NationStates Jolt Archive

do you support having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

more than 92% of Americans do, and if you dont do you think we should change it?

here's my opinion: Yes it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance since our forefathers were very religious men and NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the church and state are to be seperated. if you dont think the phrase should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are being very stupid since obviously you believe that we shouldn't do anything unless there is a unanimous vote. how long has it been since Congress has done that?

The "under god" wasn't put in there by our Deist founding fathers, it was put in there in the 50s to combat the godless communism.

a bit of friendly advice. if you want a serious debate, dont start out with "your being very stupid if you dont agree with me" just a thought.

as for me, i dont think it should be there. kinda says that everyone in our nation is below god. i dont believe that, so what do i do? pretend to because some old guy with a powered wig did? not a chance in hell.

The "under god" wasn't put in there by our Deist founding fathers, it was put in there in the 50s to combat the godless communism.

really?... well that makes it even worse.

The actual phrase "under God" wasn't put in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. The original Pledge, written in 1892, reads "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

a bit of friendly advice. if you want a serious debate, dont start out with "your being very stupid if you dont agree with me" just a thought.

thats why i said in my opinion

thats why i said in my opinion

i dont have a problem with it, but im sure some potential debaters will take that the wrong way.

do you support having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

more than 92% of Americans do, and if you dont do you think we should change it?

here's my opinion: Yes it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance since our forefathers were very religious men and NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the church and state are to be seperated. if you dont think the phrase should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are being very stupid since obviously you believe that we shouldn't do anything unless there is a unanimous vote. how long has it been since Congress has done that?
I vote yes but your logic is faulty.
So because they were religious means it should be in there? You really need to get more background.
I mean what is next: Bush used Cocaine when he was in late college before so cocaine should be legal? (Libertarians go away I'm not talking about drugs being legal in general lol)

And your right seperation of church and state aren't in Consitution but neither is/are a lot of things. I mean Bush wants a no Gay Marriage Act and that is not in Consitution. So we are allowed to not just base things on Constitution apparently.

Could it be that like Slavery, the seperation was omitted so others would agree to follow said constitution? Hard to say but its not impossible.

A unanimous isn't required to amend things or change them. If that were true Republicans would act nice to democrats to get votes on stuff being passed (and vice versa). But as we know that isn't required.

do you support having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

more than 92% of Americans do, and if you dont do you think we should change it?

here's my opinion: Yes it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance since our forefathers were very religious men and NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the church and state are to be seperated. if you dont think the phrase should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are being very stupid since obviously you believe that we shouldn't do anything unless there is a unanimous vote. how long has it been since Congress has done that?
A lot more then 50% of Germans thought that Hitler was fine and dandy. Oh, and read the first amendment please. Specifically the establishment and free exercise clauses.

No, the guy who originally wrote the pledge was part of the clergy. If he had felt the need for such, he would have put it in.

I am a law student, and I would like to point something out. In a Supreme Court case ruling from about 20 years ago, the Supreme Court referred to the phrase "under God" as a ceremonial usage. I agree with this. If you find it personally offensive, then you are making a mountain out of a molehill, which is why we have frivolous lawsuit laws. Unfortunately, this tendency to exaggerate everything is why the courts are so tied up today, and it is why Disney has to have two men to run a hose in their park. One to actually hold the hose, and another to warn people who walk by that the hose is there. People have actually intentionally tripped over hoses in the park so they could sue. I say, get over it. Of course, your ignorance will make me rich, so in another sense I suppose it works out well. The ones who really profit from all this foolishness are the lawyers anyway.

Mm, good point.

I think it should be removed, because even if the founding fathers were very religous and even if it never says anything about church and state in the constitution, nowadays id like to think that America does support a seperation of church and state

A lot more then 50% of Germans thought that Hitler was fine and dandy. Oh, and read the first amendment please. Specifically the establishment and free exercise clauses.
Sigh. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What you and your compatriots overlook is that you extend an innacurate meaning to the word "establishment." The word was used back in that time to refer to making a specific church the official church of the state, nation, or locale in question. The Anglican church was the "established" church of England. All Englishmen paid taxes to the Anglican church, regardless of their personal beliefs. Do not twist the founders words to serve your own purposes. Rather, research more thoroughly so that you may understand their actions.

I am a law student, and I would like to point something out. In a Supreme Court case ruling from about 20 years ago, the Supreme Court referred to the phrase "under God" as a ceremonial usage. I agree with this. If you find it personally offensive, then you are making a mountain out of a molehill, which is why we have frivolous lawsuit laws. Unfortunately, this tendency to exaggerate everything is why the courts are so tied up today, and it is why Disney has to have two men to run a hose in their park. One to actually hold the hose, and another to warn people who walk by that the hose is there. People have actually intentionally tripped over hoses in the park so they could sue. I say, get over it. Of course, your ignorance will make me rich, so in another sense I suppose it works out well. The ones who really profit from all this foolishness are the lawyers anyway.
First off, its not needed. Period. Serves no purpose but to cause problems and more then likely violate the establishment clause (Please, cerimonial usage? What case is this?), as it directly states that the United States is "under God (The juedeo-christian god)". Second, I'd like to see proof (yes, proof) that people have intentionally tripped over a hose in Disney Land and sued sucessfully for it.

The actual phrase "under God" wasn't put in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. The original Pledge, written in 1892, reads "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

He's right about this. The phrase was only added into the pledge so that the predominantly Christian U.S. could distance itself from the atheist Soviet Union.

Also,

Yes it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance since our forefathers were very religious men

This is blatantly untrue. The founding fathers were mostly deists and agnostics. Also, the line "seperation of church and state" was first coined by Thomas jefferson, and I think that provides fair insight into the founding father's intentions.

I think it should be removed, because even if the founding fathers were very religous and even if it never says anything about church and state in the constitution, nowadays id like to think that America does support a seperation of church and state
A goodly number of the founding fathers were at best, deists, and more likely not really believers at all. See Jefferson and Franklin if you like.

The original was fine. "under God" being a knee jerk attempt to highlight the evilness of the "Red Menace".
Freedom of speech and thought are not "god given" rights, they are hard to attain and harder to defend.The original wording is much better suited to the ideals put forth by the founders of this nation.

My opinion is that everyone has the right to choose whether to say the pledge or not. If you're offended by 'under God', simply don't say those two words, or just don't say the pledge at all. You are never required to say it. It's a personal choice.

If you choose not to say it, either sit or stand respectfully and silently.
If you choose to say it, say it like you mean it. It's disrespectful to say the pledge in a mocking way.

Personally, I leave out 'Under God' because I'm agnostic. Either that or I don't say it at all.

Sigh. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What you and your compatriots overlook is that you extend an innacurate meaning to the word "establishment." The word was used back in that time to refer to making a specific church the official church of the state, nation, or locale in question. The Anglican church was the "established" church of England. All Englishmen paid taxes to the Anglican church, regardless of their personal beliefs. Do not twist the founders words to serve your own purposes. Rather, research more thoroughly so that you may understand their actions.
Yawn. Yes, I know what the word "establish" means, and I also know how the court defines it. I am of the opinion that saying that the United States is 'under god' constitutes a direct endorsement of religion, and it has no ligitimate secular purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that violate the lemon test on two counts?

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


That bolded part seems to be in the way...

The mention of God doesn't automatically constitute an endorsement of any specific organized religion.

There is no god, save Allah, so I (and every Muslim) should be opposed to "under god". If it said "under Allah", we'd still be annoyed because Islam recognizes that not everybody is Muslim.

In short ... get rid of it. It was put in to separate the US from the Communist countries and, well, the Cold War is over.

The mention of God doesn't automatically constitute an endorsement of any specific organized religion.
What other religion capitalizes God?

I am a law student, and I would like to point something out. In a Supreme Court case ruling from about 20 years ago, the Supreme Court referred to the phrase "under God" as a ceremonial usage. I agree with this. If you find it personally offensive, then you are making a mountain out of a molehill, which is why we have frivolous lawsuit laws. Unfortunately, this tendency to exaggerate everything is why the courts are so tied up today, and it is why Disney has to have two men to run a hose in their park. One to actually hold the hose, and another to warn people who walk by that the hose is there. People have actually intentionally tripped over hoses in the park so they could sue. I say, get over it. Of course, your ignorance will make me rich, so in another sense I suppose it works out well. The ones who really profit from all this foolishness are the lawyers anyway.

Well my friend a law student doesn't make you a constitutional expert.

If it's ok to have ceremonial usage, then why can't the placement of the 10 commandments and crosses simply be labeled a cerimonial?

Fact remains, it violates the establishment clause, and it's wrong.

I won't bother with your frivolos lawsuit analogies as they serve no purpose here.

The mention of God doesn't automatically constitute an endorsement of any specific organized religion.

Yes it does. Christians call the Creator "God". Jews call the Creator "Adonai" or "Hashem" and Muslims call the Creator "Allah".

Using "God" implies Christianity.

Whether or not it endorses a specific religion, it was intended to. And it may not be required now, but in ancient days when I was in grade school, the Pledge of Allegiance was required. Thank god :D for Madeleine Murray O'Hare.

As an American who isn't religous, I've always found that part very....insulting. Oh my! An american who isn't religous; must mean I'm not really an american then. It must also mean that I am a traitor and back terrorists too.**sarcasm off**

And even if "seperation of church and state" isn't in the constitution, our forefathers didn't plan on this country's government turning into a theocracy.

I think it should be taken out and the original version should be re-instated.

What other religion capitalizes God?

It depends how you view God, I suppose. You could either see it as a 'person' or a concept. The capitalization of the word is superficial and if that is the line that separates organized religion from...spirituality(? if that works) then that line is bound to get very blurry at times.

I'm sick so I'm not really in debating form right now so I'll just go out saying I think it's a personal issue and a prepositional phrase hasn't and isn't outraging me to the extent that I cannot function properly.

Send me a telegram sometime, it'll be fun. :) <-- genuine smile

First off, its not needed. Period. Serves no purpose but to cause problems and more then likely violate the establishment clause (Please, cerimonial usage? What case is this?), as it directly states that the United States is "under God (The juedeo-christian god)". Second, I'd like to see proof (yes, proof) that people have intentionally tripped over a hose in Disney Land and sued sucessfully for it.
First off, I would like to point out that people tripped over hoses intentionally SO THAT they could sue Disney. However, they were unsuccessful because in each case it was shown that it was intentional, and the cases are of course summarily thrown out. if you choose not to believe me, then I really don't care. Your nitpicking absolutely skirts the point.

Also, see the Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale. It was about school prayer, but in the ruling they referenced the pledge. Sandra Day O' Connor, incidentally, said the exact same thing in the more recent case, dismissed in 2004. You apparently are too blind to see anything but your own errant misconceptions. The phrase "under God" has become so meaningless in the pledge as to hold no religious value. That, plus the fact that no one can be constitutionally required to either say the pledge, stand up during it, or even hear it, means that your arguments are worthless.

It depends how you view God, I suppose. You could either see it as a 'person' or a concept. The capitalization of the word is superficial and if that is the line that separates organized religion from...spirituality(? if that works) then that line is bound to get very blurry at times.

I'm sick so I'm not really in debating form right now so I'll just go out saying I think it's a personal issue and a prepositional phrase hasn't and isn't outraging me to the extent that I cannot function properly.

Send me a telegram sometime, it'll be fun. :) <-- genuine smile
No reason to capitalize it if you are just being spiritual. Found the text of it by the way as codified...
" The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ``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.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove
their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder,
the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent,
face the flag, and render the military salute."

4USC4 chapter 1 sec 4

Yes it does. Christians call the Creator "God". Jews call the Creator "Adonai" or "Hashem" and Muslims call the Creator "Allah".

Using "God" implies Christianity.

Hey lets go and replace with GAOTU (Grand Architect of The Universe) and recognize Masonry instead :p.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. 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.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.


God is not a reference to Christianity. It is merely the English word for that definition, which encompasses many things.

As an American who isn't religous, I've always found that part very....insulting. Oh my! An american who isn't religous; must mean I'm not really an american then. It must also mean that I am a traitor and back terrorists too.**sarcasm off**

And even if "seperation of church and state" isn't in the constitution(the last time I checked it was), our forefathers didn't plan on this country's government turning into a theocracy.

I think it should be taken out and the original version should be re-instated.
Stop talking out of your ass.
"Seperation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, and I am tired of the same ignorant souls repeating it like a mantra. That was Jefferson, you cock-eyed dipshit. If you even bothered to read any of the preceding posts, you would have already learned that from another enlightened poster.

Cut it from the pledge, allow students to say it if they want, and don't make a huge deal out of it. But it really isn't an important issue for me.

As an American who isn't religous, I've always found that part very....insulting.

I think you need thicker skin if something as petty like that is insulting.

do you support having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

more than 92% of Americans do, and if you dont do you think we should change it?

here's my opinion: Yes it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance since our forefathers were very religious men and NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the church and state are to be seperated. if you dont think the phrase should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are being very stupid since obviously you believe that we shouldn't do anything unless there is a unanimous vote. how long has it been since Congress has done that?


great point

No reason to capitalize it if you are just being spiritual. Found the text of it by the way as codified...
" The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ``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.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove
their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder,
the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent,
face the flag, and render the military salute."

4USC4 chapter 1 sec 4

Wow, when offense comes down to how a letter is written that's when I take my leave.

Cut it from the pledge, allow students to say it if they want, and don't make a huge deal out of it. But it really isn't an important issue for me.



I think you need thicker skin if something as petty like that is insulting.


the students dont have to say it if they dont want to all they have to do is stand

You don't even need to stand.

Stop talking out of your ass.
"Seperation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, and I am tired of the same ignorant souls repeating it like a mantra. That was Jefferson, you cock-eyed dipshit. If you even bothered to read any of the preceding posts, you would have already learned that from another enlightened poster.



no offense but yall are spellin separation wrong

Yawn. Yes, I know what the word "establish" means, and I also know how the court defines it. I am of the opinion that saying that the United States is 'under god' constitutes a direct endorsement of religion, and it has no ligitimate secular purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that violate the lemon test on two counts?
No, actually. That is because, of course, the Lemon test does apply here, but you do not even understand it.

1. The phrase "under God" has a secular legislative purpose. It highlighted our nation's opposition to Communism, which still exists. Therefore, it still retains that purpose.

2. It does not advance or inhibit religion because, to date, no one has become a christian simply because they heard the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Common sense, my rather deficient friend.

3. It does not foster "excessive government entanglement with religion." Rather, it apparently fosters excessive government entanglement with overly sensitive, extremely pedantic citizens who like to go to court over ridiculous problems.

Once again, try a fair and unbiased, and even possibly informed view of the situation.

You don't even need to stand.



the teachers can make you stand in some places and make you be quiet but thats it

no offense but yall are spellin separation wrong
Thank you. It's rather late and I am allowing my spelling to become fairly lax. I appreciate your point.

First off, I would like to point out that people tripped over hoses intentionally SO THAT they could sue Disney. However, they were unsuccessful because in each case it was shown that it was intentional, and the cases are of course summarily thrown out. if you choose not to believe me, then I really don't care. Your nitpicking absolutely skirts the point.

Also, see the Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale. It was about school prayer, but in the ruling they referenced the pledge. Sandra Day O' Connor, incidentally, said the exact same thing in the more recent case, dismissed in 2004. You apparently are too blind to see anything but your own errant misconceptions. The phrase "under God" has become so meaningless in the pledge as to hold no religious value. That, plus the fact that no one can be constitutionally required to either say the pledge, stand up during it, or even hear it, means that your arguments are worthless.
Mind showing me where in the majority opinion it says that? I can't find it, but it is a bit late, so I may be missing something.

Hey lets go and replace with GAOTU (Grand Architect of The Universe) and recognize Masonry instead :p.


*chuckle*

Well, that said, why don't we just chuck the whole thing and let people decide for themselves? If we're truly a nation "under God", then we must accept pure diversity. God (or Allah or Hashem or whatever) made the world full of all kinds of culture and color and variety, so why not accept that variety and just get rid of those two little words?

Why not?

Wow, when offense comes down to how a letter is written that's when I take my leave.
Agreed.

Thank you. It's rather late and I am allowing my spelling to become fairly lax. I appreciate your point.


just lettin ya know. i do the same thing all the time.:)

Stop talking out of your ass.
"Seperation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, and I am tired of the same ignorant souls repeating it like a mantra. That was Jefferson, you cock-eyed dipshit. If you even bothered to read any of the preceding posts, you would have already learned that from another enlightened poster.

Yeah, that was me, and I wasn't exactly arguing for your side.

Keep in mind that the entire constitution is worded for interpretation, hence why you and I interpret it differently. Now then, Jefferson, was the one who came up with the phrase, "seperation of church and state", therefore, I believe that HE, a FOUNDING FATHER interpreted the establishment clause to mean "seperation of church and state". It would appear, therefore, that one of the most important founding fathers was strongly in favor of this idea. Makes me think that that was how at least some of the founding fathers originally intended the establishment clause to be interpreted. I find this kind of ironic, since many backers of "under God" like to play the whole "religious founders" card, no matter how blatantly untrue it may be.

If you want to argue that seperation of church and state was not what the founders intended, you've got at least Jefferson standing in your way.

the teachers can make you stand in some places and make you be quiet but thats it
When I was in middle school in Texas, they made us stand and made us recite with the class. We got in trouble otherwise.
:(

No, actually. That is because, of course, the Lemon test does apply here, but you do not even understand it.

1. The phrase "under God" has a secular legislative purpose. It highlighted our nation's opposition to Communism, which still exists. Therefore, it still retains that purpose.

2. It does not advance or inhibit religion because, to date, no one has become a christian simply because they heard the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Common sense, my rather deficient friend.

3. It does not foster "excessive government entanglement with religion." Rather, it apparently fosters excessive government entanglement with overly sensitive, extremely pedantic citizens who like to go to court over ridiculous problems.

Once again, try a fair and unbiased, and even possibly informed view of the situation.

Stop being conceited hades.

1. Highlighted our opposition to communism? An atheist society? Secular purpose my ass, it only serves to distinguish us from the commies though religious means. Clearly a non-secular action.

2. It does advance religion, as anyone with common sense can see that the pledge is clearly stating that the United States is a Christian nation. "One nation, under God..." states that the United States is under (following) God (the Christian one), which endorses (advances) a religion.

3. Not in dispute.

Once again, try a fair and unbiased, and even possibly informed view of the situation.

great point

What part was a great point?
Just because the majority thinks something should be doesn't make it right. I'm sure we could all point to dozens of things that the majority liked but was wrong. Look at some of the previous posts.

And the majority of our fore-fathers who mentioned religion seemed to be deists, but a lot were agnostic and a few atheists. Don't give me any of that crap about this nation being founded on Christianity, because it's too easy to refute.

Yeah, that was me, and I wasn't exactly arguing for your side.

Keep in mind that the entire constitution is worded for interpretation, hence why you and I interpret it differently. Now then, Jefferson, was the one who came up with the phrase, "seperation of church and state", therefore, I believe that HE, a FOUNDING FATHER interpreted the establishment clause to mean "seperation of church and state". It would appear, therefore, that one of the most important founding fathers was strongly in favor of this idea. Makes me think that that was how at least some of the founding fathers originally intended the establishment clause to be interpreted. I find this kind of ironic, since many backers of "under God" like to play the whole "religious founders" card, no matter how blatantly untrue it may be.

If you want to argue that seperation of church and state was not what the founders intended, you've got at least Jefferson standing in your way.



if youre talking simply religious not only christian then jefferson was religious he was a deist but still religious and most of the rest were christians or otherwise religious.

2. It does advance religion, as anyone with common sense can see that the pledge is clearly stating that the United States is a Christian nation. "One nation, under God..." states that the United States is under (following) God (the Christian one), which endorses (advances) a religion.
Even if it were *not* the Christian God, as some people are stating, there is still the issue of it still being a God of some sort...

What part was a great point?
Just because the majority thinks something should be doesn't make it right. I'm sure we could all point to dozens of things that the majority liked but was wrong. Look at some of the previous posts.

And the majority of our fore-fathers who mentioned religion seemed to be deists, but a lot were agnostic and a few atheists. Don't give me any of that crap about this nation being founded on Christianity, because it's too easy to refute.


i never said the country was founded on christianity but where did you get your info about the atheists and agnostics?

1. The phrase "under God" has a secular legislative purpose. It highlighted our nation's opposition to Communism, which still exists. Therefore, it still retains that purpose. You can be a communist and still believe in a god. I don't see how it highlights any opposition to communism, or how we, as Americans, still oppose communism.

No, actually. That is because, of course, the Lemon test does apply here, but you do not even understand it.

1. The phrase "under God" has a secular legislative purpose. It highlighted our nation's opposition to Communism, which still exists. Therefore, it still retains that purpose.


Yes which Ike glady put in to satisfy his Christian backers. The fact we are a capitolist society already makes us opposite communism. It does not need to be there.


2. It does not advance or inhibit religion because, to date, no one has become a christian simply because they heard the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Common sense, my rather deficient friend.

And yet there are many reports of non-christian students getting harased by the good Christians. And some schools make you say it. I went to a Catholic School and they made us say it.


3. It does not foster "excessive government entanglement with religion." Rather, it apparently fosters excessive government entanglement with overly sensitive, extremely pedantic citizens who like to go to court over ridiculous problems.

Once again, try a fair and unbiased, and even possibly informed view of the situation.

And yet you try this insipid approach of questioning the rulings as a friviolus lawsuit.

It is our right to challenge the laws and the rulings. But you knew that being a law student right?

Finally, as per my sig, Madison himself spoke of the speration of Church and state. The establishment clause was supposed to make the goverment neutral.

Now we have tax money getting handed out to Christian charities. The President has many times had the "great Christian" leaders present at the signing of the new charity laws.

What was that about entaglement you were saying?

When I was in middle school in Texas, they made us stand and made us recite with the class. We got in trouble otherwise.
:(

That has now changed. My daughter, who is in Elementary, used to have to say the pledge and whatnot, but I explained to the teacher that we are Muslim and my daughter is not allowed to pledge to anyone except Allah.

My daughter may now sit quietly while the others perform the pledge. She must remain quiet, though, which I don't mind because it's important that she respect what others believe.

So, in Texas, it's no longer a hard and fast rule that you have to say the pledge.

My opinion is that everyone has the right to choose whether to say the pledge or not. If you're offended by 'under God', simply don't say those two words, or just don't say the pledge at all. You are never required to say it. It's a personal choice.

If you choose not to say it, either sit or stand respectfully and silently.
If you choose to say it, say it like you mean it. It's disrespectful to say the pledge in a mocking way.

Personally, I leave out 'Under God' because I'm agnostic. Either that or I don't say it at all.
When I'm supposed to be saying the pledge, I either dance (respectfully) or just keep to myself. I'm blatantly against blind nationalism, it's too convenient a tool for evil for its good aspects to ever really be achieved, imo.

It's true about making a mountain out of a molehill though...I mean unless you're an immigrant becoming a citizen of the U.S. or your in some kind of reform school no one really cares if you don't want to say it. But then again, that's just where I live, I guess I can't really vouch for any other area (but I can sure as hell try!).

Mind showing me where in the majority opinion it says that? I can't find it, but it is a bit late, so I may be missing something.
Must I actually do all of your work for you?
Fine then. if you are too lazy to look it up, I will for you.

Justice Hugo Black noted of the pledge that "such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance."

Done. There ya go. Read the entire opinion here (http://www.nationalcenter.org/cc7252.htm) .

Stop talking out of your ass.
"Seperation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, and I am tired of the same ignorant souls repeating it like a mantra. That was Jefferson, you cock-eyed dipshit. If you even bothered to read any of the preceding posts, you would have already learned that from another enlightened poster.
Attacking the idea: acceptable.

Attacking the poster: not.

HadesRulesMuch, drop the personal attacks. As I am in a generous mood, no formal warning at this point. Cut it out.

When I was in middle school in Texas, they made us stand and made us recite with the class. We got in trouble otherwise.
:(


when were you in middle school

when were you in middle school
Erm, lemme figure this out.
I'm 19 going on 20 now, so...
Mid-90's?
My brain isn't working well with math right now.
But I'm guessing around '95-'96 was my start.

Must I actually do all of your work for you?
Fine then. if you are too lazy to look it up, I will for you.

Justice Hugo Black noted of the pledge that "such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance."

Done. There ya go. Read the entire opinion here (http://www.nationalcenter.org/cc7252.htm) .
Nope, read it, just didn't see the word "pledge" anywhere in that footnote. So Black's argument is that patriotic things don't count, basically. I disagree. The pledge's 'under god' is a clear religious statement, and is intended to be taken as such.

Yeah, that was me, and I wasn't exactly arguing for your side.

Keep in mind that the entire constitution is worded for interpretation, hence why you and I interpret it differently. Now then, Jefferson, was the one who came up with the phrase, "seperation of church and state", therefore, I believe that HE, a FOUNDING FATHER interpreted the establishment clause to mean "seperation of church and state". It would appear, therefore, that one of the most important founding fathers was strongly in favor of this idea. Makes me think that that was how at least some of the founding fathers originally intended the establishment clause to be interpreted. I find this kind of ironic, since many backers of "under God" like to play the whole "religious founders" card, no matter how blatantly untrue it may be.

If you want to argue that seperation of church and state was not what the founders intended, you've got at least Jefferson standing in your way.

Please, do not play the "founding fathers" card on the opposite side of the table either. You will note that I never claimed any of them to be in favor of "established" religion. Thus, your qualification is immaterial. However, you can not take words written outside of the Constitution, unless they are from a court case that has not been overturned, and apply them to the Constitution. Regardless of what Jefferson said AFTER the Constitution was written, it has no bearing. Especially since Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. He has absolutely no bearing on it.

That has now changed. My daughter, who is in Elementary, used to have to say the pledge and whatnot, but I explained to the teacher that we are Muslim and my daughter is not allowed to pledge to anyone except Allah.

My daughter may now sit quietly while the others perform the pledge. She must remain quiet, though, which I don't mind because it's important that she respect what others believe.

So, in Texas, it's no longer a hard and fast rule that you have to say the pledge.


yes i agree we should respect other peoples beliefs and with texas i dont know if the stereotype is true but i thought they were generally very patriotic i might be wrong so dont quote me on that one.

Erm, lemme figure this out.
I'm 19 going on 20 now, so...
Mid-90's?
My brain isn't working well with math right now.
But I'm guessing around '95-'96 was my start.



yea i dont what the rules were then but if they were the same as now then the teachers either didnt know or didnt tell you because they knew you didnt know and they thought you should say it. because i know most peoples parents dont know its optional or dont tell their children not to say it
but i gotta go

CSW, if you do not believe me, then what I am talking about is specifically referenced to in this (http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17979/article_detail.asp) article.

I support it, because it doesnt have to reffer to the Christian god, it can reffer to any god, or, heck, use 'under Gods'. I dont think it should be removed because some people feel 'uncomfortable' about it. If you dont like it, dont say it, noones forcing you too, anyways.

Well, well, NS went bugshit for a little while and lost my post. DAMMIT! LOL

I would try to rewrite it but my points have already been made by others so it would just be repetitive.

But...on the whole "seperation of church and state" thing...here is a cut-and-pasted quote from the first amendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Now, in my opinion, the first part means the whole "seperation of..."thing. The second part means that although there is a seperation of church and state that people shall still be allowed to worship as they see fit(or not worship if you want to get technical about it). If anything, the US government was set up like it is to insure that it did not turn into another religous-backed monarchy not unlike England at the time. Of course, they weren't completely perfect the first time around on that respect. It took George Washington's denial of a third term before they realized that maybe term limits might be a good idea so that someone wouldn't end up abusing the system and setting themselves up as heir-apparent King of the US. LOL Anyways, that's how I interpreted that part of the constitution so(to clear some things up) I am curious...how does everyone else interpret it?

Well, well, NS went bugshit for a little while and lost my post. DAMMIT! LOL
I hate it when that happens...
:(

But there is one thing I think I should rewrite from that lost post.

Has Congress passed a law which specifically makes the "Pledge of Allegiance" our national pledge? If it has, then that is a clear violation of the aforementioned amendment according to my interpretation of it, but if it hasn't then I guess I was "talking out of my ass" as HadesRulesMuch SOOO eloquently put it.

Please, do not play the "founding fathers" card on the opposite side of the table either. You will note that I never claimed any of them to be in favor of "established" religion. Thus, your qualification is immaterial. However, you can not take words written outside of the Constitution, unless they are from a court case that has not been overturned, and apply them to the Constitution. Regardless of what Jefferson said AFTER the Constitution was written, it has no bearing. Especially since Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. He has absolutely no bearing on it.

So what if Jefferson said it after the Bill of Rights was written? He was still a founding father, one who obviously believed in separation of church and state. One can't say, "The founding fathers were very religious, etc." without mentioning Jefferson as an anomaly. That's assuming that no other founding father felt the same way about the First Amendment, which is unlikely. You don't have to apply his thoughts to the Constitution for Jefferson to be considered a founding father, anyway.

I support the "under God" phrase. Having this phrase in the pledge is a far cry from making a law endorsing a particular "religion". In this country to separate church and state is to separate morals from laws. I can't think of any laws that don't have a moral foundation of some kind. Moral being a value. Example: Roe v. Wade, the court found choice to be more valuable than an unborn child's life. It's like taking the bill of rights out of the constitution. You can't just say "when it comes to government nobody believes in anything". There would be total chaos or worship of the state. That can be a "religion" as well. The government of the United States is established on morals and values espoused by God (The Creator of all things) given to Moses and fulfilled by Jesus. The ideas of truth, justice, liberty all come from God. Man was created with free will. Liberty, you can worship God or not. Your choice... Just an off note: Evolution is DEAD. The existance of such large amounts of fossils and none showing stages of development proves evolution never happened. The same also proves the flood of Noah really happened, giving credit to God's Word the Bible. The more they try to dispose of God the more evident His existance will become. God is Great and there is no other god but God. Have a Great Day All!!

I support the "under God" phrase. Having this phrase in the pledge is a far cry from making a law endorsing a particular "religion". In this country to separate church and state is to separate morals from laws. I can't think of any laws that don't have a moral foundation of some kind. Moral being a value.
But since when are all morals religious?
Atheists don't all go around theiving and killing...

Yes...no...maybe...of course...well...Arrgh *differing opinions pull head apart*

But since when are all morals religious?
Atheists don't all go around theiving and killing...

Stalinist Russia, anyone?

PS: I know this is only a single case, therefore, not representative of the majority of atheists, but you did ask.

i never said the country was founded on christianity but where did you get your info about the atheists and agnostics?

Franklin was an atheist. Jefferson was probably a deist. He definitely wasn't christian, just look at some of the things he said about christianity.


The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].
Thomas Paine

"I have generally been dominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." Ethan Allen

"The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason."
Benjamin Franklin

"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?" Thomas Paine

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"- John Adams

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." --Thomas Jefferson

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests."--Thomas Paine

"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system."--Thomas Paine

Stalinist Russia, anyone?

PS: I know this is only a single case, therefore, not representative of the majority of atheists, but you did ask.
That's why I qualified with "all".
;)

Franklin was an atheist. Jefferson was probably a deist. He definitely wasn't christian, just look at some of the things he said about christianity.


The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].
Thomas Paine

"I have generally been dominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." Ethan Allen

"The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason."
Benjamin Franklin

"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?" Thomas Paine

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"- John Adams

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." --Thomas Jefferson

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests."--Thomas Paine

"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system."--Thomas Paine

I believe that some of the quotes are a bit out of context. Some I believe, were refferring to the church, not the reilgion.

So what if Jefferson said it after the Bill of Rights was written? He was still a founding father, one who obviously believed in separation of church and state. One can't say, "The founding fathers were very religious, etc." without mentioning Jefferson as an anomaly. That's assuming that no other founding father felt the same way about the First Amendment, which is unlikely. You don't have to apply his thoughts to the Constitution for Jefferson to be considered a founding father, anyway.

You can count Madison as well. Look at my sig.....

I believe that some of the quotes are a bit out of context. Some I believe, were refferring to the church, not the reilgion.
I believe 9 of them specifically referred to christianity.

When they desecrated the pledge of allegiance, they put "under god" between "one nation" and "indivisible."

A feew of these allude to the Christian system. Remember that many came to the colonies to escape persecution by the church.

*sniff sniff* emmmm a troll. Ah what the hell....

I support the "under God" phrase. Having this phrase in the pledge is a far cry from making a law endorsing a particular "religion".

The establishment clause says the goverment will be neutral with Religion. under God is Christian.


In this country to separate church and state is to separate morals from laws.

You don't get "morality" from Religion. Most people view killing as bad and having sex with children as bad. This didn't come from Religion.


I can't think of any laws that don't have a moral foundation of some kind. Moral being a value.

Ahh but your problem is whose morals are applied. Once it was perfectly moral to have slaves. To deny women access to jobs......


Example: Roe v. Wade, the court found choice to be more valuable than an unborn child's life. It's like taking the bill of rights out of the constitution.

Yes it's called Freedom. That includes bad and unfortunate choices.


You can't just say "when it comes to government nobody believes in anything". There would be total chaos or worship of the state. That can be a "religion" as well.

Anarchy is not a religion.


The government of the United States is established on morals and values espoused by God (The Creator of all things) given to Moses and fulfilled by Jesus. The ideas of truth, justice, liberty all come from God. Man was created with free will. Liberty, you can worship God or not.

No it is not. If the Church had it's way, you would have to worship. For example: Jerry Falwell once opined that a great day will happen when the public schools are replaced by Religious schools.


Your choice... Just an off note: Evolution is DEAD. The existance of such large amounts of fossils and none showing stages of development proves evolution never happened.

Ahhh a Dr. Dino follower. Sorry but you obviously haven't read much on it.


The same also proves the flood of Noah really happened, giving credit to God's Word the Bible. The more they try to dispose of God the more evident His existance will become. God is Great and there is no other god but God. Have a Great Day All!!

Hmmm I think we have Defensor here. I supposed the sun revolves around the earth too right?

I feel so much better now knowing that certain of our founding fathers understood the difference between being religous and being sprititual.

I believe that some of the quotes are a bit out of context. Some I believe, were refferring to the church, not the reilgion.

Well you are both right. They weren't anti-Religion. More anti-theocracy.....

Hmmm I think we have Defensor here. I supposed the sun revolves around the earth too right?
No, this probably isn't Defensor. Defensor doesn't tell people to have a nice day.

No, this probably isn't Defensor. Defensor doesn't tell people to have a nice day.

;) You are probably right.

I would like to see the words go. The motivation for adding them, as has been said, was an effort by the paranoid McCarthyist Congress of the 1950s to differentiate democracy from atheism. Since most American citizens were Christian, and the communist powers discouraged and repressed religion (note: forced secularization of private citizens is bad), they assumed that the only thing separating them from those dirty reds was their steadfast belief in one very specific God.

But there are more important things for us to worry about right now. The words are just that - only words - when very inequality exists. How about we focus on getting an atheist elected to a higher public office than, say, City Comptroller of Frog Breath, Missouri?

You can't just say "when it comes to government nobody believes in anything".
It is more than possible - and desirable, and intended - to have a religiously neutral government. They would be able to weigh moral issues more objectively, for one thing.
There would be total chaos or worship of the state. That can be a "religion" as well.
You assume that everyone believes themselves to be so weak that they must vest themselves in a higher power.
The government of the United States is established on morals and values espoused by God (The Creator of all things) given to Moses and fulfilled by Jesus. The ideas of truth, justice, liberty all come from God. Man was created with free will. Liberty, you can worship God or not. Your choice...
A lot of Christians seem to think they have a monopoly on morals - the Golden Rule, liberty, justice, etc. - because they are written in the Bible. Confucious set forth the Golden Rule 500 years before the birth of Christ, and an atheist may just as easily understand that not hurting people is a good idea.

You say, "You can personally choose whether to worship God, but the state is going to be founded firmly in this religion." That is theocracy without forced adherence of the citizenry to the state religion.
Just an off note: Evolution is DEAD. The existance of such large amounts of fossils and none showing stages of development proves evolution never happened.
Oh, don't open this can of worms. This is irrelevant.
The same also proves the flood of Noah really happened, giving credit to God's Word the Bible.
Just because one aspect of a document is true doesn't render it true in its entirety. Certainly, a flood happened; but did a supernatural entity have a hand in it? It would be like saying, "The sky is blue because it is made of crayons." Yes, the sky is blue, as is the fact of the occurence of a flood, but the conclusion is off the mark.

Bear in mind that the people who wrote the Bible were four thousand years our technological juniors. They had no explanation for a catastrophic flood beyond the supernatural. If they were alive today in Thailand, they would believe the tsunami to be entirely an act of God, considering they would have no knowledge of a deep-sea earthquake. Some rationally explicable natural of cause beyond their powers of observation could easily have been the origin of the flood.
God is Great and there is no other god but God.
This is your belief, and it is not representative of the entirety of the country. America stands for the principles of liberty, but not theism - it is religiously neutral.

It is interesting to note that this is, verbatim, what Muslims shout from mosques each day. There is no other god but whose?

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."

I doubt either of these were christian.

Why do kids in schools (and wherever else people have to say it) have to do this pledge anyway? I had to say it every morning in school (kindergarten through 5th grade). If there was a child *not* saying the pledge, they got into trouble. This was only 10 years ago.

I don't see what the big deal is with this whole pledge thing. It's ridiculous. Children don't even understand what that pledge means. You'd think it'd be enough that the government forces schools to teach *their* version of American history (rather than the truth). But no, the children have to pledge their loyalty to something that they can't even comprehend at that age. Brainwashing, that's all it is. :rolleyes:

Forced recitation has historically been a propaganda and political indoctrination tactic, not one of a free democracy. I, for one, stand silently with my arms folded each day. I stand, largely because I live in a red state and was accused by a classmate of hating America and not supporting our troops when I neglected to do so one day. I'm simply not in the mood to take that every day.

Well, for all of you against this, you might also consider turning in all your present currency, and creating your own. For the present currency has "In GOD We Trust". So by your submissions, only us Christians are entitled to it. Something to think about, right? GOD bless all!

Well, for all of you against this, you might also consider turning in all your present currency, and creating your own. For the present currency has "In GOD We Trust". So by your submissions, only us Christians are entitled to it. Something to think about, right? GOD bless all!

That was also added fairly recently.

Well, for all of you against this, you might also consider turning in all your present currency, and creating your own. For the present currency has "In GOD We Trust". So by your submissions, only us Christians are entitled to it. Something to think about, right? GOD bless all!
No...if it were to go that far, the US Mint and the Treasury would redesign the money and eventually circulate the old version out of the loop.


Besides, I must be honest... since Bitchkitten has enlightened me somewhat on how some of the more prominent founding fathers thought about organized religion, I would have no problem with the words "under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance had they been the ones to put that there. Unfortunately, those two words were put in during the McCarthy Era and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth(metaphorically speaking of course)about the whole pledge thing.

moral= concerned with right and wrong. ethical, virtuous
religious=devout , faithful

All morals are religious. If a person is called ethical, then he or she is ethical all the time or at least generally. If a person changes constantly he or she cannot be discribed in any certain terms. If one faithfully, devoutly, adhears to ethical, virtuous behavior then one is moral. To be defined as moral one has to religiously observe a moral, ethical, virtuous way of doing things.

I believe Gods laws exhibit supreme morality.


Atheists can rape and kill if they want to. They don't believe anyone can punish them save themselves or other people. No eternal price. This breaks down into evolutionary thinking. To them laws exist just BECAUSE..MAN SAYS SO.

The real question is, what is moral? Without God anything and everything can be moral. Just like anything can be legal. All that has to be done is pass a law. Right ,wrong, legal, illegal without God all things fall to opinion, the whim of he who makes the law (the one with the most guns)

If laws are not based on a [(faithful) constant(religious)] set of morals there can be no stability, no security and in the end only chaos. (just do what feels good)

mans morals or Gods morals?
Define right and wrong by Gods definitions or by mans definitions.

This all being said the rebellion continues.

Perhaps you think that someone can't be moral without a god. I can. I don't rape or kill because it's wrong. I don't need the threat of damnation or the promise of heaven to keep my ethics in place. Perhaps you do.

the line "seperation of church and state" was first coined by Thomas jefferson, and I think that provides fair insight into the founding father's intentions.

You're right that separation of church and state came out of Jefferson's work but it had the opposite emphasis of what it has today. The purpose was to keep the government out of religion (electing clergymen etc.) not for the purpose of keeping religion out of government. (read Jefferson)

Atheists can rape and kill if they want to. They don't believe anyone can punish them save themselves or other people. No eternal price. This breaks down into evolutionary thinking. To them laws exist just BECAUSE..MAN SAYS SO.
Anybody can rape and kill if they want to. Of course, most of them don't.
Same with atheists. It seems pretty clear that it's just not the right thing to do to kill someone or rape them. And I don't think we're talking about laws here...
The real question is, what is moral? Without God anything and everything can be moral. Just like anything can be legal. All that has to be done is pass a law. Right ,wrong, legal, illegal without God all things fall to opinion, the whim of he who makes the law (the one with the most guns)
I certainly can't think of a way that it's moral to kill someone, and I don't believe in morals given by God. I don't know of many people who can, either. So it doesn't really seem like a thing where just anything can be moral...
If laws are not based on a [(faithful) constant(religious)] set of morals there can be no stability, no security and in the end only chaos. (just do what feels good)
Well, that's patently untrue...
I don't think there are a great many people that believe that human life holds no value... Or that it's fine to steal from others...
mans morals or Gods morals?
Define right and wrong by Gods definitions or by mans definitions.
Whose God do you choose, though?
Even when you go into religion for morals, there's still conflict.

moral= concerned with right and wrong. ethical, virtuous
religious=devout , faithful


Depends no what you consider a virtue, what you consider right and wrong, etc.


All morals are religious.


Bull.

I can say "All cows are chickens", doesn't make it true.

Show it or shove it.


If a person is called ethical, then he or she is ethical all the time or at least generally.


Ethics and morals are generally considered to be identicle. Unless you're talking about Dungeons and Dragons.


If a person changes constantly he or she cannot be discribed in any certain terms.


Eh?

Watch me: "That person is inconsistant, capricious, unreliable, confused..."


If one faithfully, devoutly, adhears to ethical, virtuous behavior then one is moral.


Virtuous behavior is subjective. One can also be devoted to playing video games. What you're describing sounds more like obssessive.


To be defined as moral one has to religiously observe a moral, ethical, virtuous way of doing things.


Religion=Obligation. I feel no obligation to follow my moral views, they're simply in my nature to follow. Further, laws are not morals, no matter their source.


I believe Gods laws exhibit supreme morality.


And I believe what the Judeo-Christian texts show is a being of insanity and unfathomable evil, aside from being logically impossible in nature.


Atheists can rape and kill if they want to.


So can anyone. Fewer of us actually do so than Christians, however, proven by the lower ratio of atheists in prisons compared to 'moral' Christians. We also have the lowest divorce rate along with Catholics, who're not supposed to be ABLE to divorce.

Love that irony.


They don't believe anyone can punish them save themselves or other people.


What, the risk of being put in jail with Bubba isn't enough to keep you from raping and murdering?


No eternal price.


If you need a threat to act in a 'moral' fashion, you're not a moral person. Moral people act in a moral fashion WITHOUT external threat of ANY kind, finite or infinite.



This breaks down into evolutionary thinking. To them laws exist just BECAUSE..MAN SAYS SO.



As we all know, Jebus wrote the Constitution.



The real question is, what is moral?



What is "Fun"? What is "Silly"?

Same answer. What we decide, largely based on how evolution has shaped us to keep us from destroying the species.



Without God anything and everything can be moral.



Like getting friends off when they're in need of an endorphine rush. Immoral in your book, a kindness in mine.



Just like anything can be legal.



Clearly Jebus should write the Masai Constitution like he did the US one.



All that has to be done is pass a law. Right ,wrong, legal, illegal without God all things fall to opinion, the whim of he who makes the law (the one with the most guns)



So, your deity hates democracy?



If laws are not based on a [(faithful) constant(religious)] set of morals there can be no stability, no security and in the end only chaos. (just do what feels good)



Oh yes. As we all know, America, the land where human beings created laws, is a giant pit of nuclear sludge. Oh. Wait. We DID pass laws, and they DIDN'T lead to chaos. Though our increasingly RELIGIOUS leaders are now causing chaos ELSEWHERE because they're ignoring the laws humans made.. oops.

And last I checked, they're trying to keep people from what feels good.



mans morals or Gods morals?
Define right and wrong by Gods definitions or by mans definitions.

This all being said the rebellion continues.

Yep. Heaven forbid we forge our own destinies.

Religions recognise morals because morals exist above and apart from religion. Killing, raping, stealing, these things are wrong, because they hurt people. Atheists need not the hand of God to punish or praise them, they only need the basic human decency that was passed to them from their fathers and mothers. People always try to make it seem like everyone worshipped God in the distant past. Even members of Queen Elizabeths Cabinet were once accused of being atheists.

You're right that separation of church and state came out of Jefferson's work but it had the opposite emphasis of what it has today. The purpose was to keep the government out of religion (electing clergymen etc.) not for the purpose of keeping religion out of government. (read Jefferson)

It was also to keep religion out of government. I don't see how you could not get that from reading Jefferson. He and other founders found as much wrong with religion controling government as vice versa.

They found a lot wrong with priests having power over the law.

Who says Killing and raping is wrong?

This is fun.
God was here first.

I have read about the problems with evolution more than the average person.
The earth simply cannot be 4.5 billion years old. This is bigger than Dr Dino.

The puplic schools are already religious schools. They preach Humanism.

The flood-- where there's smoke there's fire.
everyone weak ---no
Yes Muslims do say that, too.

this has been entertaining thanks all Good night from OKC, OK USA.

Who says Killing and raping is wrong?

I think...everyone.

Who says Killing and raping is wrong?

This is fun.
God was here first.

I have read about the problems with evolution more than the average person.
The earth simply cannot be 4.5 billion years old. This is bigger than Dr Dino.

The puplic schools are already religious schools. They preach Humanism.

The flood-- where there's smoke there's fire.
everyone weak ---no
Yes Muslims do say that, too.

this has been entertaining thanks all Good night from OKC, OK USA.
Umm, huh?
I don't understand...

I was being sarcastic

Its a long story it started about 6000 years ago. good nite

I think it's like one of those 9,500 piece jigsaw puzzles that are difficult to put together and not worth it in the least bit once you do.

Who says Killing and raping is wrong?
Who says things fall to the earth when you drop them? No one. And yet it is nontheless true.

I have read about the problems with evolution more than the average person.
The earth simply cannot be 4.5 billion years old. This is bigger than Dr Dino.
Please, a link, an article, a source, anything!

The puplic schools are already religious schools. They preach Humanism.
Public schools do not preach humanism, nor do they ever refute the existence of a god. They just don't endorse it.

The flood-- where there's smoke there's fire.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean there's a talking, burning bush.

Well, for all of you against this, you might also consider turning in all your present currency, and creating your own. For the present currency has "In GOD We Trust". So by your submissions, only us Christians are entitled to it. Something to think about, right? GOD bless all!

That was a Christian forced thing.

Teddy was against it as he thought mixing God and Money was an abomination.

He had to give up the fight when he saw the Christian base....

You're right that separation of church and state came out of Jefferson's work but it had the opposite emphasis of what it has today. The purpose was to keep the government out of religion (electing clergymen etc.) not for the purpose of keeping religion out of government. (read Jefferson)

Actually it was to keep both out of each others way. The Religous wars of Europe were still remembered.

Goverment by Religion is a bad thing!

Well my friend a law student doesn't make you a constitutional expert.

If it's ok to have ceremonial usage, then why can't the placement of the 10 commandments and crosses simply be labeled a cerimonial?

Fact remains, it violates the establishment clause, and it's wrong.

I won't bother with your frivolos lawsuit analogies as they serve no purpose here.

in fact.. if u look on the governmental buildings of congress, and the supreme court.. the 10 commandments are actually carved into the stone and writen on the doors... it is just by the fact that they are considered cerimonial that they are able to stay there >.> sry to have to point that out.. and it dosn't violate the establishment clause because as the other fellow pointed out the Supreme court.. whose buisness it is to be a consitutional expert has determined it doesn't.. besides the fact that the establishment clause dosn't read the way you want it to read. I can say i have the right to free speech as much as i want.. that dosn't change the fact that if i walk onto a plane and scream bomb.. that i wont be arrested..

Who says Killing and raping is wrong?

This is fun.
God was here first.

I have read about the problems with evolution more than the average person.
The earth simply cannot be 4.5 billion years old. This is bigger than Dr Dino.

The puplic schools are already religious schools. They preach Humanism.

The flood-- where there's smoke there's fire.
everyone weak ---no
Yes Muslims do say that, too.

this has been entertaining thanks all Good night from OKC, OK USA.


The earth can't be 4.5 billion years old ? are you joking ? ARE YOU JOKING ?! what the hell are dionasore bones then ? a conspiracy ? ... you give all religious intelectuals and republican intelectuals a bad name by opening your mouth while associating yourself with us.. The world was what .. made in 7 days ? because you think time in your little insignificant life is in any way relevent to time in Gods terms.. why not 7 days in venus's time, or mars, or saturn.. why earth ?

Dont forget.. God may have writen the bible.. but he wrote it through man.. an imperfect being by any sense of the word imperfect.. so the bible itself is imperfect !

Even worse that i have to explain this to you.. but i give the insulting atheists the satisfaction of getting to hear this come from me >.<

God was here first.

No way to test for that.

I have read about the problems with evolution more than the average person.
The earth simply cannot be 4.5 billion years old. This is bigger than Dr Dino.

Sure you have. You have yet to offer a real argument to the contrary.


The puplic schools are already religious schools. They preach Humanism.

Having gone to both Catholic and Public and a few of them at that(we moved a great deal), sorry but the publics don't teach humanism.

besides the fact that the establishment clause dosn't read the way you want it to read.

Sorry but when Madison himself talks about the seperation of church and state, there is no interpretation to his meaning. He meant the goverment will be Religious neutral.

I realized how much fun I had reading some of the quotes in this thread, I wanted to share some more.

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
-- Randall Terry, quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 16, 1993

"Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus."
-- John Ashcroft, Commencement address given on May 8, 1999

"We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America."
-- Pat Buchanan, campaign address at an anti-gay rally in Des Moines, Iowa, February 11, 1996

"We are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody that gets in our way."
--Jay Grimstead, February 1987

"Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."
--Rev. Joseph Morecraft,Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Marietta, Georgia, quoted in "the Public Eye," June 1994

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."
-- Gary North - Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989

"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
--Gary Potter, president of Catholics for Christian Political Action

"The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."
--D. James Kennedy, "Education: Public Problems and Private Solutions," Coral Ridge Ministries, 1993

Sorry but when Madison himself talks about the seperation of church and state, there is no interpretation to his meaning. He meant the goverment will be Religious neutral.

Yet the manner in which Adams spoke made it quite clear he might have disagreed quite adimatly with Madison

I realized how much fun I had reading some of the quotes in this thread, I wanted to share some more.

-snip quotes-
Wow. Those scare me deeply.

Those people are disgusting. What they're saying about Christ and Christianity is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow. Those scare me deeply.

Me too, me too..

Those people don't scare me...by themselves they're pretty funny.

What's scary is the idea that some people follow them.

Those people are disgusting. What they're saying about Christ and Christianity is absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah, they're going about it all wrong.
Last time I checked, Christianity was about showing goodwill towards others, not forcing them to believe your religion is the only true one whether they like it or not...

When I read the bible, it sure looked to me like Jesus said to love others, not "Crush all who oppose us!"...

Yet the manner in which Adams spoke made it quite clear he might have disagreed quite adimatly with Madison

Actually most of his debate was with Jefferson. He thought to balance the freedom of many private religions with the establishment of one public religion.

This in itself is a philosophical fiction. How would the state coerce all people into the adherence to a common religion? People make their own private judgments in matters of faith. Any attempt to coerce their consciences would only breed hypocrisy and resentment.

Adams concern was too much Relgious freedom.

moral= concerned with right and wrong. ethical, virtuous
religious=devout , faithful

All morals are religious. If a person is called ethical, then he or she is ethical all the time or at least generally. If a person changes constantly he or she cannot be discribed in any certain terms. If one faithfully, devoutly, adhears to ethical, virtuous behavior then one is moral. To be defined as moral one has to religiously observe a moral, ethical, virtuous way of doing things.
You're drawing a very tenuous analogy between the two and selectively interpreting the definition of each. Religion implies vesting faith in a higher power. Faith implies believing something in spite of empyrical proof (or lack thereof) in either direction. I am moral and ethical, and yet I worship no god.

I believe Gods laws exhibit supreme morality.
Morality throughout history has merely been adherence to the dictates of the dominant cult. You derive your moral code from a list enumerated to you by someone or something else - in essence, not only relinquishing the responsibility of independent thought but also affirming that you have no knowledge of right and wrong in and of yourself. The primary motivation for staying in line is the promise of heaven and the threat of hell. Atheists' motivation is that it will improve their lives and the lives of those around them.

Atheists can rape and kill if they want to. They don't believe anyone can punish them save themselves or other people. No eternal price. This breaks down into evolutionary thinking. To them laws exist just BECAUSE..MAN SAYS SO.
It amuses, annoys and frightens me that people genuinely believe this.

One of the simplest forms of critical thinking is pattern recognition. A dog can recognize patterns: "If I sit, my owner gives me a treat." If I punch you in the face, you will retaliate in some manner; even if you don't outright punch me back, I will have made an enemy. If I treat you with kindness and respect, then you would be more inclined to reciprocate. I'm happier, you're happier. We can focus on cooperating to achieve a common goal, something for the betterment of mankind.

The real question is, what is moral? Without God anything and everything can be moral. Just like anything can be legal. All that has to be done is pass a law. Right ,wrong, legal, illegal without God all things fall to opinion, the whim of he who makes the law (the one with the most guns)
I am an atheist. I am also a pacifist and conscientious objector. Violence is the worst way to solve problems.

Wow, I just disproved your theory by merely existing.

Every human being is entitled to live free of encroachment upon their person by others. Even though there is nothing in writing telling me that it's wrong, I know it is.

If laws are not based on a [(faithful) constant(religious)] set of morals there can be no stability, no security and in the end only chaos. (just do what feels good)
I have a very constant moral philosophy that requires no god and is, in a way, truly only about what feels good for everyone. In fact, it's comprised of only eight words.

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

Apply that in as many instances as you can conceive, and talk to me if you find any indiscrepancy. I'd be happy to modify it if I deem it necessary, but to the best of my knowledge, it's good to go.

Naturally, when people begin harming others (as they are wont to do), it becomes necessary to arbitrate and protect the innocent party. Herein is the role of government, a neutral maintainer of order.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

The puplic schools are already religious schools. They preach Humanism.
I can't help but laugh every time I hear this.

I didn't even know what Secular Humanism was until I researched religion independently. Whenever I make my beliefs known, I make myself a target. In fact, one of my teachers told me that I practice a "weak religion."

Schools discourage Humanism. If they taught it, more people would know what I was when I told them.

The flood-- where there's smoke there's fire.
everyone weak ---no
Such compelling arguments. You have given no reasoning for your statements; you are proving nothing beyond the fact that you have a keyboard, an internet connection and a familiarity with clichés. Put more effort into this or stop wasting my time.

I'd dig up a link with extensive apologia for evolution, but I need to get to bed and you'd probably only give it a cursory glance like you have to the rest of my posts. Also, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the presence of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Put the plum back in the pie; you haven't been a good boy.

I have read about the problems with evolution more than the average person.
The earth simply cannot be 4.5 billion years old. This is bigger than Dr Dino.

Ok, you may have been playing the devil's advocate here; I'm not quite sure as I am suffering from a bout of insomnia so my cognitive abilities may be a little fuzzy right now. But whether or not you are, I think I shall play the devil's devil's advocate on this one before I finally try to go to sleep.

Why is it always assumed that a "day" for God is the same as a day for a human? Considering that God is what God is, couldn't a "day" for him/her/it last for a billion of our years? And if you were a human writing the story of the creation....well, let's just say that it would be easier to condense the act into 6 days than to go into all the details because that would mean you'd end up writing just a creation story that would be considerably longer than the Bible as a whole. I really don't see why so many literalist christians hate the theory of evolution or the concept of the big-bang. Science has never been against religion or the views thereof; it just wants to know how everything works and interacts and uses objective curiosity to do so. In fact(and this last part is only my opinion), in the end science will more than likely provide proof that God does exist but that's a long time from now...hey, you've got to learn to crawl before you can walk.

do you support having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

more than 92% of Americans do, and if you dont do you think we should change it?

here's my opinion: Yes it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance since our forefathers were very religious men and NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the church and state are to be seperated.

nowhere in the original Constititution did it say that slavery was to be prohibited. the original Constitution did, however, specify that the government should not be recognizing any religion, and having a national Pledge that openly endorses ONLY a monotheistic God is certainly off sides.

i believe the Pledge should be returned to its original form, because it was intended to represent the Pledge of all Americans. it was supposed to unite us in our love of our country, not to imply that we all must worship or recognize a God, and certainly not to alienate the significant percentage of Americans who do not believe in God. (FUN FACT: the largest religious "orientation" in America besides Christianity is "atheist, agnostic, or secular")

"Under God" was only added during the Cold War in a effort to distinguish good God-fearing American patriots from the godless Commies. do you really want to keep "Under God" in the Pledge, knowing full well that it is only there because of transparent political posturing?


if you dont think the phrase should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are being very stupid since obviously you believe that we shouldn't do anything unless there is a unanimous vote.

if you actually reach that conclusion from your premise then you are being very stupid. it has nothing to do with a unanimous vote, and everything to do with the actual values of America. in this country we don't opperate by "majority rules" on all issues--the Framers made damn sure of that--so the number of people supporting "Under God" isn't at issue.

yes i agree we should respect other peoples beliefs and with texas i dont know if the stereotype is true but i thought they were generally very patriotic i might be wrong so dont quote me on that one.

Patriotic, yes. However, saying the pledge has nothing to do with being patriotic. I am a patriot. By that I mean I love my country and my fellow countrymen, but my government (and that for which is stands) is abhorrent and should be abolished.

Despising one's government, though, does not mean a person isn't a patriot.

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

That's why it should be removed.

Sigh. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What you and your compatriots overlook is that you extend an innacurate meaning to the word "establishment." The word was used back in that time to refer to making a specific church the official church of the state, nation, or locale in question. The Anglican church was the "established" church of England. All Englishmen paid taxes to the Anglican church, regardless of their personal beliefs. Do not twist the founders words to serve your own purposes. Rather, research more thoroughly so that you may understand their actions.

If you think the original trip to the new world wasn't a religious "pilgram"age, you're a brainless twit. This IS a nation of GOD, under GOD and in GOD's hands. All you heathens that think otherwise are wrong! CASE CLOSED!

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

That's why it should be removed.

You liberals have thrown God out of everything in public life, but then complain about the sad state the world is in and how your government isn't doing enough to help the underprivileged! HA! How utterly stupid can you be?

do you support having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

more than 92% of Americans do, and if you dont do you think we should change it?

here's my opinion: Yes it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance since our forefathers were very religious men and NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that the church and state are to be seperated. if you dont think the phrase should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are being very stupid since obviously you believe that we shouldn't do anything unless there is a unanimous vote. how long has it been since Congress has done that?

first of all where did you get your statistic from? 92% huh? was there some sort of referendum when no one but the christians were looking? agreeing to this is sort of like agreeing that the whole country should be forced to live christian lives under christian law. what about born and bred americans who are not christian? should thier beliefs be outlawed or discriminated against in law? there is something called systematic oppression. if all laws and language only reflect a christian lifestyle, then all others will be excluded. you might as well outlaw muslims, buddhists, and all other religions while your at it.

There are two ways to get someone(people who don't agree with you and you your lifestyle) out of your favorite chair(country):
1. you can hit them and force them out.
2. you can yell at them and make thier life miserable until they don't want to sit there anymore.
Option two is what you do when you create a one religion country.

the problem is that people who were born in America can't leave very easily. They only have citizenship for the one country. Never mind the fact that Christians are not always right or that the church's position on many issues has changed over the years. I don't have to remind you how many christians owned slaves do I? That was OK with the church then, but not now. please explain which body changed: was it the church that changed thier interpretation of the bible - or did the bible itself change and suddenly say that having slaves was wrong?
So:
1. the church is not alwAys right. therefore:
2 the church makes mistakes. therefore:
3. the church is no better than any other body that has beliefs and makes mistakes.

so why should your church be the one that imposes its beliefs on the country. surely any religious body in governance would bring the same problems of inequality. shouldn't any country strive to represent ALL of its people? certainly the majority would rule in a vote, but that doesn't mean a government doesn't have a responsibility to uphold the rights and freedoms of even the people that disagree with it.

As long as the "Pledge of Allegiance" remains an option, and is not something that anyone is forced to recite/repeat/swear to, then it can and probably should continue to contain the phrase "under god".

In any instance where it is mandatory, the phrase should be dropped.

Because contrary to what the first post in this thread says, the United States Consitution does contain a requirement to keep church and state separated.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law repespecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and ot petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

the bold type i've added to separate the phrase requiring separation of church and state from the rest of the first amendment

The "under god" wasn't put in there by our Deist founding fathers, it was put in there in the 50s to combat the godless communism.

Not quite accurate. Yes, it was inserted during the Cold War, but it was placed there by President Eisenhower to give recognition that all rights are given by God directly to the people, and that government therefore exists at the pleasure of the people.

As long as the "Pledge of Allegiance" remains an option, and is not something that anyone is forced to recite/repeat/swear to, then it can and probably should continue to contain the phrase "under god".

In any instance where it is mandatory, the phrase should be dropped.

Because contrary to what the first post in this thread says, the United States Consitution does contain a requirement to keep church and state separated.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law repespecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and ot petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

the bold type i've added to separate the phrase requiring separation of church and state from the rest of the first amendment

.............and there is no law respecting the establishment of religion. A pledge is an OATH or affirmation. It is the SWEARING of allegiance. If you don't want God in your life, get out of the United States. Decent people DO want God in their lives.

You liberals have thrown God out of everything in public life, but then complain about the sad stste the world is in and how your government isn't doing enough to help the underprivileged! HA! How utterly stupid can you be?How utterly stupid?, well, I could say someone's a liberal based solely on quoting a republican and pointing out that the attitude displayed is why the pledge shouldn't have that phrase?

How about that?

Or I could start saying someone is complaining about the sad state of the world and their government is not doing enough to help the underpriviledged when they said no such thing?

Hm, maybe I should have quoted a Democrat, or the local constitution of South Carolina that precludes an atheist governor instead.

If you think the original trip to the new world wasn't a religious "pilgram"age, you're a brainless twit. This IS a nation of GOD, under GOD and in GOD's hands. All you heathens that think otherwise are wrong! CASE CLOSED!

GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD!

Whose GOD are yu talking about!? for GOD's sake! there are lots of religions and lots of GOD's. are you saying that people with other religions are somehow less religious and kind and GODly? thier beliefs are not as good as yours. thier GOD isn't as great as yours? maybe since they worship a GOD that isn't yours that thier GOD should be considered a false idol and those people should be stoned to death. (thats what they used to do with heathens you know.) there have been plenty of wars waged in the christian GOD's name. the spanish inquisition for example. how is killing in the name of your GOD any better than killing in the name of some other GOD.

i could say its very similar to the religious extremists in the middle east right now.

you would then call me a brainless twit or something and tell me that christians don't do that anymore followed by another bout of name calling .

i would then say that they used to do that and ask you if the church is so right all the time, why they changed thier views on so many things. i mean if stoning people and/or taking over thier countries was OK then how come it's not OK now. will the church ever change its position again? If so, how can i trust that it's right now?

you would say something equally pointless as your last statement such as: "shut up, stupid." because there really is no answer to to this question.

CASE CLOSED

As long as we're putting forth quotes, I like these.

The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion, it will cease to be free for religion- Justice Robert H. Jackson

Lord, there's danger in this land. You get witch-hunts and wars when church and state hold hand- Joni Mitchell

If we've learned anything in the past quarter century, it is that we cannot federalize virtue.- President George H. W. Bush (isn't that ironic)

This ones just funny-
"The atomic bomb is a marvelous gift
that was given to our country by a wise God."
Phyllis Schlafly

The Christain religion teaches us to imitate a God that is cruel, insidious, jealous, and implacable in his wrath.- Deis Diderot

Two by Voltaire
"The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning"

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."

I don't believe in god because I don't believe in Mother Goose.-Clarence Darrow

Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high-powered rifle and scope. - P. J. O'Rourke

And from me-

Christian: I'll pray for you.

Atheist: Then I'll think for both of us.

.............and there is no law respecting the establishment of religion. A pledge is an OATH or affirmation. It is the SWEARING of allegiance. If you don't want God in your life, get out of the United States. Decent people DO want God in their lives.

ummm. again which GOD do you speak of? if you are saying that decent people want any GOD in thier lives, you are saying here that non-religoius people are not decent people.
then again you might be referring only to the christian GOD, then you are saying that any non-christians are not decent people.

you should be careful who you're calling indecent.

(P.S. the VAST majority of the world at large is non-christian. if this is your view, please shut up about why many of the countries of the world dislike the USA)

If you don't want God in your life, get out of the United States. Decent people DO want God in their lives.
hahaha, as if the tantrum of a terrified little theists had the power to exile non-Godidiots from America. especially since you are so transparently promoting YOUR PERSONAL RELIGION above any others (by insisting on the use of the Judeo-Christian title for their monotheistic deity). you're adorable.

i guess Stephen Hawking should just pack up his genius and leave, huh? and Einstein should have stayed in Europe to die in the Holocaust. the scientists who discovered human DNA would have had to do their research in another country, if you had your way.

many of the people who have been the pride and joy of American culture were indecent non-Americans, according to you. Ernest Hemingway would be out, as would Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Helen Keller. Irving Berlin and Robert Heinlein would have been too busy packing their bags to compose their remarkable works. Charles Shultz's Peanuts should be pulled from all decent American news papers, since he was an odios secular humanist who stated that he despised "those shallow religious comics." Mark Twain, who some consider one of the most classic American authors of all time, would have no place in your America.

dude, we even will have to shut down Disneyland! our man Walt was non-religious, had a secular funeral, and ensured that "In God We Trust" does not appear on Disney Dollars!

in the field of politics, Abraham Lincoln surely should not have been allowed to ascend to the Presidency, as he was a devout skeptic whose alleged acceptance of God toward the end of his life is hotly debated to this day. hell, by your standards, the Framers themselves would not have passed muster! even Thomas Jefferson should be expunged from American history, as he enjoined Americans to "Question boldly even the existence of God." John Adams felt that "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." James Madison asserted that "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."


bottom line, Dork: you are a traitor to the most deeply held values of America. your exclusion of non-Godbelievers spits upon the core principles that this country was founded upon. you are a disgrace and an embarassment to your country, and i hope one day you are able to understand how truly ashamed you should be for your ignorance, hatred, and arrogant bigotry.

just to clarify the original posted statistic of 92% agreeing with 'under god' in the constitution, as well as the point that only the very stupid would disagree.

at least according to this poll right now:
only 34.68% of people here agree with you.
look! 65.32 disagree!

if everyone who disagrees with you is so stupid, this poll suggests that America should stop worrying about language like this and start focusing on the education of its people.

92% of Americans are in favor of it, yet look at the vote in this thread: kinda tells you a bit about the ideological make-up of this forum...

as for me, I AM under God (as are we all), so I am proud to say it. the ACLU can shove it up their ass.

92% of Americans are in favor of it, yet look at the vote in this thread: kinda tells you a bit about the ideological make-up of this forum...

as for me, I AM under God (as are we all), so I am proud to say it. the ACLU can shove it up their ass.

thats right thank you for making my point. this forum is not made up entirely of americans. so it speaks to the people of the world who have voted here. it would appear that in the world, the godly american view is in the minority.

again, though, seriously can you guys actually back up that 92% statistic? i've asked several times and no one seems to be able to prove that it's an actual true statistic. is it because you can't? or you don't want to?

don't speak for others ("as are we all") it makes you look like you can't prove your point. i mean i know you can't but at least you could try.

Having made my daily firebrand statement, it's time for a spot of tea. hehe

92% of Americans are in favor of it, yet look at the vote in this thread: kinda tells you a bit about the ideological make-up of this forum...

200 years ago, 95% of Americans supported denying women the right to vote. 1000 years ago, virtually every person in the world believed that the Earth sat at the center of the universe. just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true, or right. if you knew the first thing about the American Constitution, you would know that the concept of "majority rules" was deliberately and clearly rejected by the Framers, who put clear safeguards in place to prevent "majority rule" from being instituted.

as for me, I AM under God (as are we all), so I am proud to say it. the ACLU can shove it up their ass.
you should thank the ACLU...they are the ones who campaign to protect your right to believe in your God, you right to speak publicly about your God, and your right to assemble in worship of your God. they have be fighting for the rights of believers for many years, and usually do so without any thanks. instead, believers continue to insult and denigrate the ACLU, even as the ACLU fights to protect their right to lob such insults. try actually reading up on the cases the ACLU has fought on the subject of religion, rather than spewing the same ignorant propaganda as all the other haters.

bump-come on people-reading this one was fun!

1 It was tacked on to the pledge, not an original part.
2 I don't want my tax money being used to talk about religion.
3 I'm an atheist and it's my country too.

*sniff sniff* emmmm a troll. Ah what the hell....



The establishment clause says the goverment will be neutral with Religion. under God is Christian.

Um under God isn't Christian. Other wise it would say Trinity. You need to give more proof that "Under God"= Christian only God/Gods(seeing as Trinity basically makes three Gods).

You don't get "morality" from Religion. Most people view killing as bad and having sex with children as bad. This didn't come from Religion.

One can get Morality from religion so you can't say someone can't get it from there.

Hmmm I think we have Defensor here. I supposed the sun revolves around the earth too right?

No that was a false belief brought on by the Church stop listening to Heavenly Father. This was the Great Apostophy. It ended around late 1800's.

I believe very strongly in the seperation of church and state and the 1st ammendment agrees. As for the "under God" part of the pleg, I wouldn't make that pledge if it didn't contain that phrase. I will pledge allegience to no state or individual that requires my allegience over God, or in absense of God. My first and highest allegience is to God and anything that requires me to violate that lacks the authority to make such a demand and is not worthy of my allegience. So, my allegience to anyone or anything is "under God" first and foremost.

If you think the original trip to the new world wasn't a religious "pilgram"age, you're a brainless twit. This IS a nation of GOD, under GOD and in GOD's hands. All you heathens that think otherwise are wrong! CASE CLOSED!

Ahh the myth of the Pilgrims.

Well mr troll if you want a few pointers on the facts, do reply.....

.............and there is no law respecting the establishment of religion. A pledge is an OATH or affirmation. It is the SWEARING of allegiance. If you don't want God in your life, get out of the United States. Decent people DO want God in their lives.

Sorry sweety, this is not a theocracy.

A free people does not have to swear allegiance everyday.

Decent people don't have to have god in their lives. There are far too many bad christians and muslims for your statement to be true.

Um under God isn't Christian. Other wise it would say Trinity. You need to give more proof that "Under God"= Christian only God/Gods(seeing as Trinity basically makes three Gods).

Well do name another Religion that uses "God" to describe the creator. Only the Christians.


One can get Morality from religion so you can't say someone can't get it from there.

Well one could but morality is defined by Religion. Everybody has their own "moral" code.


No that was a false belief brought on by the Church stop listening to Heavenly Father. This was the Great Apostophy. It ended around late 1800's.
Well you missed the defensor arguments from before. He says it does because the bible says so.

This thread is absolutely full of religious fanaticism - which is really quite hateful. Does your god want you to behave that way? If so, I'm very thankful he's not my god. My God understands us all, and does not care what religion we choose to follow (if we choose one at all), but rather how we choose to live, and how we choose to treat one another.

Someone in this thread says "Decent people want God in their lives". Well, some do - some don't. And while I do, I certainly don't want your particular version of god in my life.

Someone in this thread says "...if they don't want god, they can get out of the United States." This is exactly what we needed the First Amendment to protect us against.

Someone in this thread says "...it's not the establishment of a law, it's an oath, under god..." Nice. And, where someone "establishes a law" - such as, let's say, the governing body of a public school - making that oath mandatory? What then?

I notice that someone else in this thread says "The United States is a christian nation - that's obvious..." - No, it's not obvious. No, it's not a christian nation. It is a nation without a state religion. There are those misguided souls trying to force the United States to become a nation with a state religion, and force that state religion to be christianity. What exactly is it that they are afraid of? That others can think for themselves? That someone may choose to believe something different?

That they're wrong?

I'm honestly a bit afraid to be on the same planet with some of these people.

This country is supposed to be the one where people are free to believe, or not to believe, as they choose. Where people do not have to live in fear that a state religion will be put in place - one not of their choosing. This is the country that ended religious persecution inside it's borders. We can be christian (any of the available denominations, or "roll your own"), muslim (again with the multiple denominations), buddhist (...ditto...), hebraic, zoroastrian, druidic, wiccan, and on ad infinitum. Or, agnostic - choosing to believe in God, but not religion. Or atheistic, choosing not to believe in god. We all have the right to choose in this country.

No one can make any one of us accept their particular version of god/religion, or accept god at all if we choose not to.

The only way to change that is to amend the constitution. Should such an amendment ever happen, the greatest experiment in people governing themselves in the history of the world will have come to an end.***

So, please, voice your opinion - but do it civily.

***apologies to those of you not US citizens who live in free and democratic countries - but, basically, the US was first.

I believe very strongly in the seperation of church and state and the 1st ammendment agrees. As for the "under God" part of the pleg, I wouldn't make that pledge if it didn't contain that phrase. I will pledge allegience to no state or individual that requires my allegience over God, or in absense of God. My first and highest allegience is to God and anything that requires me to violate that lacks the authority to make such a demand and is not worthy of my allegience. So, my allegience to anyone or anything is "under God" first and foremost.Just trying to work out how God can be so much in your life that pledging allegiance cannot be done without mentioning God, but you believe in a separation of church and state.

I mean, not mentioning God in the pledge of alligience doesn't mean its against God, nor does it require alligience over God, just as not mentioning God when you open your fridge mean that fridges are against God, or that the fridge is mightier than God or has more effect on your life.

***apologies to those of you US citizens who live in a free and democratic countries - but, basically, the US is first, and not necessarily best or most free democracy.

America is a Christian country. Our laws come from the ten comandments. I pledge allegence UNDER GOD!!!!!

First off, its not needed. Period. Serves no purpose but to cause problems and more then likely violate the establishment clause (Please, cerimonial usage? What case is this?), as it directly states that the United States is "under God (The juedeo-christian god)". Second, I'd like to see proof (yes, proof) that people have intentionally tripped over a hose in Disney Land and sued sucessfully for it.

Serves no purpose for whom ?

Causes problems for whom ?

You 8% who don't like it? Get over it. Or go somewhere where you can lord your atheism over everyone.

It's tradition. It's part of America. Deal with it.

America is a Christian country. Our laws come from the ten comandments. I pledge allegence UNDER GOD!!!!!

Um ... no. America is secular, and you can get divorced.

There are basically three kinds of people arguing here.

1)Ignorant non-Christians
2)Intelligent non-Christians
3)Ignorant Christians

It looks to me like the debate would be a little bit more interesting if some of the Christians here would do a little bit of research here and make valid points. A lot of the points that I've seen brought up by those against "Under God" are invalid, but some of the people here are reading quotes and taking the word of others instead of making a solid argument. Some sections of this debate shouldn't be hard to win, but it seems like some of the people that are for "Under God" in the constifution are actually taking the time to make it easier for the opposing side. That is all.

America is a Christian country. Our laws come from the ten comandments. I pledge allegence UNDER GOD!!!!!

:confused: Where in the hell did you get that dumbass easily refutable idea? :rolleyes:

America is a Christian country. Our laws come from the ten comandments. I pledge allegence UNDER GOD!!!!!

Have you been outside of your basement lately? America is not, and has not been a Christian country for quite some time. It's just as easy to argue that our laws are basic human standards, and have nothing to do with the ten commandments. Also, when Jesus died on the cross, the law was fulfilled, so as a Christian you no longer have to live by every word in the old testament. Try using a bit of discernment and enjoy the Bible for what it is instead of viewing it as a giant rule book.

Serves no purpose for whom ?

Causes problems for whom ?

You 8% who don't like it? Get over it. Or go somewhere where you can lord your atheism over everyone.

It's tradition. It's part of America. Deal with it.Serves no purpose for believers, they believe they are under god anyway.

Causes problems for that 8% you mention (not that I trust that statistic)

The pledge of Alligience is supposed to unite all Americans, not all American Christians. Even the 8% you don't agree with. What are you?, anti-American unless they're Christian?

If you insist on sending away the atheists though, we'll have the ones who are rich and / or have high IQs.

Or you can just get rid of the 50 year-old 'traditional' part of America that came from one of the more shameful periods of your contemporary history.

technically, it's against the first ammendment.

But I really don't care.

Serves no purpose for believers, they believe they are under god anyway.

Causes problems for that 8% you mention (not that I trust that statistic)

The pledge of Alligience is supposed to unite all Americans, not all American Christians. Even the 8% you don't agree with. What are you?, anti-American unless they're Christian?

If you insist on sending away the atheists though, we'll have the ones who are rich and / or have high IQs.

Or you can just get rid of the 50 year-old 'traditional' part of America that came from one of the more shameful periods of your contemporary history.

Are you suggesting something be banned because it's offensive to some people? And that atheism = automatic high intelligence? :rolleyes:

My opinion is that everyone has the right to choose whether to say the pledge or not. If you're offended by 'under God', simply don't say those two words, or just don't say the pledge at all. You are never required to say it. It's a personal choice.

If you choose not to say it, either sit or stand respectfully and silently.
If you choose to say it, say it like you mean it. It's disrespectful to say the pledge in a mocking way.

Personally, I leave out 'Under God' because I'm agnostic. Either that or I don't say it at all.

In a number of places around the country teachers are required to say the pledge of and lead the students in saying it.

And how well recieved to you think people will be if they sent letters to school saying "I don't want little Jimmy pledging his loyalty to our country... ow ow ahhh! what do you mean terrorism suspect?!! why am I still writing this note while you're beating me over the head, that seems rather silly of me, pepper spray!! oh God! my eyes, my eyes argh! oh very clever you bastard, it's a figure of speech."

Serves no purpose for whom ?

Causes problems for whom ?

You 8% who don't like it? Get over it. Or go somewhere where you can lord your atheism over everyone.

It's tradition. It's part of America. Deal with it.Serves no purpose for believers, they believe they are under god anyway.

Causes problems for that 8% you mention (not that I trust that statistic)

The pledge of Alligience is supposed to unite all Americans, not all American Christians. Even the 8% you don't agree with. What are you?, anti-American unless they're Christian?

If you insist on sending away the atheists though, we'll have the ones who are rich and / or have high IQs.

Or you can just get rid of the 50 year-old 'traditional' part of America that came from one of the more shameful periods of your contemporary history.Are you suggesting something be banned because it's offensive to some people? And that atheism = automatic high intelligence? :rolleyes:Neither, how the heck did you get that from what I said?

Neither, how the heck did you get that from what I said?

With this snippet

If you insist on sending away the atheists though, we'll have the ones who are rich and / or have high IQs.

Stating that sending atheists away would be sending away the "smart" ones.

Causes problems for that 8% you mention (not that I trust that statistic)

Which one could imply that because it causes problems (in other words, offending) the small minority (if that's even true, I doubt it) feels offended. Boo-hoo. The only reason this should be changed is because (iirc) congress did pass something that officially changed the wording of the pledge. but the way people get so offended by such a petty thing is just laughable. It's two words.. there's no need to be so offended by it!

America is a Christian country. Our laws come from the ten comandments. I pledge allegence UNDER GOD!!!!!

Hey sweety, did you ask to be on the computer?

Serves no purpose for whom ?

Causes problems for whom ?

You 8% who don't like it? Get over it. Or go somewhere where you can lord your atheism over everyone.

It's tradition. It's part of America. Deal with it.

It causes problems for the Constitution.

8%? Sorry polls are lousy measures of the will of the people. I saw a couple polls where it was 58 and 32, 50 50, and even a 48 52.

Atheism has nothing to do with the matter. Many people that are Religious think that it does not belong there.

Part of America is change. It was added in the McCarthy era. The Soviets are gone so it can be removed.

It's two words.. there's no need to be so offended by it!

Then there should be no problem removing them since it's only two words....

With this snippetIf you insist on sending away the atheists though, we'll have the ones who are rich and / or have high IQs.Stating that sending atheists away would be sending away the "smart" ones.No it doesn't, really, it says that if you send away all the atheists, we'll take out from that group all the desirable ones. I didn't say, send all the atheists and we'll take them all in because they're more intelligent. What it does say is that Atheists, as a group, are no richer, poorer, less intelligent, or more intelligent than the theists.Causes problems for that 8% you mention (not that I trust that statistic).Which one could imply that because it causes problems (in other words, offending) the small minority (if that's even true, I doubt it) feels offended. Boo-hoo. The only reason this should be changed is because (iirc) congress did pass something that officially changed the wording of the pledge. but the way people get so offended by such a petty thing is just laughable. It's two words.. there's no need to be so offended by it!The problem isn't offense, the problem is that its self-defeating, the pledge unites all Americans, to have an exclusionist pledge seems silly, even more so when it wasn't that way about 50 years ago. It isn't about correcting offense, its about having something official you say to unite you with your fellow Americans. About correcting an error, and making an improvement, not pandering to a minority.

Hope that cleared it up.

Then there should be no problem removing them since it's only two words....

But what you don't get is that it's only a one way road. they will not budge until you do, but after you shift your position, there's no longer any need for them to move. I think that's what these groups have been going for with every single one of their interpretations of the bible and how it should be refelcted in American law.

But that right there is the problem. American law should not reflect religion, it should represent what makes this country great. Why America used to be called "The Land of the Free". I'm just not sure it applies anymore with an extremist christian at the helm trying at every turn to cut you down in the name of god.

But what you don't get is that it's only a one way road. they will not budge until you do, but after you shift your position, there's no longer any need for them to move. I think that's what these groups have been going for with every single one of their interpretations of the bible and how it should be refelcted in American law.

But that right there is the problem. American law should not reflect religion, it should represent what makes this country great. Why America used to be called "The Land of the Free". I'm just not sure it applies anymore with an extremist christian at the helm trying at every turn to cut you down in the name of god.

Yes you would think. What is even more alarming is the fact Justice Scalia actually had the balls to say that no founding father ever used the words "Seperation of Church and State"

Scary to think he might be the CJ. Bad times ahead.....

There are basically three kinds of people arguing here.

1)Ignorant non-Christians
2)Intelligent non-Christians
3)Ignorant Christians
Now, that's a little unfair. Snub Nose 38's post, for example, was very informed, civil and egalitarian, though I'm not sure whether he's Christian or merely a theist in general. However, I will freely admit that this thread is rife with ignorance on both sides.

Those of you who claim that it is necessary for decent people to have God in their lives have clearly not met someone like me. I say this not to brag, but in all honesty. I would never harm another person or his property - not because I'm afraid of retaliation, but because living in harmony with others is the best way to improve myself and allow others to improve themselves. I am an atheist, and I love mankind and revere its potential.

Then there should be no problem removing them since it's only two words....

Exactly! But it shouldn't be a big deal that people whine about and make a mountain out of a molehill! You aren't going to convert to Christianity if you hear "under god," and it isn't that flagrant a breach of the establishment clause, as it's not a law to say the pledge.

Exactly! But it shouldn't be a big deal that people whine about and make a mountain out of a molehill! You aren't going to convert to Christianity if you hear "under god," and it isn't that flagrant a breach of the establishment clause, as it's not a law to say the pledge.
Regardless, it's a government-sanctioned text that must represent all American citizens. At the moment, it excludes non-theists. It would be nice if those words were removed, but it shouldn't be a top priority. Michael Newdow's poorly-based case only made matters worse.

Exactly! But it shouldn't be a big deal that people whine about and make a mountain out of a molehill! You aren't going to convert to Christianity if you hear "under god," and it isn't that flagrant a breach of the establishment clause, as it's not a law to say the pledge.

Ahh but the fact that many public schools make students say it does call for the establishment clause as the goverment which funds the schools are indirectly endorsing a Religion.

Now if "god" or "the creator" was used then there is an argument to keep it. However, "God" is a Christian thing.

Ahh but the fact that many public schools make students say it does call for the establishment clause as the goverment which funds the schools are indirectly endorsing a Religion.

Now if "god" or "the creator" was used then there is an argument to keep it. However, "God" is a Christian thing.I don't see how as its still religious and exclusionist.

Two options to unite as many Americans as possible really, instead of "under God" you have "under deit(y/ies) or not if you have no belief in deit(y/ies)" which is a bit of a mouthful, or you just remove "under God" and put it back the way it was before McCarthism took hold since it was a pretty shameful period anyway.

On the topic on money (in Cod we thrust), eventually you could remove it, but its not as much of a disuniter, you don't pledge allegiance to money with your hand over your heart. Plus you can just cross that bit out with a pen, still legal tender.

I find it silly. Now that the US is multi-cultural, the pledge should be taught as such, "under [insert deity]", and all denomination would be given a chance to express themselves. Atheists could add, "sovereign and free" or something of the like. I think it should be the same for the Canadian anthem, which also includes a reference to God.

Hey sweety, did you ask to be on the computer?
The last five are, and I suppose number 5 is as well.


The reason number 10 is ours is because it's essentially capitalism in action. The idea is not to covet something your neighbor has but to go out, work your ass off, and get it for yourself.

I don't think we should say the Pledge of Allegiance at all. Instead, we should sing the National Anthem, which was written by a genuine patriot. Even better- for atheists- there is no mention of God in it.

I don't think we should say the Pledge of Allegiance at all. Instead, we should sing the National Anthem, which was written by a genuine patriot. Even better- for atheists- there is no mention of God in it.
Star Spangled Banner?



Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Last bit. (Oh, I'm not here, just because I have a general rule against getting into threads with Jesussaves and his ilk in here...)

And the atheist said "man I'm moooraal ...man... I'm decent...man ... man ....because man....man says so....man ...man ...if.. its not right man ..then ...man i'd know man...and man... if its wrong man..then ...man i'd know that too...man..everybody just... knows ...man. Do ya get it? lol

athiestic-- If you dont adhear to rules you can't break any. man.

Some of you may remember me. I was asked to list a few references.

Cyrian space asked for info about the age of the earth. I said the earth cannot be 4.5 bil yrs old. read what I say to Indentia.

The Black Forrest-- I have read on many sites. Dr dino and the icr site are among the most popular. There are many sites, and many vary in their approach to the issue. I have read the opposing views as well. I have read some books on the subject. A couple I have here in sight are The Young Earth, John D Morris and Designer Universe, Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe.

Inidentia--ouch, your post #111. No Joke! I understand your reaction. God created dinosaurs. Adam and his desendants lived with dinosaurs until the flood.
The existance of so many fossils all over the world proves the flood as described in Genesis. The approximate date of the flood can be constructed using geology. Geology indicates it happened about 4000 years ago. Once the flood date is known the geneologys in Genesis do the rest. For fast and mostly none technical info go to drdino.com. God created everything in six days. 24 hr days.
There is no proof or reason to be otherwise. As I said evolution is dead.
To the subject at hand "under God"
God talked to Adam. Adam may have been the most knowlegable man of all time.
He spoke to the creator of all things. Adam learned from God how to treat other people. (the golden rule) its not new. As people died off knowlege of God was lost. After the rebellion self reliance took the place of God. This is humanism, were man makes the rules (morals) and can change them by democratic fiat. Saying to themselfs " after all we know whats right and wrong" But its really what ever the majority says, from an athiestic(humanist) point of view. A lynch mob is democracy(direct majority rule) in action. Gods word supports the idea of equality under the law, not subject to a vote. Anyway Gods laws and Ideas are found throughout the founding documents and cannot be separated from them without ultimately destoying the documents authority. example: rights endowed by their creator.

Without God(Creator of all things) being decent to one another could take on any meaning. Sense God is obviously a part of the government the indeed we are under God. Just leave it alone. Its okay

Good night Ive got to get some sleep tonight..

Just an off note: Evolution is DEAD. The existance of such large amounts of fossils and none showing stages of development proves evolution never happened.
Alright, where did I leave my Cluebat. That is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Do you realize how rare fossils actually are? It would be like saying someone had their picture taken at ages 1, 45, and 96 years old and then saying because you didn't see all the interim stages that their existence was a sham and they weren't the same person. And as a side note, the age of the earth has not been proven even mainly through the existence of fossils. One of the things that helps prove it is the magnetic alignment of the ocean floor. There are stripes of magnetic orientation on the ocean floor that alternate as they were created bubbling up through the earths crust. This also blows into tiny tiny peices creationists' argument that the earth is only 4000 years old because if the earth was as old as the scientists say then given the current rate of decay of the magnetic field around the earth we would have all been fried from it's strength not a million years ago. This doesn't take into account that the magnetic poles do indeed switch. I think they do it every 50,000 years or so but I don't quite remember what they think it is.

The last five are, and I suppose number 5 is as well.


The reason number 10 is ours is because it's essentially capitalism in action. The idea is not to covet something your neighbor has but to go out, work your ass off, and get it for yourself.

Ok maybe it's because I am wasted from a long day at work but what are you talking about? Is that jesus guy an alias for you?

Ok maybe it's because I am wasted from a long day at work but what are you talking about? Is that jesus guy an alias for you?
*shudders* How can you suggest such a thing. I was commenting on how 6 of the ten commandments could be considered as entrenched in the lifeblood of this country.

*shudders* How can you suggest such a thing. I was commenting on how 6 of the ten commandments could be considered as entrenched in the lifeblood of this country.

Ahh like I said my mind is not all there tonight. ;)

No argument to some of the 10-c being used. However, how long as murder, theft, etc been in civilizations laws? I bet yo can find references with the greeks, egyptions, etc.

What of the laws of Hamurabi? Or were they simply about trade?

But point is certain laws predate the bible.....

And the atheist said "man I'm moooraal ...man... I'm decent...man ... man ....because man....man says so....man ...man ...if.. its not right man ..then ...man i'd know man...and man... if its wrong man..then ...man i'd know that too...man..everybody just... knows ...man. Do ya get it? lol
You're right, that doesn't make any sense at all. Now, would you mind if I adapt your sentence a little bit by using your impressive sense of objectiveness.

"And the atheist said "god I'm moooraal ...god... I'm decent...god ... god ....because god....god says so....god ...god ...if.. its not right god ..then ...god i'd know god...and god... if its wrong god..then ...god i'd know that too...god..everybody just... knows ...god. Do ya get it? lol"

No Joke! I understand your reaction. God created dinosaurs. Adam and his desendants lived with dinosaurs until the flood.
...
The approximate date of the flood can be constructed using geology
?
Geology indicates it happened about 4000 years ago. Once the flood date is known the geneologys in Genesis do the rest. For fast and mostly none technical info go to drdino.com. God created everything in six days. 24 hr days.
!?!
There is no proof or reason to be otherwise
Do you had at least a single lesson of biology or geology at school? What are these proves of yours you're talking about? Internet sites? You declare your point of view as correct because some Internet sites say so?

Adam learned from God how to treat other people. (the golden rule) its not new
So God has his copyright on every thing we think of to be good because a book, which was actually written after the rise of the first human cultures, says so.

I was commenting on how 6 of the ten commandments could be considered as entrenched in the lifeblood of this country.
I agree with TBF on this point. This 6 commandments aren't the lifeblood only of the US, they were the lifeblood of nearly every kind of human civilisation.

I agree with TBF on this point. This 6 commandmends aren't the lifeblood of the US, they were the lifeblood of nearly every kind of human civilisation.
Then the correct statement would be they aren't the lifeblood of only this country.

Erm, right. Sorry for that.

Murder?

I thought it was thou shalt not kill

Murder?

I thought it was thou shalt not kill
Nope. Mistranslation.

I think its only a mistranslation if people don't like it.

Like, witch was mistranslated (it should be poisoner), but people are happier to leave that as is, seemingly.

I think its only a mistranslation if people don't like it.

Like, witch was mistranslated (it should be poisoner), but people are happier to leave that as is, seemingly.
Thus reaffirming the fact that people are stupid.

*shudders* How can you suggest such a thing. I was commenting on how 6 of the ten commandments could be considered as entrenched in the lifeblood of this country.
"lifeblood"? given that this country was founded by men who did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God at all? given that this country was founded upon the principle that ALL religious visions should be welcome and equally treated?

you know what? it doesn't even matter what you think is in the "lifeblood" of this country. all that matters is what is in the LAW, because that is the only stuff that citizens of this country are expected to live by.

i count three:

thou shalt not murder
thou shalt not steal
thou shalt not bear false witness (we have purjury)

and, if you notice, these are core values of pretty much every culture or religion on the planet, so it's impossible to justify giving the credit to Christianity for these concepts at all.

the values you get from the 10 Commandments, which you claim are the lifeblood of this country, are values that existed long before Moses and the mountain. they are values that have evolved in cultures that never had any contact with Christianity. they are values that simply tend to exist when humans live in groups. to try to give credit to Christianity for such values is hilariously ignorant.

I like the way the Knights of Columbus added a divisive phrase like "under God" just before the word "indivisible." What a crock! The U.S. is not, and was never intended to be, a theocracy, so knock it off with the subliminal religious programming already! Sheesh!

By the way, has anyone here ever read "Virus of the Mind," by Richard Brodie? I highly recommend it as an easy-to-read introduction to the concept of memetics.

And the atheist said "man I'm moooraal ...man... I'm decent...man ... man ....because man....man says so....man ...man ...if.. its not right man ..then ...man i'd know man...and man... if its wrong man..then ...man i'd know that too...man..everybody just... knows ...man. Do ya get it? lol

athiestic-- If you dont adhear to rules you can't break any. man.

Some of you may remember me. I was asked to list a few references.

Cyrian space asked for info about the age of the earth. I said the earth cannot be 4.5 bil yrs old. read what I say to Indentia.

The Black Forrest-- I have read on many sites. Dr dino and the icr site are among the most popular. There are many sites, and many vary in their approach to the issue. I have read the opposing views as well. I have read some books on the subject. A couple I have here in sight are The Young Earth, John D Morris and Designer Universe, Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe.

Inidentia--ouch, your post #111. No Joke! I understand your reaction. God created dinosaurs. Adam and his desendants lived with dinosaurs until the flood.
The existance of so many fossils all over the world proves the flood as described in Genesis. The approximate date of the flood can be constructed using geology. Geology indicates it happened about 4000 years ago. Once the flood date is known the geneologys in Genesis do the rest. For fast and mostly none technical info go to drdino.com. God created everything in six days. 24 hr days.
There is no proof or reason to be otherwise. As I said evolution is dead.
To the subject at hand "under God"
God talked to Adam. Adam may have been the most knowlegable man of all time.
He spoke to the creator of all things. Adam learned from God how to treat other people. (the golden rule) its not new. As people died off knowlege of God was lost. After the rebellion self reliance took the place of God. This is humanism, were man makes the rules (morals) and can change them by democratic fiat. Saying to themselfs " after all we know whats right and wrong" But its really what ever the majority says, from an athiestic(humanist) point of view. A lynch mob is democracy(direct majority rule) in action. Gods word supports the idea of equality under the law, not subject to a vote. Anyway Gods laws and Ideas are found throughout the founding documents and cannot be separated from them without ultimately destoying the documents authority. example: rights endowed by their creator.

Without God(Creator of all things) being decent to one another could take on any meaning. Sense God is obviously a part of the government the indeed we are under God. Just leave it alone. Its okay

Good night Ive got to get some sleep tonight..Well - I'm very glad that ISEE made his/her points in a civil manner.

He/she isn't right, though.

Someone has carefully taught ISEE a set of religious dogma that he/she truly believes. The unfortunate thing about religious dogma is that it never leaves room for discussion. Religious dogma works like this:

It declares itself, it declares itself to be irrefutably right, it declares all contrary ideas to be heretical, and then it closes the dicussion with a statement of the bad thing or things that will happen to those who don't believe it.

So, a little sadly, I'll just smile and move on.

Since it was added by McCarthy'ists in the '50s and doesn't fit the vision of our founding fathers, I would say a definate no on that one.