out of the Christian idea of imperfect man. How do you keep imperfect man from messing things up too much? You split the power among a few men (or a few groups) so that no one can mess things up too much on his own. Quite ingenious. Also a distinctly Christian idea. So we're stuck with some religion whether we like it or not.

Under God was added in the fifties or sixties to attempt to distinguish ourselves from the soviet union. I think that if it is so easy to just add something, it should be able to be taken away just as easily. To answer your question, however, it is not in violation of the amendments becuase it says that no one shall be forced to recite the pledge or sing the anthem if they dont want to. Also, in the aCt passed by congress that added the line, it specifically stated that no one shall be compelled to recite the added lines. Besides, if saying "Under God" is against it, then we need to change all of our currency that bears the text "In God we trust"

I hate America peroid. I really need to leave after I am out of College.

1. It doesn't establish a religion. That is not what "establishment" means.

2. The 14th ammendment doesn't work that way.
1. Do enlighten us and the courts.

2. My dear, I'm afraid it does.

1. Do enlighten us and the courts.

2. My dear, I'm afraid it does.


1. You know, I could, but it would be a waste of time, because you all think you've scored some clever point. If you don't even know what an established church is, or the relevant state laws at the time of ratification, this converastion is pointless.

In any event, it's a state law, and it doesn't "establish religion", anymore than NYS TAP aid to university students at Yeshiva in NYC does.

2. Bullshit. What is the alleged violation here? Are you making an equal protection claim, or a due process claim? If the former where is the protected class and what is the discriminatory treatment? if you can't point to those then it falls under the rational of Carolene Products, so it's fine.

Even if it does, its fine anyway, since no-one actually has to say it.

The "under god" part of the pledge only originated because of Mcarthyism in the 60's, and it sounds like Mcarthism violates it too, based on what you have said.

50's.... ;)

1. It doesn't establish a religion. That is not what "establishment" means.


It is an acknowledgement of the Christian God which does violate.

Do you know what the establishement means?

Well, you should probably make an effort to get use to it because it's not going to change.
Why would you say that? Things can change all the time.

1. You know, I could, but it would be a waste of time, because you all think you've scored some clever point. If you don't even know what an established church is, or the relevant state laws at the time of ratification, this converastion is pointless.


Oh come one now. Can't you defend it. You think you have scored a point but at least CSW will argue his claims.

It is an acknowledgement of the Christian God which does violate.

Do you know what the establishement means?

Yes, it means the establishment of a state religion by the federal government. States however are free to do so. How do I know this? Because when the Bill of Rights was ratified, several states had established churches. Mass., for example. Only recently has it become broad in scope.

You want more evidence, go look up when Thanksgiving was first established as a national holiday by George Washington . It was to give thanks to God, and no-one complained, or thought it violated the first ammendment. If I was to accept your definition, we'd have to close most of the higher education facilities in the country. (And the National Catherdral. And many Nation Park Service sites).

Also it just says God. Not Christian God.

I just think you have too much time on your hands.

1. You know, I could, but it would be a waste of time, because you all think you've scored some clever point. If you don't even know what an established church is, or the relevant state laws at the time of ratification, this converastion is pointless.

In any event, it's a state law, and it doesn't "establish religion", anymore than NYS TAP aid to university students at Yeshiva in NYC does.

2. Bullshit. What is the alleged violation here? Are you making an equal protection claim, or a due process claim? If the former where is the protected class and what is the discriminatory treatment? if you can't point to those then it falls under the rational of Carolene Products, so it's fine.

Even if it does, its fine anyway, since no-one actually has to say it.
2. Are you seriously denying that the 12th amendment has been extended to include state and federal bodies of legislature? That's how I read your statement...

2. Are you seriously denying that the 12th amendment has been extended to include state and federal bodies of legislature? That's how I read your statement...

What does this have to do with the election of the President?

Well, you should probably make an effort to get use to it because it's not going to change.

Why not? It's changed before ... several times even.

It is an acknowledgement of the Christian God which does violate.




Where does it say "Christian God"?

The term "god" is generic. Allah is god, or at least that is the translation.

Where does it say "Christian God"?

The term "god" is generic. Allah is god, or at least that is the translation.
"Allah" ≠ Christian God

Well, you should probably make an effort to get use to it because it's not going to change.
Actually the supreme court would probably be quite willing to throw the law out. The main reason the previous Pledge lawsuit was denied was because the guy arguing it for his daughter didn't have his daughter's approval. If you can find the backing for a lawsuit I'd sue the state on grounds it's unconstitutional..

What does this have to do with the election of the President?
14th. Long day.

You want more evidence, go look up when Thanksgiving was first established as a national holiday by George Washington . It was to give thanks to God, and no-one complained, or thought it violated the first ammendment. If I was to accept your definition, we'd have to close most of the higher education facilities in the country. (And the National Catherdral. And many Nation Park Service sites).

Also it just says God. Not Christian God.


Sorry but Washington granted a one time holiday.

It was Lincoln that made it by offical proclimation. The Presidents maintained it until FDR who declared it to be the 4th Thursday of November in 1939.

Finally the claim of a Relgious holiday is often misunderstood.

Thanksgiving did not start from any one event. It is a conglomeration of events that merged.

The Plymouth colonists and the native Wampanoag came together for a 3 day harvest feast in 1621; the first Thanksgiving.

The Pilgrims' exact date is unknown but it is known to have occured between September 21 and November 9 but probably early October.

Few people realize that the Pilgrims did not celibrate Thanksgiving the next year, or any year thereafter.

Prior to the mid-1800s, Thanksgiving had nothing to do with the 1621 harvest, Pilgrims or Native people. It started as a traditional New England holiday that celebrated family and community. It began in England and came over with the Pilgrims. It descended from Puritan days of fasting and festive rejoicing. The governor of each colony or state declared a day of thanksgiving each autumn, to give thanks for general blessings. As New Englanders moved west in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, they took their holiday with them. After the harvest, governors across the country proclaimed individual Thanksgivings, and families traveled back to their original homes for family reunions, church services and large meals.

----------
As to the Christian God comment.

If it was to be neutral then it would have been done like the Declaration and used creator. Under God is Christian.

It is an acknowledgement of the Christian God which does violate.

Do you know what the establishement means?


You must remember that it was added at a point where America had its head farther up its collective ass than it does today.

Also, it does not explicitly say "under the Christian God".(anyone who wants to dispute this should be forewarned: GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND LEARN TO READ, PLEASE!) It merely says God. "God" is a generic term relating to the male (or genderless, perhaps) deity of any monotheistic religion. It does appear to be promoting monotheism, and that's not exactly a nice thing to do, but hey, it's better than some things it could promote (i.e. human sacrifices, etc --- oh wait, that's war..)

You must remember that it was added at a point where America had its head farther up its collective ass than it did today.

Also, it does not explicitly say "under the Christian God".(anyone who wants to dispute this should be forewarned: GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND LEARN TO READ, PLEASE!) It merely says God. "God" is a generic term relating to the male (or genderless, perhaps) deity of any monotheistic religion. It does appear to be promoting monotheism, and that's not exactly a nice thing to do, but hey, it's better than some things it could promote (i.e. human sacrifices, etc --- oh wait, that's war..)

Sorry but big G as in God; is christian. A generic would have been their creator or even little g as in god.

It was added for the Soviets. They are gone. It is not needed anymore.

You don't hear the hindu, jews, or muslims defending it. Only the Christians.

Why is that?

Sorry but Washington granted a one time holiday.

It was Lincoln that made it by offical proclimation. The Presidents maintained it until FDR who declared it to be the 4th Thursday of November in 1939.

Finally the claim of a Relgious holiday is often misunderstood.

Thanksgiving did not start from any one event. It is a conglomeration of events that merged.

The Plymouth colonists and the native Wampanoag came together for a 3 day harvest feast in 1621; the first Thanksgiving.

The Pilgrims' exact date is unknown but it is known to have occured between September 21 and Novent 9 but probable early October.

Few people realize that the Pilgrims did not celibrate Thanksgiving the next year, or any year thereafter.

Prior to the mid-1800s, Thanksgiving had nothing to do with the 1621 harvest, Pilgrims or Native people. It started as a traditional New England holiday that celebrated family and community. It began in England and came over with the Pilgrims. It descended from Puritan days of fasting and festive rejoicing. The governor of each colony or state declared a day of thanksgiving each autumn, to give thanks for general blessings. As New Englanders moved west in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, they took their holiday with them. After the harvest, governors across the country proclaimed individual Thanksgivings, and families traveled back to their original homes for family reunions, church services and large meals.

----------
As to the Christian God comment.

If it was to be neutral then it would have been done like the Declaration and used creator. Under God is Christian.

Yah, well whatever, it was still a religious holiday, even if it was one time only.

And you have said nothing to refute my definition of establisged religion, or counter the point about individual state establishment at the time of the founding. Or the national cathederal &ct.

Furthermore, the pledge in question in no-way establishes a religion. So it's fine. Just like in God we Trust on the money, or opening congress with a prayer, or numerous other things that are okay at the moment. Frankly, I think your definition of the first ammendment in respect of religion is way overbroad. If this is what the voters wanted, I see no problem with it. After all no-one has to say it.

As for your creator point, see the money.

Sorry but big G as in God; is christian. A generic would have been their creator or even little g as in god.

It was added for the Soviets. They are gone. It is not needed anymore.

You don't hear the hindu, jews, or muslims defending it. Only the Christians.

Why is that?

Nope, sorry, you're wrong there...and even the American Heritage dictionary disagrees with you.

God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.

Yah, well whatever, it was still a religious holiday, even if it was one time only.

And you have said nothing to refute my definition of establisged religion, or counter the point about individual state establishment at the time of the founding. Or the national cathederal &ct.

Furthermore, the pledge in question in no-way establishes a religion. So it's fine. Just like in God we Trust on the money, or opening congress with a prayer, or numerous other things that are okay at the moment. Frankly, I think your definition of the first ammendment in respect of religion is way overbroad. If this is what the voters wanted, I see no problem with it. After all no-one has to say it.

As for your creator point, see the money.
You do realize that the guy who wrote the original was one of the clergy, right? He specifically designed it so it could apply to everyone. Then the government had to fuck it up by adding both "The United States of America" because they thought immigrants might get confused and then later on under god because of the "godless commies". Now, while I may intensely dislike communism, that just goes in the category of fucking stupid.

Where does it say "Christian God"?

The term "god" is generic. Allah is god, or at least that is the translation.

Not exactly. Allah doesn't mean just "god" ... it can't really be translated into a single English word. Ilaha is the Arabic word for "god" (generic). Like in the shahadah, "Ash'hadu an laa ilaha illallah" That doesn't translate to "there is no god but god". That would just be silly.

Allah is a name that means "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection". It is the same name used by Moses when he spoke of God (Eloh) and the same name Jesus cried out in the garden (Elah).

14th. Long day.

So are you talking about substantive due process here? I'm confused now. There is partial incorporation under Palko v. Connecticut, but I don't think it extends to this. That's more of a criminal rights issue.

Like I said, I can't identify the protected class, or the significant inpairment of rights, to the extent that would require an EPC analysis. So the law would stand.

Just becuase the 14th amendment partially reads the bill of rights into state law, does not mean that states have no ability to regulate certian aspects of public life.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong there...and even the American Heritage dictionary disagrees with you.

God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.
True, but given those last two definitions I think we can agree that the AH dictionary is completely fucked up.

True, but given those last two definitions I think we can agree that the AH dictionary is completely fucked up.


Not quite. The last two definitions are in a literary context, which can be laden with sarcasm, symbolism, or any other literary shit you want to toss on them.

Ex. "body of a god" = handsome man
"god of nothing"= a powerful ruler or despot

So are you talking about substantive due process here? I'm confused now. There is partial incorporation under Palko v. Connecticut, but I don't think it extends to this. That's more of a criminal rights issue.

Like I said, I can't identify the protected class, or the significant inpairment of rights, to the extent that would require an EPC analysis. So the law would stand.

Just becuase the 14th amendment partially reads the bill of rights into state law, does not mean that states have no ability to regulate certian aspects of public life.

Wait, just to clarify, irrelevent to the topic at hand, are you stating that the 14th amendment does not limit the state governments to only Constitutional actions (the congress shall make no law statements)...

Not quite. The last two definitions are in a literary context, which can be laden with sarcasm, symbolism, or any other literary shit you want to toss on them.
True, but literary context does not a definition make. There could be an addendum stating that it is often used in such situations but they by no means qualify as definitions themselves.

Yah, well whatever, it was still a religious holiday, even if it was one time only.

And you have said nothing to refute my definition of establisged religion, or counter the point about individual state establishment at the time of the founding. Or the national cathederal &ct.

Furthermore, the pledge in question in no-way establishes a religion. So it's fine. Just like in God we Trust on the money, or opening congress with a prayer, or numerous other things that are okay at the moment. Frankly, I think your definition of the first ammendment in respect of religion is way overbroad. If this is what the voters wanted, I see no problem with it. After all no-one has to say it.

As for your creator point, see the money.


Ahh the money argument. Do you even know the history of that? I won't bore and save you the "Yah whatever" comment.

My definion of the amendment is as what Madison had invisioned. A religious neutral goverment.

But that is not possible at the moment.

At this point, tradition will win out over whining. Two words added to the pledge do not help 'establish' a national religion. We don't even specify what God it is we are talking about. I don't see why anyone would complain about this. I'm sick of hearing about kids being 'traumatized' by the words 'under God.'

True, but literary context does not a definition make. There could be an addendum stating that it is often used in such situations but they by no means qualify as definitions themselves.

There are always extra definitions tossed into recent editions. However, this does not give one the right to deny the validity of the original definitions. For example, at one point 'weed' did not refer to marijuana at all, but when used in a certain context, it became another name for marijuana. Now it is included as a definition. Shit happens.

There are always extra definitions tossed into recent editions. However, this does not give one the right to deny the validity of the original definitions. For example, at one point 'weed' did not refer to marijuana at all, but when used in a certain context, it became another name for marijuana. Now it is included as a definition. Shit happens.
True, but proper dictionaries have it noted as slang.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong there...and even the American Heritage dictionary disagrees with you.

God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.

:rolleyes:

At this point, tradition will win out over whining. Two words added to the pledge do not help 'establish' a national religion. We don't even specify what God it is we are talking about. I don't see why anyone would complain about this. I'm sick of hearing about kids being 'traumatized' by the words 'under God.'

Then if it's no big deal, remove it.

But then we would have to listen to 'tramatized' Christians about that.....

True, but proper dictionaries have it noted as slang.
I'm quoting from a 2000 version. I seriously don't think it's perfect, but the definition is consistent across various references (except the frigging Bible dictionary, but jeez, that's a fecking given)

Then if it's no big deal, remove it.

But then we would have to listen to 'tramatized' Christians about that.....


Christians are going to bitch about anything and everything, just like the rest of the human race. Of course, they have political power (who ever heard of an openly Pagan candidate?), so I doubt it's going to change.

I'm quoting from a 2000 version. I seriously don't think it's perfect, but the definition is consistent across various references (except the frigging Bible dictionary, but jeez, that's a fecking given)

Last comment.

The dictionary definition and the intent of the man and the people for it's inclusion of the pledge are two different things.

Why do we even need a pledge anyways? It's like being American is a club.

:rolleyes:


and what's all the eye-rolling about? disappointed that a reference book that's sitting in every school library proved you wrong?

Last comment.

The dictionary definition and the intent of the man and the people for it's inclusion of the pledge are two different things.

You cannot determine intent unless someone comes out and actually says "hey, I'm doing this for this purpose". Did the person who inserted "under God" into the pledge tell you this? Obviously not, so you've got to rely on the actual definition. Otherwise, when it is stated that "all men are created equal", one could assume that since slaves were owned in that time period and were denied the rights of white citizens, "men" does not include those of African ancestry. Also, one could argue that this does not include women, since we had very limited rights until the 20th century.

A: Who needs the pledge anyway? I mean, everyone will forget what country they live in otherwise :rolleyes:

B: Until you prove to me that the atheist/agnostic population of the United States of America is equal to 0, "under God" is forcing religion onto all atheist/agnostics. Besides, "separation of Church and State" means that the State should have diddly to do with the Church, and the Church should have squat to do with the State. No mentioning g(G)od(s)/g(G)oddess(es). Until you agree to say "under Allah/Artemis/Zeus/[insert other diety here]", cut that bit out.

Wait, just to clarify, irrelevent to the topic at hand, are you stating that the 14th amendment does not limit the state governments to only Constitutional actions (the congress shall make no law statements)...

It has been accepted by SCOTUS that the first amendment is incorporated to a certain extent. (Wrongly I would suggest, as they seem to confuse due process with equal protection).

Neverthless, the pledge statute in question does not invoke 14th amendment concerns.

It has been accepted by SCOTUS that the first amendment is incorporated to a certain extent. (Wrongly I would suggest, as they seem to confuse due process with equal protection).

Neverthless, the pledge statute in question does not invoke 14th amendment concerns.
Ah well then, comment withdrawn, I had thought that you were making a statement that had to do with only the 14th.

Yes, as I said before, as no-one is forced to say the pledge, then there are no first or fourteenth amendment concerns. The pledge is quite legal, and the argument that it makes some people "feel" left out, hardly warrants a strict scrutiny analysis.

I think forcing the amish to pay social security taxes is worse, for example. Yet that is constitutional.

I have stayed pretty much out of my own discussion, but I'm back now. How did I know that Lacadaemon would be my biggest opponent? :rolleyes:

Anyhow, only one person seemed to understand the true issue. governement will "establish" religion in a very general sense, even if it does not officially endorse a certain religion or denomination.

Even if we are given the option not to say the pledge, the government has endorsed all religions that acknowledge God. By making laws endorsing religions, the government is telling its citizens that these religions are "better" than others. That creates a subliminal, inherent inequality similar to that found in de jure racial segregation. :(

For the same reason, "In God We Trust" is faulty. This, however, is so tightly linked to the economy that we can't just start over. The obvious choice would be to keep all existing money the way it is and removed the motto from all future mintings.
&c.

I am a student. No, I am not completely traumatized by the Pledge of Allegiance. But I still am seriously offended every day. It doesn't matter what my religious beliefs are. The Pledge of Allegiance is an insult to my beloved US Constitution.

If people want to acknowledge God, then they can do it separate from government laws under the protection of the Ninth Amendment.

looks like I killed the ignorance in this thread...

Whether or not certain people feel it's true or not, the world was indeed created and is maintained by God. Now if they don't want to believe it, fine for them, but it's true either way.

I think the bottom line here is that a house cannot be built without a foundation, our founding fathers chose Christianity as our foundation, take that away and the house falls. America is the most blessed nation in the world, thanks 100% to our christian foundation. Taking God out of everythig will not only be time consuming and a blow to our economy, but will hurt the moral standard of this country, im not saying America has the best morals, but it looks like they're working well so far right? I think its stupid to let such a minority (that is atheists and agnostics) scare the public into changing something that has been in our nation since the first day, Christianity. The pledge is entirely constitutional, and those who dont believe so simply need to omit the "under God" and quit crying about it

Whether or not certain people feel it's true or not, the world was indeed created and is maintained by God. Now if they don't want to believe it, fine for them, but it's true either way.

I really think you're doing this just to get our feathers ruffled, but hey, I'll bite.

Please don't say "it's true either way"; that's a little pompous and flat out annoying.

I think the bottom line here is that a house cannot be built without a foundation, our founding fathers chose Christianity as our foundation, take that away and the house falls. America is the most blessed nation in the world, thanks 100% to our christian foundation. Taking God out of everythig will not only be time consuming and a blow to our economy, but will hurt the moral standard of this country, im not saying America has the best morals, but it looks like they're working well so far right? I think its stupid to let such a minority (that is atheists and agnostics) scare the public into changing something that has been in our nation since the first day, Christianity. The pledge is entirely constitutional, and those who dont believe so simply need to omit the "under God" and quit crying about it

Actually, America was not built on a Christian foundation. Our founding fathers were mostly, in their governmental effect, Deists. They did not found this country on one specific religion. They founded this country on personal freedoms. THIS INCLUDES RELIGION!!! If you take Christianity out of America, various other groups will finally come out of the woodwork, and their followers will resurface. You'd be surprised at how many non-Christians have been in this country since Day 1.

looks like I killed the ignorance in this thread...

Well, in my insanity, I'll reply to myself and say "apparently not".

I have stayed pretty much out of my own discussion, but I'm back now. How did I know that Lacadaemon would be my biggest opponent? :rolleyes:

Anyhow, only one person seemed to understand the true issue.

Even if we are given the option not to say the pledge, the government has endorsed all religions that acknowledge God. By making laws endorsing religions, the government is telling its citizens that these religions are "better" than others. That creates a subliminal, inherent inequality similar to that found in de jure racial segregation. :(

For the same reason, "In God We Trust" is faulty. This, however, is so tightly linked to the economy that we can't just start over. The obvious choice would be to keep all existing money the way it is and removed the motto from all future mintings.
&c.

I am a student. No, I am not completely traumatized by the Pledge of Allegiance. But I still am seriously offended every day. It doesn't matter what my religious beliefs are. The Pledge of Allegiance is an insult to my beloved US Constitution.

If people want to acknowledge God, then they can do it separate from government laws under the protection of the Ninth Amendment.

Well tough. The percieved slight you experience by not being willing to participate in a voluntary ceremony does not rise to the level of having your substantive rights impared.

And it is not the govenrment endorsing a religion, either de jure, or de facto.

The fact that a group takes offence at the badges and incidences of some aspects of state or federal government, does not mean it should be abolished. Would you do away with the flag, because falgs offend some other students, and by having it in the classroom is a "de jure" oppression of them. Should we ban all religious clothing and accoutrements from schools for the same reason.

And I suppose in all this, you are taking the sides of creationists, who say that the state sponsored teaching of evolution is blasphemous and offensive. Isn't that another case similar to "de jure" segregation.

I for one, am far more offended that the federal goverment takes my tax dollars and operates a synagogue in rhode island. Start there, before you worry about peoples feelings being hurt.

Whether or not certain people feel it's true or not, the world was indeed created and is maintained by God. Now if they don't want to believe it, fine for them, but it's true either way.

And either way, it is irrelevant.

Umm actually puritans, the first people to come to America, were strict Christians, Puritanism is a branch of Christianity, and Thomas Jeffferson himself is quoted to have said "im happy that this constitution answers to a higher power than man" so actually yes the constitution and America is based on Christianity. And i'd say to all those religions "in the woodwork" they are not taking their religion veryseriously if they are not proudly exposing it, as Christians do, and therefore should get over it. If someone is that insecure then there is something wrong with their faith, whatver faith that may be.But yes mam America is built on CHristianity, take the foundation away and the house falls

Umm actually puritans, the first people to come to America, were strict Christians, Puritanism is a branch of Christianity, and Thomas Jeffferson himself is quoted to have said "im happy that this constitution answers to a higher power than man" so actually yes the constitution and America is based on Christianity. And i'd say to all those religions "in the woodwork" they are not taking their religion veryseriously if they are not proudly exposing it, as Christians do, and therefore should get over it. If someone is that insecure then there is something wrong with their faith, whatver faith that may be.But yes mam America is built on CHristianity, take the foundation away and the house falls

Once again, total bullshit. The acknowledgement of a higher power does not denote Christianity. It denotes *gasp* THE BELIEF IN A HIGHER POWER!!

The Puritans don't matter in this situation! They were not Washington, Jefferson, or political leaders during the time at which we became a COUNTRY. Also, mind you, that some settlers even LEFT Puritan colonies because they were too uptight, and they didn't believe in the same things.

As for the religions in the woodwork, most of them (including mine, specifically) are recognized by the Supreme Court, but are not recognized by other religious groups. For example, followers of Wicca are often referred to as "witches", a name which brings up all sorts of negative images in the minds of many other religious sects. Also, with such things as fundamentalists who take "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" literally, it's not exactly safe to walk outside and blurt out "HEY, I'M A WITCH". I prefer to display my belief in a more subtle way -- a small silver pentacle around my neck.

whatever i highly suggest you check your facts before getting smug, because in this case you are wrong. Subtlety is not what religions are meant for, you should be proud enough to openly express your wiccan religion to anyone, and not let a necklace speak for you. However maybe its just christains that believe in pride of our religion, and believe in speaking out and witnessing to people. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF YOU DONT LIKE THE PLEDGE< DONT SAY IT< AND QUIT TRYING TO GET THE WORDS TAKEN OUT BECAUSE THE MAJORITY O THE AMEICAN PEOPLE RESPECT THE PLEDGE AND WHAT ITS STANDS FOR

looks like I killed the ignorance in this thread...

Sure you did sweety. Some off us have different hours.

It's rather simplistic to suggest that since we can't ask the people involved so we fall back to the trusty dictionary. Don't read much history now do you?

Do you know Ike's Relgious leanings? Do you know his supporters?

Such infoformation is obtainable and does make the argument.

But you keep arguing with your dictionary.

The rest of us will argue the points of history.

I really think you're doing this just to get our feathers ruffled, but hey, I'll bite.

Please don't say "it's true either way"; that's a little pompous and flat out annoying.

Hello Pot meet kettle.

Wow, now you guys have to resort to personal insults? That's nice. Oh well, have a good day.

Umm actually puritans, the first people to come to America, were strict Christians, Puritanism is a branch of Christianity, and Thomas Jeffferson himself is quoted to have said "im happy that this constitution answers to a higher power than man" so actually yes the constitution and America is based on Christianity. And i'd say to all those religions "in the woodwork" they are not taking their religion veryseriously if they are not proudly exposing it, as Christians do, and therefore should get over it. If someone is that insecure then there is something wrong with their faith, whatver faith that may be.But yes mam America is built on CHristianity, take the foundation away and the house falls

Actually if we had followed the Puritans we would have had a quasi theocratic goverment. Where challeging the elders got you tossed from the community. The Natives were routinly executed for violating Puritan law. Not to mention you can read their diaries where they talk about grave robbing the burial sites of the the natives.

In response to the original post

I'm agnostic and I have all the liberty and justice I could want in this country!

I prefer to display my belief in a more subtle way -- a small silver pentacle around my neck.

Really A Wiccan? I guessed that one wrong.
----
Dang not done....
----

Anyway the highter power argument is valid. They though Religion was a good thing for people. However, there are some who wish to redefine that to Christianity as you might see here with all the arguments the founders were Christians, the country was founded for......

Wow, now you guys have to resort to personal insults? That's nice. Oh well, have a good day.

Well some people you subtle insults. Others use direct.

When you calm down; do return. You were starting to get interesting! ;)

In response to the original post

I'm agnostic and I have all the liberty and justice I could want in this country!

I thought you were one of the facist liberterians! Or was it Librarians? :p

I thought you were one of the facist liberterians! Or was it Librarians? :p
No, the Libertarian facist is this one senior at my school. Or it could be Librarians (or what if Librarians is that senior??)

I'm a Libertarian, nothing more or less

Well some people you subtle insults. Others use direct.

When you calm down; do return. You were starting to get interesting! ;)

I'm simply getting annoyed with someone who insists that every important early American was Christian. However, if I produce evidence suggesting otherwise, he or she will merely produce evidence (whether it's valid or not) to contradict me. Seems a bit pointless, does it not?

There is a very good reason many pagans do not shout it from the rooftops what we believe. Not only are there way to many nutjobs that think it is their jobs to "convert" us, but we are all too aware how Christians once upon a time put us to death for what we believe.

No, the Libertarian facist is this one senior at my school. Or it could be Librarians (or what if Librarians is that senior??)

I'm a Libertarian, nothing more or less

It's a joke my friend!

Of course, if you really want to get into the details, here's a quote (no translation needed, this guy spoke English!!!) to think about for a bit

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Thomas Jefferson

I'm simply getting annoyed with someone who insists that every important early American was Christian. However, if I produce evidence suggesting otherwise, he or she will merely produce evidence (whether it's valid or not) to contradict me. Seems a bit pointless, does it not?

We are in the same camp which is why I was surprised for your "heavy" response. ;)

Part of debate is the presentation of evidence. If you have points, raise them. The Net will always have people that will argue you no matter what. Sites like this are full of people who will never be convinced of anything except their own views. No matter who wrong you prove them.

I get the feeling you have a little more knowledge then just dictionary arguments! ;)

Join into the fray. Someone not afraid to state their opion is always welcomed here. Just remember you find all kinds here. Some that insult just for the sake of it. Some will always argue that you are stupid. some just say things to rattle you and see where you are coming from. ;)

Welcome to the madness!

There is a very good reason many pagans do not shout it from the rooftops what we believe. Not only are there way to many nutjobs that think it is their jobs to "convert" us, but we are all too aware how Christians once upon a time put us to death for what we believe.


Thank you very much for pointing that out!!

Thank you very much for pointing that out!!

But are you two good witches or bad witches? :p

Really A Wiccan? I guessed that one wrong.
----
Dang not done....
----

Anyway the highter power argument is valid. They though Religion was a good thing for people. However, there are some who wish to redefine that to Christianity as you might see here with all the arguments the founders were Christians, the country was founded for......


That's the whole argument I was trying to make, sadly.

But are you two good witches or bad witches? :p

Lovely joke...I want that t-shirt.

AHA! I found my resources...oddly enough, published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation!

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

Is America a Christian Nation?

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
What about the Declaration of Independence?
We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

What about majority rule?
America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.

Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?
Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.

What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?
Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.

Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?
Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."

Write your damn Congressmen. That's illegal on four levels:D

whatever i highly suggest you check your facts before getting smug, because in this case you are wrong. Subtlety is not what religions are meant for, you should be proud enough to openly express your wiccan religion to anyone, and not let a necklace speak for you. However maybe its just christains that believe in pride of our religion, and believe in speaking out and witnessing to people. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF YOU DONT LIKE THE PLEDGE< DONT SAY IT< AND QUIT TRYING TO GET THE WORDS TAKEN OUT BECAUSE THE MAJORITY O THE AMEICAN PEOPLE RESPECT THE PLEDGE AND WHAT ITS STANDS FOR

That's not the "case" at all. The issue isn't over "is ok to say it?" The case is the government respecting an establishment of religion when that is illegal.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

Now do you know what happened? Congress in 1954 passed legislation that officially recognized God in the Pledge. And if God isn't an establishment of religion, I don't know what is. The Pledge never had 'under God' before 1954. The Pledge was also written by a CHRISTIAN MINISTER. If he didn't have 'under God' in the Pledge then the words obviously have no place there.

That's not the "case" at all. The issue isn't over "is ok to say it?" The case is the government respecting an establishment of religion when that is illegal.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

Now do you know what happened? Congress in 1954 passed legislation that officially recognized God in the Pledge. And if God isn't an establishment of religion, I don't know what is. The Pledge never had 'under God' before 1954. The Pledge was also written by a CHRISTIAN MINISTER. If he didn't have 'under God' in the Pledge then the words obviously have no place there.


Well, they get out on a technicality. It's not exactly a law.

Well, they get out on a technicality. It's not exactly a law.

Broad term.

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2.

1. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
2. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.

3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.
4. A piece of enacted legislation.
(dictionary.com)

Broad term.

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2.

1. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
2. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.

3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.
4. A piece of enacted legislation.
(dictionary.com)


Is the Pledge actually legislation? I'm a little hazy on this.

Is the Pledge actually legislation? I'm a little hazy on this.

The Pledge was made official through legislation.

The Pledge was made official through legislation.


So there's still some legal grey area there, right? If the pledge itself, which is the only document being looked at right now, is not the actual piece of legislation, they technically got away with it. The government lets itself out on technicalities all the time.

So there's still some legal grey area there, right? If the pledge itself, which is the only document being looked at right now, is not the actual piece of legislation, they technically got away with it. The government lets itself out on technicalities all the time.

Congress enacted legislation that inserted 'under God' in the official Pledge read in public schools. Public is state-sponsored. This is clearly illegal.

Umm actually puritans, the first people to come to America, were strict Christians, Puritanism is a branch of Christianity, and Thomas Jeffferson himself is quoted to have said "im happy that this constitution answers to a higher power than man" so actually yes the constitution and America is based on Christianity. And i'd say to all those religions "in the woodwork" they are not taking their religion veryseriously if they are not proudly exposing it, as Christians do, and therefore should get over it. If someone is that insecure then there is something wrong with their faith, whatver faith that may be.But yes mam America is built on CHristianity, take the foundation away and the house falls

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.


boom, right there!!!

I'm not seeing gray area in "DON'T RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION."


The grey area is not in your statement. The grey area is in the legal matters surrounding the Pledge itself, as well as the First Amendment. Bear in mind that something which is unkind, irrational, or immoral doesn't always get translated into 'illegal' by the US Government.

Don't get personal; it's the government's fault, not mine.

The grey area is not in your statement. The grey area is in the legal matters surrounding the Pledge itself, as well as the First Amendment. Bear in mind that something which is unkind, irrational, or immoral doesn't always get translated into 'illegal' by the US Government.

Don't get personal; it's the government's fault, not mine.

When Congress breaches the Bill of Rights, I'll call it illegal.

When Congress breaches the Bill of Rights, I'll call it illegal.


And you have every right to do that. They may very well have breached the Bill of Rights in this instance. I'm not saying that's impossible. I'm just saying they're not going to admit to it.

I have stayed pretty much out of my own discussion, but I'm back now. How did I know that Lacadaemon would be my biggest opponent? :rolleyes:

Anyhow, only one person seemed to understand the true issue.

Even if we are given the option not to say the pledge, the government has endorsed all religions that acknowledge God. By making laws endorsing religions, the government is telling its citizens that these religions are "better" than others. That creates a subliminal, inherent inequality similar to that found in de jure racial segregation. :(

For the same reason, "In God We Trust" is faulty. This, however, is so tightly linked to the economy that we can't just start over. The obvious choice would be to keep all existing money the way it is and removed the motto from all future mintings.
&c.

I am a student. No, I am not completely traumatized by the Pledge of Allegiance. But I still am seriously offended every day. It doesn't matter what my religious beliefs are. The Pledge of Allegiance is an insult to my beloved US Constitution.

If people want to acknowledge God, then they can do it separate from government laws under the protection of the Ninth Amendment.


While I appreciate the compliment, I think that you have taken my words out of context and missed the entire point. What I was saying is not that we have established religion, but that a religious establishment is completely UNAVOIDABLE. Our laws must have some sort of philisophical idea as a basis. This means that we will some sort of establishment, even if it's atheism. So somebody is going to get left out.

On the upside, I am very pleased to live in a country where only the bare minimum of religion is used to base our laws on.

As for the Deist argument, it is true that there were deists present at the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. The most notable were Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, although Jefferson was not present at the latter. However, most af the men present at both events were members in good standing of their respective churches. Further, yes God is not mentioned in the Constitution, reason being that the point was to set up the government, not create some theological document.

Following are also some quotes of various government people and bodies to show the history of America:

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." Supreme Court, 1892, Church of the Holy Trinity v. US

"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot be safely trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported with moral habits." Daniel Webster

"It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." Abraham Lincoln

"The first and almost only book deserving of universal attention is the Bible." John Q. Adams

"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country." Calvin Coolidge

The point is, there will always be establishment no matter which country you go to. The question is simply, which one? Ours happens to be Christian.

And it is not the govenrment endorsing a religion, either de jure, or de facto.

The government has made a law stating that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" is government standard. In other words, it's de jure.

The fact that a group takes offence at the badges and incidences of some aspects of state or federal government, does not mean it should be abolished. Would you do away with the flag, because falgs offend some other students, and by having it in the classroom is a "de jure" oppression of them. Should we ban all religious clothing and accoutrements from schools for the same reason.

You still miss the point. If a teacher wants to put up a flag, then let the teacher do it. The law should not force the teacher to put up the flag. That way, the government is not forcing people to be offended. It would just be a matter of the teacher's free speech.

And I suppose in all this, you are taking the sides of creationists, who say that the state sponsored teaching of evolution is blasphemous and offensive. Isn't that another case similar to "de jure" segregation.

To a certain extent, it is. That's why only scientifically acceptable matters, like evolution in current, observed systems, should be taught. No one theory should be taught as fact.

Religions should only be taught in history classes, where students can learn how religion tied in with historical events.

That does not mean that students learn how - for example - Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. The students would instead learn that the Crusades were the result of a group of inspired Christians, who believed that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

Perhaps I should give a more recent, familiar example. Students would not learn that God appeared to Mohammed to tell him the Koran. They would instead learn that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, were the result of a group of inspired Muslims, who believed that God appeared to Mohammed to tell him the Koran.

I for one, am far more offended that the federal goverment takes my tax dollars and operates a synagogue in rhode island. Start there, before you worry about peoples feelings being hurt.

The government uses tax dollars to run a synagogue in Rhode Island? If this is true, then I agree with you on this matter. At least we agree on one aspect of this. :)

While I appreciate the compliment, I think that you have taken my words out of context and missed the entire point. What I was saying is not that we have established religion, but that a religious establishment is completely UNAVOIDABLE. Our laws must have some sort of philisophical idea as a basis. This means that we will some sort of establishment, even if it's atheism. So somebody is going to get left out.

[...]

The point is, there will always be establishment no matter which country you go to. The question is simply, which one? Ours happens to be Christian.

Hmm... I disagree. In an ideal setting, I think it would be possible to set up a government without any establishment. Its philosophy would be humanistic. Its virtuous lawmakers would be inclusive of all citizens without any regard to their religious convictions. Laws would only have secular intent.

History, thankfully, has a reputation for making the ideals come true. (Unfortunately, this takes a very long wait.) That's why we have laws to stop slavery, to prevent unchecked monopolies, to reserve land for American Indians, etc. It took a long time for these reforms to happen. But in the end, they came. :)

By the way, I'm not an idealist.

A: Who needs the pledge anyway? I mean, everyone will forget what country they live in otherwise :rolleyes:

B: Until you prove to me that the atheist/agnostic population of the United States of America is equal to 0, "under God" is forcing religion onto all atheist/agnostics. Besides, "separation of Church and State" means that the State should have diddly to do with the Church, and the Church should have squat to do with the State. No mentioning g(G)od(s)/g(G)oddess(es). Until you agree to say "under Allah/Artemis/Zeus/[insert other diety here]", cut that bit out.

Im just wondering.. what words are spoken every time the supreme court comes into session.. and the congress... why do people swear on a bible before taking the stand ? ... and.. as far as i can see.. Allah Artemis Zeus [insert deity here] are all Gods.. arn't they so u can worship any of these and still not be offended by the statement reguardless of what YOU feel it implys

Hmm... I disagree. In an ideal setting, I think it would be possible to set up a government without any establishment. Its philosophy would be humanistic. Its virtuous lawmakers would be inclusive of all citizens without any regard to their religious convictions. Laws would only have secular intent.

History, thankfully, has a reputation for making the ideals come true. (Unfortunately, this takes a very long wait.) That's why we have laws to stop slavery, to prevent unchecked monopolies, to reserve land for American Indians, etc. It took a long time for these reforms to happen. But in the end, they came. :)

By the way, I'm not an idealist.

-.- .. i know u did not just use the haulting of slavery as a situation in which an ideal came true becuase we realized the "humanistic" travesties..

If you even lightly breeze through british colonial history.. you'll learn the only reason why slavery became outlawed was because slavery was no longer an economically viable solution for the British government. And because they were the most powerful and infulential empire in the world.. they systematically outlawed it.. pressuring other countries to follow suite. It is not because the civilized world wished to stop an inhumane practice.

and to RESERVE LAND FOR NATIVE AMERICANS.. you MUST be joking.. you mean the essentialy dead land we couldn't use ourselves.. ? your naming this as an ideal we acheived HAHAH.. more like political convience to shut up another small voice.

Im just wondering.. what words are spoken every time the supreme court comes into session.. and the congress... why do people swear on a bible before taking the stand ? ... and.. as far as i can see.. Allah Artemis Zeus [insert deity here] are all Gods.. arn't they so u can worship any of these and still not be offended by the statement reguardless of what YOU feel it implys

But what about those who worship more then one god/dess?
I'm not sataying here, just thought I'd drop this in.
"One nation under a god/goddess, or lack there-of, be it one or more."
Works for me.

It should be duly noted that when they changed the pledge of allegiance in the 50s to put "under god" in it, they put it between the words "one nation" and "indivisible."

-.- .. i know u did not just use the haulting of slavery as a situation in which an ideal came true becuase we realized the "humanistic" travesties..

If you even lightly breeze through british colonial history.. you'll learn the only reason why slavery became outlawed was because slavery was no longer an economically viable solution for the British government. And because they were the most powerful and infulential empire in the world.. they systematically outlawed it.. pressuring other countries to follow suite. It is not because the civilized world wished to stop an inhumane practice.

and to RESERVE LAND FOR NATIVE AMERICANS.. you MUST be joking.. you mean the essentialy dead land we couldn't use ourselves.. ? your naming this as an ideal we acheived HAHAH.. more like political convience to shut up another small voice.

I see what you mean...

The difference is the change in mindset. Today, we would outlaw slavery because we see it as an infringement of civil liberties and not because we see it as an economic infeasibility. American Indians, although they may not have received the best land and perhaps deserve better, hold a bit more respect because they have recognition. I knew I was being a bit risky with my analogies...

But what about those who worship more then one god/dess?
I'm not sataying here, just thought I'd drop this in.
"One nation under a god/goddess, or lack there-of, be it one or more."
Works for me.

The use of religious langauge far exceeds the limits of the pledge of allegence which essentially is a trivial thing.. Look farther.. to the supreme court (the body which interprets the constitution) or the Congress... the mere oath we partake in before taking the stand.. And you cannot argue the "intentions" of the founding fathers, when all were religious men, and John Adams himself glorified religion as of the highest moral standard by which Americans were bound to follow.

If it was the founding fathers intentions to clearly divide the church and state.. then the amendment would have read "no law respecting an established religion"

However, no law respecting an establishment of religion is quite different, and it is a far step to take to propose the government can in no way recognize religion.. as many aspects of the government infact do so.. even within the supreme court itself. This is truely reflective of how this amendment is widely interpreted.. much to the discontent of the atheists

You know this is sad. I work with a number of American consultants, when they left for the Christmas holidays they all went around wishing everyone 'happy holidays' and were suprised when the English responded with Merry Christmas or have a good Christmas.
I have muslim and Seikh friends, niether is offended when I wish them a merry Christmas, I even get Christmas cards from them, as I'm sure G>W does from the Saudi ambasador.
I know this is a little off thread but would any reasonable person be offended by some one wishing them a happy time during a religious festival? Or would a reasonable person take it with the good intentions meant and thank them?

"one nation, under canada, over mexico"

You know this is sad. I work with a number of American consultants, when they left for the Christmas holidays they all went around wishing everyone 'happy holidays' and were suprised when the English responded with Merry Christmas or have a good Christmas.
I have muslim and Seikh friends, niether is offended when I wish them a merry Christmas, I even get Christmas cards from them, as I'm sure G>W does from the Saudi ambasador.
I know this is a little off thread but would any reasonable person be offended by some one wishing them a happy time during a religious festival? Or would a reasonable person take it with the good intentions meant and thank them?

probably because they are religious people themselves.. and understand the point of a religoius festival.. it is only an atheist (who have such distain for religion on a whole) who would find offense in something so simple as a merry christmas

it is only an atheist (who have such distain for religion on a whole)

Please do not generalize like that. I thought this thread would be more civil. Many atheists I know love religious principles and encourage people to find a religion. They simply do not want one for themselves.

Please do not generalize like that. I thought this thread would be more civil. Many atheists I know love religious principles and encourage people to find a religion. They simply do not want one for themselves.
Unfortunately generalisations are any easy way to express a view. That's why I hate the pseudo scince of phsycology.
I do think it is sad however that anyone can be offended by someone else wishing them well.
As an agnostic I'll cover my bets and take a blessing wherever it comes from!