NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

America IS NOT A THEORACY
If you lived in America you'd realise you're wrong. Bush is in charge now, anything is possible. At least if you're a right-wing fundamentalist nutjob.

I agree with you, but you're not going to win any friends/converts by going at it like that.

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE.


Yeah, but I'm not entirely sure any of were atheists either. As far as I know, pretty much all of them belonged to some denomination of Christian church.


The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said...


Which is part of the reason that so many students in America don't even know the words to the pledge or the nation anthem anymore.

The Under God part is there, and while I completely respect your viewpoint and your right to believe whatever you believe, America's Constitution was written to follow the general moral code marked out in the Ten Commandments. In God we trust is on every single piece of printed currency and the Founders of our country were also all pretty much Freemasons. A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation. The same priniciple is behind the Under God in the Pledge. Despite what you choose to think about it, it's there to both honor a creator and to honor the men who created this country. Yes I'm Christian and yes I disagree with you but I understand your point, so my response is: It is not just honoring God, it honors the forefathers. That is why it stays. It isn't sucking up to any group but the Founders of our nation. That is all.

I don’t believe that “under god” violates the First Amendment, because it doesn’t endorse a specific religion. However, my opinion on whether or not it should be in there is somewhat conflicted. After all, we do live in a nation where over seventy five percent of the population recognizes that some form of God exists. On the other hand, this has been pretty much the case throughout our history, yet the “under God” was not added until the fifties.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*
Whoa, buddy... Comon' off a bit too strong there (it's hard to hear your point over your emotions, like listening to a bitch nag at you).

I understand your aggravation. America is far from a theocracy, but it's always best to have the powerhungry theists kept in check. I totally agree with you there.

However, I don't think an issue like this really proves useful in any realistic sense. What good would it do to get rid of the word "God" everywhere, save creating a more rabid fundamentalist group within the states?

Macho-flashing seldom does much to solve our problems (although it makes us men feel better). I do it too and am trying to "tone it down", so I know how hard that can be when everything else in you says "Fight the good fight!".

The main objective isresults, not bleeding-heartesque emotional outbursts, though.

I agree with you, but you're not going to win any friends/converts by going at it like that.

If I wanted to make friends, I'd actually get off my ever-widening ass and go out to flirt with some girls. LOL. :p

If you want to stop fundamentalism, banning religious expression will not help but rather will make it worse. They thrive on being percieved as martyrs or persecuted, and use that to build their power base; banning religion will only silence the moderate religious while allowing fundamentalists to keep going.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*
Dude. If you live in Australia, WTF do you care about whether America has "under God" in its Pledge of Alliegance or not?

You seem to have ... issues. I recommend a good anger management seminar.

The Under God part is there, and while I completely respect your viewpoint and your right to believe whatever you believe, America's Constitution was written to follow the general moral code marked out in the Ten Commandments. In God we trust is on every single piece of printed currency and the Founders of our country were also all pretty much Freemasons. A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation. The same priniciple is behind the Under God in the Pledge. Despite what you choose to think about it, it's there to both honor a creator and to honor the men who created this country. Yes I'm Christian and yes I disagree with you but I understand your point, so my response is: It is not just honoring God, it honors the forefathers. That is why it stays. It isn't sucking up to any group but the Founders of our nation. That is all.

Whoa. I stepped on a lot of people's toes, didn't I?
But seriously, there are some errors in your arguement:

1) The Constitution is a god-less document, it isn't based on the Ten Commandments, otherwise it might've mentioned God AT LEAST ONCE (IT DOESN'T).

2) The "In God We Trust" thing appeared in the 50's to spite the godless commies, not because of the Freemasons.

3) The founders of your country were not Freemasons, but Diests or something like that.

4) There are other moral codes then the Ten Commandments, and a few of them are more similar to the words and basic ideals of the Constituion then the Ten Commandments. The COnstituion could've been based on those.

Dude. If you live in Australia, WTF do you care about whether America has "under God" in its Pledge of Alliegance or not?

You seem to have ... issues. I recommend a good anger management seminar.

It's not run by you is it? :p

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*



You make some very valid points, but it's hard to discern them with so much ranting.

Dude. If you live in Australia, WTF do you care about whether America has "under God" in its Pledge of Alliegance or not?

You seem to have ... issues. I recommend a good anger management seminar.

Because "dude", our country's government is in tight with the Yanks. If they get all Christian nutjob, then our government's "me too" policy with drag usz down with them. Here's hoping every1 in America doesn't jump off a bridge....

Whoa. I stepped on a lot of people's toes, didn't I?
But seriously, there are some errors in your arguement:

1) The Constitution is a god-less document, it isn't based on the Ten Commandments, otherwise it might've mentioned God AT LEAST ONCE (IT DOESN'T).

2) The "In God We Trust" thing appeared in the 50's to spite the godless commies, because of the Freemasons.

3) The founders of your country were not Freemasons, but Diests or something like that.

4) There are other moral codes then the Ten Commandments, and a few of them are more similar to the words and basic ideals of the Constituion then the Ten Commandments. The COnstituion could've been based on those.

many of the founding fathers were freemason and deists the two go hand in hand. Freemasonry is not compatible with christianity. While I dont think it is good because god is too general a term. I would prefer something like Holy Trinity or Father Son Holy Spirit, But I agree that according to the constitution that could never happen. I wish there was a good Catholic monarchy somewhere for me to move too :p

Because "dude", our country's government is in tight with the Yanks. If they get all Christian nutjob, then our government's "me too" policy with drag usz down with them. Here's hoping every1 in America doesn't jump off a bridge....

I really don't think that will happed. Religion is nowhere near as prominent here, as it is in America.

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.


agreed. my little experience of law from have a political science study in my degree would say you argue the case simply and brilliantly

I'm definitely hearing you now, and it sounds like you have a lot of valid information to offer. Please though, don't make us look as bad as the foaming-mouth X-tians who seek to control us.

They rant enough for a thousand years worth of NS forumfare. ;)

Yo, do you guys still have to swear on the Bible in court?

Also, while 'under God' may not show favoritism to any specific religion, it excludes a lot of religious beliefs as well, such as atheism [obviously] and hinduism [then it would be 'under Gods, all 45 trillion of them' :)]

Yeah, but I'm not entirely sure any of were atheists either. As far as I know, pretty much all of them belonged to some denomination of Christian church.

Washington, Madison, and Jefferson were not Christians. They were deists. Lincoln was an atheist, but at some point before or during his presidency, he became a deist.

I don’t believe that “under god” violates the First Amendment, because it doesn’t endorse a specific religion.
However, it only endorses religions that have a god, so it violates the First Amendment. When you get down to it, it only endorses monotheistic, henotheistic, and dualistic religions, so it violates the First Amendment again. And since God, withe the capital 'g', is only used in the Abrahamic religions, and even so is almost exclusive to Christianity, violates the First Amendment once again.

Because "dude", our country's government is in tight with the Yanks. If they get all Christian nutjob, then our government's "me too" policy with drag usz down with them. Here's hoping every1 in America doesn't jump off a bridge....
Like I said ... issues. :(

Yo, do you guys still have to swear on the Bible in court?
Yes. but you don’t have to if you don’t want to, I think. Jews swear on their book( forgot the name), and Muslims swear on the Quran.
Also, while 'under God' may not show favoritism to any specific religion, it excludes a lot of religious beliefs as well, such as atheism [obviously] and hinduism [then it would be 'under Gods, all 45 trillion of them' :)]
A common misconception. Many Hindus think of all the gods as just part of a greater god, the ones I know anyway.

Besides that though, you have a point. This issue is a conflict between the often conflicting ideas of majority rule and minority rights. With that in mind, I suppose I am against it being in the pledge, for the simple reason that I wouldn’t want a Muslim majority telling me to swear loyalty to Allah, or some other group making me acknowledge a being that I do no believe exists.

However, it only endorses religions that have a god, so it violates the First Amendment. When you get down to it, it only endorses monotheistic, henotheistic, and dualistic religions, so it violates the First Amendment again. And since God, withe the capital 'g', is only used in the Abrahamic religions, and even so is almost exclusive to Christianity, violates the First Amendment once again.

But the First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making a law that respects a particular religion; the Pledge only mentions God and no one is bound by law to recite it or even recite the words "under God" in the pledge and could even insert their own deity if they please. Thus, the Pledge is only optional and is not an actual law but rather a tradition.

The Allegheny County case in 1989 describes the Supreme Court's opinion on religious display in public facilities in regard to the establishment clause:

''government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any religion or its exercise; and it may not, in the guise of avoiding hostility or callous indifference, give direct benefits to religion in such a degree that it in fact 'establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.'''

The pledge does not do any of these things, and so is consistent with the First Amendment.

The Under God part is there, and while I completely respect your viewpoint and your right to believe whatever you believe, America's Constitution was written to follow the general moral code marked out in the Ten Commandments. In God we trust is on every single piece of printed currency and the Founders of our country were also all pretty much Freemasons. A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation. The same priniciple is behind the Under God in the Pledge. Despite what you choose to think about it, it's there to both honor a creator and to honor the men who created this country. Yes I'm Christian and yes I disagree with you but I understand your point, so my response is: It is not just honoring God, it honors the forefathers. That is why it stays. It isn't sucking up to any group but the Founders of our nation. That is all.

Lots of points to refute here, and I haven't even checked to see if they have been refuted, but oh well.

1. Only two of the ten commandments (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal) are definite rules of the American legal system, with a little of thou shalt not lie in certain contexts. None of the other 7 are even slightly mandated.
2. Many of the founders were freemasons, but many were also deists (Benjamin Franklin). Anyway, following the logic that doing what the founders did or intended is always right we would still have slavery. The concept of democracy, separation, etc., moves on, and so does our use of the constitution.

Like I said ... issues. :(

He actually has a point though about the way our government works. Though most poeple just write it off as Howard nut-hugging Bush, it would be the same with any combination of Australian political party/prime minister and U.S. party/president. It's our best form of national defense. While we are a westernised nation, without our alliance with the U.S. and England our defense capabilities wouldn't be spectacular due to our low population and lack of interest in nucleur [sp?] weapons [even though we've got half the stuff to make them buried in the outback]. Given our position in the world, our land mass and our low population, it's wise for us to keep in tight with western super-powers and a lot more efficient than having to arm ourselves :)
In all honestly, would Australia even be involved in the Iraq for example if it wasn't for Bush's demand of support from other nations, proably not or at least not so eagerly anyway, as it just makes us more of a target for terrorism but it's better than losing the U.S. as a defence ally.
However, most people just see Howard 'kissing up' to Bush and derive the 'Here's hoping every1 in America doesn't jump off a bridge....' attitude, which does suck.

But the First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making a law that respects a particular religion; the Pledge only mentions God and no one is bound by law to recite it or even recite the words "under God" in the pledge and could even insert their own deity if they please. Thus, the Pledge is only optional and is not an actual law but rather a tradition.

The Allegheny County case in 1989 describes the Supreme Court's opinion on religious display in public facilities in regard to the establishment clause:

The pledge does not do any of these things, and so is consistent with the First Amendment.

The First Amendment prohibits endorsement of religion, and since the existence of an all powerful, all benevolent God is advertisement in and of itself the claim of such a being's existence is an endorsement of its chuch, thus banned.

The First Amendment prohibits endorsement of religion, and since the existence of an all powerful, all benevolent God is advertisement in and of itself the claim of such a being's existence is an endorsement of its chuch, thus banned.

No, the First Amendment prohibits the government from making laws that establish a particular religion as the official one of the state, and prohibits the government from forcing individuals to participate in specific religious activities by threat of law. The main protection is to prevent the state from using threat of law to make people be a certain state-sanctioned religious belief.

The Under God part is there, and while I completely respect your viewpoint and your right to believe whatever you believe, America's Constitution was written to follow the general moral code marked out in the Ten Commandments.
Well, it follows some parts. But I think it ignores the parts that are more specific to the Ten Commandments, the ones about no false idols, love the Lord, don't covet, and all that.
The parts which it does follow are not specific to the Ten Commandments that I know of. They are in many other moral codes that have existed at some point or other. Do not murder, do not steal, and all of that seems to occur quite commonly in varied moral systems, not just Christianity.
Most of the Ten Cmmandments are not in the Constitution at all.

But the First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making a law that respects a particular religion; the Pledge only mentions God and no one is bound by law to recite it or even recite the words "under God" in the pledge and could even insert their own deity if they please. Thus, the Pledge is only optional and is not an actual law but rather a tradition.

The Allegheny County case in 1989 describes the Supreme Court's opinion on religious display in public facilities in regard to the establishment clause:



The pledge does not do any of these things, and so is consistent with the First Amendment.
Mhm. I'd say that it fails the lemon test, which is why the courts don't want to touch the pledge with a nine foot pole (notice how they are mooting the issue whenever it comes up, rather then rule on the constitutionality of the pledge). "One nation under god", a phrase mandated as the pledge of the united states by congressional law (irrelevent if someone has to say it), suggests that this nation is founded upon some sort of religious background, judeo-christian most likely. That's the bind really, you can't have a mix of church and state like that, the first amendment forbids "excessive entanglement of church and state", and the pledge does just that. Oh, and it also can be argued that it violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing (through the mere fact that people are US citizens) to acknowledge something anathma to their faith.

I wish there was a good Catholic monarchy somewhere for me to move too :p

There is a little place in Italy called Vatican City. Nothing's stoping you from going. :rolleyes:

However, it only endorses religions that have a god, so it violates the First Amendment. When you get down to it, it only endorses monotheistic, henotheistic, and dualistic religions, so it violates the First Amendment again. And since God, withe the capital 'g', is only used in the Abrahamic religions, and even so is almost exclusive to Christianity, violates the First Amendment once again.
Although I consider this an unimportant (and venemous) issue, I'll admit that I agree with you.

I'm an atheist, yet I'm a Buddhist. Why? There's no fucking Godhead necessary. It's definitely a biased word in favor of monotheistic religions, and is thus unconstitutional.

But hey, who gives a shit? Changing the Pledge or lingo on our capital won't change anything for the better.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*


Okay, what in the world was all of that? Man, ur not even american, and since we are being honest.....let me start off by saying, I'm American, Black, Christian, and i believe that the state should mess with the church. I don't believe, however, that "Under God" should be taken out of the pledge. Whether you believe it or not, America was built on God. What was the whole reason the pilgrims came to America? "to escape persacution and to worship the way they want" Also, Zezland, or whatever ur name is.......i'm not going to dis what u believe, so, don't u dis what i believe in, okay?!, i don't agree with you, but u have the freedom to believe whatever u want........

And Whether you believe it or not, America can't survive without God, especially the way it's going now......It hurts, but i thank God for blessing my family

oh and whoever was talking about Bush, he isn't exactly a Angel, i don't trust him, personally.......

Mhm. I'd say that it fails the lemon test, which is why the courts don't want to touch the pledge with a nine foot pole (notice how they are mooting the issue whenever it comes up, rather then rule on the constitutionality of the pledge). "One nation under god", a phrase mandated as the pledge of the united states by congressional law (irrelevent if someone has to say it), suggests that this nation is founded upon some sort of religious background, judeo-christian most likely. That's the bind really, you can't have a mix of church and state like that, the first amendment forbids "excessive entanglement of church and state", and the pledge does just that. Oh, and it also can be argued that it violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing (through the mere fact that people are US citizens) to acknowledge something anathma to their faith.

Actually, the 1st Amendment never provides for separation of Church and State, but only prohibits the state from forcing people to conform to a particular religious belief.

Furthermore, just because it exists as a "law" in the sense that it is official doesn't violate the 1A. By that logic, no religious institution could be tax exempt, and religious marriages couldn't be recognized by the government. Furthermore, the government could not donate anything to religious schools, and could not give grants to students attending religious colleges.

The Pledge is not a mandantory requirement on anyone and so is not forcing anyone to conform to a particular religious belief and so does not violate the First Amendment.

And Whether you believe it or not, America can't survive without God, especially the way it's going now......It hurts, but i thank God for blessing my family

Canada seems to be doing just fine without him. I'm sure we could survive without the big G man. :rolleyes:

As im irish i wouldent know wat is up in america!! But to me it is like saying a curse hearing some one does not beleve in god!

As im irish i wouldent know wat is up in america!! But to me it is like saying a curse hearing some one does not beleve in god!
Because I'm an asshole, I will now start listing people who don't believe in a god of any kind.

Then again, that'd be spammish, so I won't. There's a nice website I could refer you to, if I could remember the damn address.

You don't have to mock me, i don't knock your beliefs, i don't agree wit them, but hey!, u are ur own person, u don't whatever you want, i'm just saying how i feel, Hate or Love.....and i'm not trying to preach to yall, but i was reading what u all were saying so, i had to say how i felt........

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.

Actually my town's grade school, which is clearly a public school, punishes students with detentions and even suspension.

Actually, the 1st Amendment never provides for separation of Church and State, but only prohibits the state from forcing people to conform to a particular religious belief.

See: Lemon v. Kurtzman. To expedite the process, allow this repost

First amendment constitutional law hinges mainly on one 'test', which although tweaked over the years since it was created, has at its core remained stable. The test is the Lemon test, so named after the case in which it was coined, Lemon v. Kurtzman.

The Lemon test consists of three parts, and if a law lacks any of the three parts, then it is unconstitutional under the US constitution (and in case you claim liberal judges- the court was unanimous in its decision in this case). These parts are:
The statute must have a secular legislative purpose

Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion

The statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Now, since you seem to be so big on the original document, let's examine the reasoning behind each of the three parts.

First, the statue must have a secular legislative purpose. This has its roots back in the granddaddy of current first amendment law interpretation, Abrington School District v. Schempp, and even further back in Minor v. Board of Education of Cincinnati, almost 100 years prior, in which Taft stated: "absolute equality before the law, of all religious opinions and sects...The government is neutral, and, while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none." The requirement for a secular purpose is a buffer, protecting against infringements of the first amendment that the government has no right making.

Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, or "The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Everson v. Board of Education, supra; McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 442. The Free Exercise Clause, likewise considered many times here, withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise [374 U.S. 203, 223] of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority. Hence it is necessary in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. The distinction between the two clauses is apparent - a violation of the Free Exercise Clause is predicated on coercion while the Establishment Clause violation need not be so attended."
This part of the test is the most clearly derived from the first amendment, which states "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."

Respecting the establishment of religion is an endorsement of religion ("Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting, agreed:

"There is no answer to the proposition . . . that the effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. . . . This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity." Id., at 26. [374 U.S. 203, 217]

Further, Mr. Justice Rutledge, joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton, declared:

"The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." Id., at 31-32."), or merely the support of a religion for purely religious reasons.

The last test, that the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.", can again be read from the first amendment in that the government is clearly ordered not to infringe on people's rights to worship freely, and a church/state government would, by its very nature, infringe on the rights of people to worship freely.


To quote Schempp again and to answer your question: 'It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion.

Finally, we cannot accept that the concept of neutrality, which does not permit a State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those [374 U.S. 203, 226] affected, collides with the majority's right to free exercise of religion. 10 While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs. Such a contention was effectively answered by Mr. Justice Jackson for the Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943):

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to . . . freedom of worship . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."'

Furthermore, just because it exists as a "law" in the sense that it is official doesn't violate the 1A. By that logic, no religious institution could be tax exempt, and religious marriages couldn't be recognized by the government. Furthermore, the government could not donate anything to religious schools, and could not give grants to students attending religious colleges.

Free exercise clause (tax exempt status). The first amendment also forbids excessive entanglement. Donating things (within reason) are not necessarily created excessive entanglement or not having a secular purpose.


The Pledge is not a mandantory requirement on anyone and so is not forcing anyone to conform to a particular religious belief and so does not violate the First Amendment.
It is, however, an act of congress that is ment to be representive of the state as a whole. It does, in effect, create excessive entanglement between church and state.

yeah, everyone has to say the Pledge, u can't pray in school, but you have to say the Pledge, just out of respect for America, cause it is kind of important.......... ;)

Actually my town's grade school, which is clearly a public school, punishes students with detentions and even suspension.

Ouch thats got to blow. Thats on par to the school uniform I got stuck wearing at the catholic highschool I went to. Getting a detention for having your shirt untucked sucks.

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. T :sniper: hus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.

You are missing a point in that many of us feel alienated by the pledge, because of "one nation under god" we feel that we are being cast aside by the christian majority----a majority that if you pay attention you will see being very exclusive and very UNCHRISTLIKE. War, bigotry, hate, persecution, violence,terrorist bombings, outright murder in the name of Christ, all supposedly attoned for so free and clear, all carried out by members of this supposed "moral majority" I am not buying it and they have no place within a hundred miles of MY government thank you very much----->Bush is digging his own grave in the geopolitical scheme of things with this "you're either an evangelical or you're a terrorist" crap.

I'm suprised that no one's brought this up yet, so i will.

Seperation of church and state IS NOT in the constitiution, it actually comes from a letter written by thomas jefferson around the same period.

So therefor it doesn't go against the constitution.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

Not like you could voice your views in a less offensive DUMBASS INTOLERANT IGNORNANT WAY.

I'm suprised that no one's brought this up yet, so i will.

Seperation of church and state IS NOT in the constitiution, it actually comes from a letter written by thomas jefferson around the same period.

So therefor it doesn't go against the constitution.
*sigh*


See above please. Seperation of church and state is a handy way of stating the legal principles behind the first amendment without diving through piles of case law. If you really want to, see my post above where the lemon test gets explained.

This is mostly an argument of interpretation. Do we take the constitution literally, or look at what it implies?

Because it implies seperation of church and state, whether or not it directly says certain things. People like Vetalia are just trying to find loopholes, but thats wrong. The constitution is meant to help us, not meant to be definitive rules.

Also, for those saying its ok, because you dont have to say the pledge... What about currency? Its government regulated, and its the only currency officially accepted in america.

It is, however, an act of congress that is ment to be representive of the state as a whole. It does, in effect, create excessive entanglement between church and state.

This is hard to argue due to my lack of experience in 1st Amendment law, but it seems that removing it would effectively enforce a religion of secularism on the American people via their government. It seems a compromise of allowing anyone to insert their private religious belief in to the Pledge while keeping the actual text free from "under God" would work; coinage and other mentions would be kept with it because of historical merit.

If you want to stop fundamentalism, banning religious expression will not help but rather will make it worse. They thrive on being percieved as martyrs or persecuted, and use that to build their power base; banning religion will only silence the moderate religious while allowing fundamentalists to keep going.

Banning religion will not silence the moderate religious. It would make them very loud, very mad and very violent.

coinage and other mentions would be kept with it because of historical merit.
What historical merit? It was introduced in 1954 for crying out loud! Why don't we keep a decent motto, like E Pluribus Unum?

You are missing a point in that many of us feel alienated by the pledge, because of "one nation under god" we feel that we are being cast aside by the christian majority----a majority that if you pay attention you will see being very exclusive and very UNCHRISTLIKE. War, bigotry, hate, persecution, violence,terrorist bombings, outright murder in the name of Christ, all supposedly attoned for so free and clear, all carried out by members of this supposed "moral majority" I am not buying it and they have no place within a hundred miles of MY government thank you very much----->Bush is digging his own grave in the geopolitical scheme of things with this "you're either an evangelical or you're a terrorist" crap.

I agree with you, some christians aren't very "christ-like", but you shouldn't judge all of us on that.....and like i said I don't like Bush, i don't trust Bush, and even though Bush "claims" to be a christian and the muslims believe him, he doesn't represent all the christians in American. I know he doesn't represent my christianity. And i will say it again!, don't disrespect me and my beliefs, and i won't disrespect yours........

Haven't read the whole thread but the phrase "under God" wasn't put in until sometime in the 1950s. Throw it out.

Liverbreath']Banning religion will not silence the moderate religious. It would make them very loud, very mad and very violent.

No, because moderates would not resort to violence but either accept it or try to change it through legal means or peaceful demonstration. Fundamentalists are the only ones who use violence to achieve their goals, and totally secularizing the government may result in a backlash from them.

This is hard to argue due to my lack of experience in 1st Amendment law, but it seems that removing it would effectively enforce a religion of secularism on the American people via their government. It seems a compromise of allowing anyone to insert their private religious belief in to the Pledge while keeping the actual text free from "under God" would work; coinage and other mentions would be kept with it because of historical merit.

To quote Schempp again and to answer your question: 'It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion.


Cant remember who posted this a few ones back but it pretty much explains why it wouldnt endorse a religion of secularism.

FYI i am not a Yankee and im proud of it i am a resident of Louisiana so there. First off what gives u the right to question the government of the United States even though u living in Austrailia answer to the queen thus not having a Dmocracy.second when the founding fathers made our country and broke away from england there were no wiccans,or muslims,or hindus or probably not many athesits there.Everyone was mostly a devout christian.Anyway the 10 commandments were the basis of our government,and they should stay that way.Now here is where u are dead wrong and everyone else out there who is against this.THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SAYS THAT U CANNOT KILL,STEAL,HAVE AN AFFAIR,BUT IT DOES SAY NOT TO WORSHIP IDOLS,by saying this it is ur responsibility to decide what is an idol to u.IT SAYS TO KEEP SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST AND KEEP IT HOLY,u dont have to be christian to do that,DO NOT USE THE LORDS NAME IN VAIN,is that too hard,respect other ppl's religons,DO NOT BEAR FALSE WINESS,DO NOT COVET UR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE AND HIS GOODS,DO NO WORSHIP STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME,this is the only one that is against freedom of religon,but u being an athesist is not worshipping another god.but for the muslims and hindus they immigrated here,at least the first ones,and for the wiccas there religon is fairly new except for their ancient roots in other countries.Most of these rules are a given in any countries laws,and the US is mostly a christian nation therefore the idea of majority rules applies.so i hope this helps u. do u have a problem that ppl arent aloud to kill each other??

This is hard to argue due to my lack of experience in 1st Amendment law, but it seems that removing it would effectively enforce a religion of secularism on the American people via their government. It seems a compromise of allowing anyone to insert their private religious belief in to the Pledge while keeping the actual text free from "under God" would work; coinage and other mentions would be kept with it because of historical merit.
That's the other tricky part, where is the line drawn between removing religious artefacts and actively discriminating against them, creating a 'religion' of atheism and hosility towards christianity, violating the free exercise clause. However, I don't think that the line is drawn here, unless something absolutely silly such as "one nation, most definitally not under some stupid deity" as added, as the absence of religion is not the endorsement of atheism.

Your compromise would most likely be fine, if under god was offically removed with the individual adding whatever word s/he pleased to say that we are ( under god, under gods, based in equality, whatever)

Because "dude", our country's government is in tight with the Yanks. If they get all Christian nutjob, then our government's "me too" policy with drag usz down with them. Here's hoping every1 in America doesn't jump off a bridge....

Dobbsworld sympathizes with our Australian cousins. We all could use fewer nutjobs trying to stampede everybody else. On all sides.

What historical merit? It was introduced in 1954 for crying out loud? Why don't we keep a decent motto, like E Pluribus Unum?

Not the Pledge, but coins. Under God really was an anti-Communist move .

"In God we Trust" dates generally back to the 1850's, and officialy back to the 1830's (and earlier in some cases). I would feel the historical merit of this outweighs the mention of God (the same with historic Ten Commandments) and so should be preserved as a piece of American history.

Come on...

the pledge has been in it's current state since 1954.

People are slow to change things, espcially something that seems so trivial to many. Removing the words would only confuse people, and, since the pledge is voluntary, there are no rights to be gained.

Hell, you could say all of the pledge BUT the "under god". Whatever. it's a free country...

Most of these rules are a given in any countries laws,and the US is mostly a christian nation therefore the idea of majority rules applies.so i hope this helps u

I dont feel like going through all of that post but this little part bothers me. The majority does not equal right. Hell at a point in time the majority of people thought it was okay to burn girls on suspect of them being witches and believed that slavery was perfectly legal. DO you believe that they were right?

FYI i am not a Yankee and im proud of it i am a resident of Louisiana so there. First off what gives u the right to question the government of the United States even though u living in Austrailia answer to the queen thus not having a Dmocracy.second when the founding fathers made our country and broke away from england there were no wiccans,or muslims,or hindus or probably not many athesits there.Everyone was mostly a devout christian.Anyway the 10 commandments were the basis of our government,and they should stay that way.Now here is where u are dead wrong and everyone else out there who is against this.THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SAYS THAT U CANNOT KILL,STEAL,HAVE AN AFFAIR,BUT IT DOES SAY NOT TO WORSHIP IDOLS,by saying this it is ur responsibility to decide what is an idol to u.IT SAYS TO KEEP SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST AND KEEP IT HOLY,u dont have to be christian to do that,DO NOT USE THE LORDS NAME IN VAIN,is that too hard,respect other ppl's religons,DO NOT BEAR FALSE WINESS,DO NOT COVET UR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE AND HIS GOODS,DO NO WORSHIP STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME,this is the only one that is against freedom of religon,but u being an athesist is not worshipping another god.but for the muslims and hindus they immigrated here,at least the first ones,and for the wiccas there religon is fairly new except for their ancient roots in other countries.Most of these rules are a given in any countries laws,and the US is mostly a christian nation therefore the idea of majority rules applies.so i hope this helps u. do u have a problem that ppl arent aloud to kill each other??

I should have stopped reading at louisiana.

FYI i am not a Yankee and im proud of it i am a resident of Louisiana so there. First off what gives u the right to question the government of the United States even though u living in Austrailia answer to the queen thus not having a Dmocracy.second when the founding fathers made our country and broke away from england there were no wiccans,or muslims,or hindus or probably not many athesits there.Everyone was mostly a devout christian.Anyway the 10 commandments were the basis of our government,and they should stay that way.Now here is where u are dead wrong and everyone else out there who is against this.THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SAYS THAT U CANNOT KILL,STEAL,HAVE AN AFFAIR,BUT IT DOES SAY NOT TO WORSHIP IDOLS,by saying this it is ur responsibility to decide what is an idol to u.IT SAYS TO KEEP SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST AND KEEP IT HOLY,u dont have to be christian to do that,DO NOT USE THE LORDS NAME IN VAIN,is that too hard,respect other ppl's religons,DO NOT BEAR FALSE WINESS,DO NOT COVET UR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE AND HIS GOODS,DO NO WORSHIP STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME,this is the only one that is against freedom of religon,but u being an athesist is not worshipping another god.but for the muslims and hindus they immigrated here,at least the first ones,and for the wiccas there religon is fairly new except for their ancient roots in other countries.Most of these rules are a given in any countries laws,and the US is mostly a christian nation therefore the idea of majority rules applies.so i hope this helps u
There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. And the piss-poor grammar, spelling, and formatting is not helping.

That's the other tricky part, where is the line drawn between removing religious artefacts and actively discriminating against them, creating a 'religion' of atheism and hosility towards christianity, violating the free exercise clause. However, I don't think that the line is drawn here, unless something absolutely silly such as "one nation, most definitally not under some stupid deity" as added, as the absence of religion is not the endorsement of atheism.

Your compromise would most likely be fine, if under god was offically removed with the individual adding whatever word s/he pleased to say that we are ( under god, under gods, based in equality, whatever)

That is a tough line to determine, primarily because society itself is more secular than it was in the 1700's, and so what was clear back then isn't so today. Mandantory secularism is just as bad so the best compromise is to leave the option there for those that want to have it, and never specifically mention any religion. It's pretty much win0win and helps more clearly define the establishment clause.

There is a little place in Italy called Vatican City. Nothing's stoping you from going. :rolleyes:

IF only they allowed residents other than the Pope and a diplomatic corps.

Whoa. I stepped on a lot of people's toes, didn't I?
But seriously, there are some errors in your arguement:

1) The Constitution is a god-less document, it isn't based on the Ten Commandments, otherwise it might've mentioned God AT LEAST ONCE (IT DOESN'T).


Keep up the good work. People like you are what makes religion stronger and more compelling to more and more people everyday. In fact, I'd almost be willing to bet you were working for the church, as it is preferable to thinking you could possibly be so ill informed, and unable to predict the results of your own words.

IF only they allowed residents other than the Pope and a diplomatic corps.

Eh I dont think it would be too hard to become a diplomat. I mean hell Bolton is going to be the rep to the UN so I suppose if you give bush a holla he'll be happy to oblige.

FYI i am not a Yankee and im proud of it i am a resident of Louisiana so there.
Good for you
First off what gives u the right to question the government of the United States even though u living in Austrailia answer to the queen thus not having a Dmocracy.
Right.
second when the founding fathers made our country and broke away from england there were no wiccans,or muslims,or hindus or probably not many athesits there.
So...
Everyone was mostly a devout christian.
Not really, as many other people have pointed out. The entire US senate is on record saying that the US wasn't founded upon christian ideals, and man states say as much in their constitutions.
Anyway the 10 commandments were the basis of our government,and they should stay that way.
No, they really aren't. Besides, the 10 commandments were stolen off of a number of earlier code of laws, so saying that our system of law was based off of them is absurd. I'd go more for english common law being the basis of our law.
Now here is where u are dead wrong and everyone else out there who is against this.THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SAYS THAT U CANNOT KILL,STEAL,HAVE AN AFFAIR,BUT IT DOES SAY NOT TO WORSHIP IDOLS,by saying this it is ur responsibility to decide what is an idol to u.
It actually says "Thou shalt not have any other god before me", with me referring to God. The christian one.
IT SAYS TO KEEP SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST AND KEEP IT HOLY,u dont have to be christian to do that
You're right, you don't. And it says keep the Lord's Day holy. The Jews place it on saturday, muslims on friday (I believe), Christians on Sunday. Ignoring this fact, forcing people to observe what is a religious day would violate the first amendment.

,DO NOT USE THE LORDS NAME IN VAIN,is that too hard,respect other ppl's religons,DO NOT BEAR FALSE WINESS,DO NOT COVET UR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE AND HIS GOODS,DO NO WORSHIP STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME,this is the only one that is against freedom of religon,but u being an athesist is not worshipping another god.

You pretty much have to be religious for any of these to apply. That and being against god has never been a federal crime, so there goes your argument about the basis of american law.
but for the muslims and hindus they immigrated here,at least the first ones,and for the wiccas there religon is fairly new except for their ancient roots in other countries.Most of these rules are a given in any countries laws,and the US is mostly a christian nation therefore the idea of majority rules applies.so i hope this helps u
The united states does not work under a system of pure majority rule. That's exactly why we have a constitution, to protect the minority from a dictatorship of the majority. One of those rules in the Constitution is that congress (and by the extention of the 14th amendment, no other body of government) can halt the free exercise of religion or show preferance to any religion/group of religions. Biased towards none, impartial to all.

That is a tough line to determine, primarily because society itself is more secular than it was in the 1700's, and so what was clear back then isn't so today. Mandantory secularism is just as bad so the best compromise is to leave the option there for those that want to have it, and never specifically mention any religion. It's pretty much win0win and helps more clearly define the establishment clause.
That's the line that the courts are attempting to walk, and the former balance I think did a nice job of it. Now though, it could be a bit interesting...

that's good, i guess for those of u who don't agree with God, you could at least honor the "ten commandments", "In God We Trust", and "Under God" for it's historcal merit. And if you feel it's SO, against ur religion(or for atheist, lack there of, since Atheism isn't a religion), do what u feel is more comfortable for ur religion, i have a friend who is Muslim, and went to a christian school, we didn't make him pray to God, and our principal let him pray to him God facing East, like he believes. We should respect others, do dis me because i'm a christian and i won't dis Buddists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, or anything else out there. Even if i don't agree with them........

I dont feel like going through all of that post but this little part bothers me. The majority does not equal right. Hell at a point in time the majority of people thought it was okay to burn girls on suspect of them being witches and believed that slavery was perfectly legal. DO you believe that they were right?
No they were not right,but the point i was trying to make is that the government should try to please the biggest crowd of people,it doesnt make sense that we will only please a small percentageby taking it out.....then this brings up what u said above.What i meant to say is that maybe we should've voted for it.I guess that would cause to much trouble but that is the democratic way.

that's good, i guess for those of u who don't agree with God, you could at least honor the "ten commandments", "In God We Trust", and "Under God" for it's historcal merit. And if you feel it's SO, against ur religion(or for atheist, lack there of, since Atheism isn't a religion), do what u feel is more comfortable for ur religion, i have a friend who is Muslim, and went to a christian school, we didn't make him pray to God, and our principal let him pray to him God facing East, like he believes. We should respect others, do dis me because i'm a christian and i won't dis Buddists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, or anything else out there. Even if i don't agree with them........
What historical merit is this?

No they were not right,but the point i was trying to make is that the government should try to please the biggest crowd of people,it doesnt make sense that we will only please a small percentageby taking it out.....then this brings up what u said above.What i meant to say is that maybe we should've voted for it.I guess that would cause to much trouble but that is the democratic way.

The government isnt out to please the biggest crowd of people. The government is there to protect our rights. What if the largest group of people were people who hate christianity? Would you sit by and say well the government is there to make the largest group happy and well they are the largest group so o well?

I dont feel like going through all of that post but this little part bothers me. The majority does not equal right. Hell at a point in time the majority of people thought it was okay to burn girls on suspect of them being witches and believed that slavery was perfectly legal. DO you believe that they were right?

okay, ur right, but the majority change, and what does burning girls and slavery of black(which as a african american i am COMPLETELY AGAINST) have to do with taking God out of everything? NO those ppl that believe that wasn't right, but if ur trying to make a connection between them and christians ur wrong........

*snip*
u living in Austrailia answer to the queen thus not having a Dmocracy.

What the hell does that have to do with pledging or not pledging allegiance to god?

We're a constituional monarchy & we get to vote for our queen. In fact, we're thinking of electing a male queen (can't think what the official term is) next week. ;)

The founding fathers of the US were diests, almost to a man. Diests believe in a god or supreme being that created the universe but has been inactive in it since its creation; essentially, one step removed from atheism.

To quote Mike Wong's Fundie Phrase Dictionary (http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Phrases.shtml)...

Christian

Normal Person's Definition
From Merriam-Webster: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."

From Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: "those who accepted the teachings of the apostles."

Fundie Definition
When attempting to prove that the American Founding Fathers were Christian: "anyone who ever said anything good about religion or Christianity in his life."

When attempting to prove that Hitler was not a Christian: "a person of fine upstanding moral character who obeyed all of the rules in the Bible and lived up to the legacy of Jesus Christ and who regularly professed his faith in public and who had no associates who were not Christian and who never harmed any Christians or opposed any of the established Christian churches."

I should have stopped reading at louisiana.
ok there is no reason not to listen to what i say because of where i live.I am not a redneck or hillbilly. I have kept an open mind and so should u.

FYI i am not a Yankee and im proud of it i am a resident of Louisiana so there. First off what gives u the right to question the government of the United States even though u living in Austrailia answer to the queen thus not having a Dmocracy.second when the founding fathers made our country and broke away from england there were no wiccans,or muslims,or hindus or probably not many athesits there.Everyone was mostly a devout christian.Anyway the 10 commandments were the basis of our government,and they should stay that way.Now here is where u are dead wrong and everyone else out there who is against this.THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SAYS THAT U CANNOT KILL,STEAL,HAVE AN AFFAIR,BUT IT DOES SAY NOT TO WORSHIP IDOLS,by saying this it is ur responsibility to decide what is an idol to u.IT SAYS TO KEEP SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST AND KEEP IT HOLY,u dont have to be christian to do that,DO NOT USE THE LORDS NAME IN VAIN,is that too hard,respect other ppl's religons,DO NOT BEAR FALSE WINESS,DO NOT COVET UR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE AND HIS GOODS,DO NO WORSHIP STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME,this is the only one that is against freedom of religon,but u being an athesist is not worshipping another god.but for the muslims and hindus they immigrated here,at least the first ones,and for the wiccas there religon is fairly new except for their ancient roots in other countries.Most of these rules are a given in any countries laws,and the US is mostly a christian nation therefore the idea of majority rules applies.so i hope this helps u. do u have a problem that ppl arent aloud to kill each other??

1. Freedom of speech allows one to question the government. Secondly, Australia is an independent nation with a full federal republic that recognizes the Queen as sovreign as part of the Commonwealth. Thirdly, the US isn't a democracy but rather a republic just like Australia.

2.Wicca did exist, and Muslims and Hindus didn't come to America primarily because they couldn't. Furthermore, the colony of Pennsylvania granted total religious tolerance, and George Washington said this in 1784:

Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."

Thus, atheists and Muslims had to have been present in some small degree or he wouldn't have mentioned it in his letter to Lafayette.

3. Just because everyone is of a particular belief doesn't mean the state it. The 1st Amendment was designed to break away from that idea which had resulted in much bloodshed in Europe and the Middle East. The Ten Commandments were never the basis of Government (outside of the Massachusetts Bay and Puritan regions) and the Constitution never mentions God once. Furthermore, many religions share the central ideas of morality so it's not a unique idea not to steal.

4. What is idol worship? If I consider a crucifix or a statue of Mary and idol, can I stop others from worshipping by law?

5. No, it says keep holy the Sabbath. The Jews celebrate the Sabbath on Friday night/Saturday, and the OT was for them specifically, so that screws that up a little.

6. The US is not a Christian nation. Nowhere do our laws respect Christianity specifically, and none of our Constitution nor the Declaration even mention Christ. Furthermore, the majority is not our law; that is mob rule and nothing more than tyranny. We elect people to make laws, but the minority can still protect itself.

Lastly, avoid non sequitors and poor grammar. They don't help.

ok there is no reason not to listen to what i say because of where i live.I am not a redneck or hillbilly. I have kept an open mind and so should u.
Please, for the love of god, clean up your posts just a bit. And never ever ever use the letter 'u' when you mean you.

ok[capitolise first letter of every sentence] [needs comma] there is no reason not to [should be "to not", not "not to"] listen to what i[capitolise I] say because of where i[capitolise] live.[space after a period]I am not a redneck or [needs "a"] hillbilly. I have kept an open mind [needs comma] and so should u[y. o. u. you.].

[brackets mine]

Now do you get it?

Yes mam. Sorry I am used to writing in the chat rooms and stuff. I will try harder. Please do not think that I have poor grammar because of what state I live in. I have poor grammar because I chose to.

Actually, the #1 reason to throw the phrase "Under God" out is quite simple. The man who originally wrote the pledge was part of the clergy. If one such as he didn't see a need to put it in there it damned well doesn't need to be there.

Causality can be such a bitch when you're trying to wrap your head around something like milestones in human history. This is hampered by having a sketchy-at-best recollection of things that happened over 250 years ago, and as nearly as sketchy a knowledge of things that have happened since then.

I think the biggest thing here, is that even with all of what you all are saying it doesn't matter, because first of all: half of yall are not from America and can't change anything and it isn't any of your business, second of all: None of us no matter how old we are(unless there is someone in here over 200 years old) doesn't know what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the constitution, thus, we can't say if it was based on God or not........

snip because its not hard to find this post having been quoted three times

First off proper grammar and spelling helps one not look like a hick. Further he is fully within his rights to question the goverment of the US as he is a sentient being. Personal attacks and saying "you aren't in a democracy" help you in no way whatsoever as you don't live in a democracy either. How the hell would you know if there were peoples from other religions in the US. Actually I'm pretty sure there were at least two different religions as you seem to write off Native Americans who were here before us and the enslaved people of Africa. Calling a group "devout christians" is a false description as can be evidenced by the Two Great Awakenings that happened at that time period in order to revive the Christian faith. Also of note are the facts of the events of so-called "devout" Chritians: Salem Witch Trials, slavery, lack of independance for women, genocide against the Native Americans. However it would be impossible for wiccans to have been in America back then as the religion Wicca has only existed for around 50 or so years.

All caps is bad for you, as is bad grammar. Also I will direct you to Hammurabai's Code which was not a Christian document and provided for punishment for such things. Also you will note a lack of legal restraints based on a large number of those commandments: No legal action against adulterers, no forcing people to worship God, no forcing people to go to church on sundays, no legal problems with saying the word God, though God isn't God's name, no direct thought control, and no laws that really force a child to honor their parents though you left that out. The ones that are left are what could be considered laws of common sense or decency as it is quite indecent to take someone else's stuff. So what that's like don't murder and don't steal. 20% isn't anywhere near a majority of those rules. Also WE immigrated here if you can look back into history and see that we traveled across from numerous countries on boats and took over. The Us is not a "christian nation" see the Treaty of Tripoli I do believe, though I may be wrong on the name. Also majority rule does not apply.

Edit: following my own advice may or may not help get my point across

None of us no matter how old we are(unless there is someone in here over 200 years old) doesn't know what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the constitution, thus, we can't say if it was based on God or not........
Yes we can.

To quote the Treaty of Tripoli, "The United States is not in any sense founded on Christianity." Well, it's more of a paraphrase, and not a quote, because I don't recall the exact words. The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously ratified by the Unisted States Senate. This has been pointed out in this thread before. Why have you chosen to ignore it?

I think the biggest thing here, is that even with all of what you all are saying it doesn't matter, because first of all: half of yall are not from America and can't change anything and it isn't any of your business, second of all: None of us no matter how old we are(unless there is someone in here over 200 years old) doesn't know what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the constitution, thus, we can't say if it was based on God or not........

Well that says you have not bothered to even look into it. The main forces of the Constitution wrote extensively about things. Be it the Federalist papers, comments in diaries, letters and what not.

They paint a reasonable picture as to what was going on in the their minds.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

First of all, who cares? It's such a small issue that it doesn't really even deserve all this debate. Second of all, it's michael newdow and I think many can agree this bastard is a douche.

http://maddox.xmission.com/pledge.html <-- I think Maddox describes Michael perfectly.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

Okay, now your mental stability starts to fail. First of all, how does supporting "under god" make you a motherfucking wacko? You know, why don't I just call any atheist who wants to remove it a wacko fundamentalist atheist? I don't. And guess what? Im not a right-winger and I don't *care* if it's in the pledge. If atheists really are feeling oppressed by *this* then I think it shows how free america really is. Seriously, dude. How free do you got to be to resort to calling the Pledge oppressive? I mean, aren't there are *other* more important relevant issues out there?

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

You're right, it isn't. And under god doesn't make it a theocracy. Unless you have a very naive and simplistic view of theocracy.

My suggestion: get a life and stops focusing on petty issues. If it gets repealed, then it gets repealed. If it doesn't, then oh well. There's no need to cause a great stir about the issue. You wanna be against it? Fine, I don't care. But I don't really see how this issue can actually infuriate people and goad them to mudslinging with words like "theocracy" or "anti-god" (by the right).

I wonder how many people would suppot "Under Bush"

I mean, it's not mentioning the word god!

Yes we can.

To quote the Treaty of Tripoli, "The United States is not in any sense founded on Christianity." Well, it's more of a paraphrase, and not a quote, because I don't recall the exact words. The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously ratified by the Unisted States Senate. This has been pointed out in this thread before. Why have you chosen to ignore it?


But that's based on what ppl wrote still, unless you were there, you can't tell me anything.........and i agree with New Genoa, why are we arguing about this? Whatever happens, happens, love it or hate it, but whatever happens, it's not going to compromise how i feel and what i believe.......

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*
While I agree with your views on this, I don't agree with the way they have been presented here.

But that's based on what ppl wrote still, unless you were there, you can't tell me anything.........and i agree with New Genoa, why are we arguing about this? Whatever happens, happens, love it or hate it, but whatever happens, it's not going to compromise how i feel and what i believe.......

I quote verbatim:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

But that's based on what ppl wrote still, unless you were there, you can't tell me anything.........and i agree with New Genoa, why are we arguing about this? Whatever happens, happens, love it or hate it, but whatever happens, it's not going to compromise how i feel and what i believe.......
It's in the fucking treaty! It specifically states that the US was not founded on Christianity! What the fuck do I have to do to convince you?!

It's in the fucking treaty! It specifically states that the US was not founded on Christianity! What the fuck do I have to do to convince you?!

Here's the entire treaty verbatim:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

It's in the fucking treaty! It specifically states that the US was not founded on Christianity! What the fuck do I have to do to convince you?!
A treaty, which was, mind you, written and approved by role call (a highly odd act for someone to do unless they wanted to vote on the record) unanimously by the very same founding fathers that wrote the damn thing.

Ok, I have offically created a monster here.

Serves me right to post when I'm angry.

A few posters have taken this issue seriously, what with the whole church-state seperation discussion. :)

Some others have attacked me as a person and/or my country. :rolleyes:

Others have taken offence because I did not handle this issue carefully enough, and for that I am sorry. :( Yes, Destiny44, I'm talking to you, despite my oppisition to your views (but that's for another thread). ;)

I stand by my basic arguement, but I ultimately think that this issue is somewhat irrelevant. IFf the "Under God" part gets taken out or left in, it HAS NO REAL EFFECT ON ANY1. :headbang:

*Sighs* Should've started a thread on funny photo-shopped pictures, instead. :headbang:

I don’t believe that “under god” violates the First Amendment, because it doesn’t endorse a specific religion. However, my opinion on whether or not it should be in there is somewhat conflicted. After all, we do live in a nation where over seventy five percent of the population recognizes that some form of God exists. On the other hand, this has been pretty much the case throughout our history, yet the “under God” was not added until the fifties.


I think we should change it to "One Nation Under Allah" and "In Vishnu We Trust"

Oh and also "God" wasn't included in our monies from the beginning either.

I think we should change it to "One Nation Under Allah" and "In Vishnu We Trust"

What's your point? :confused:

What's your point? :confused:

Think about it.

Think about it.

...Nope, don't get it.

...Nope, don't get it.

God isn't real. Allah and Vishnu are and protect America. :p

I believe the whole pledge should be eliminated. It's an evil brainwashing mechanism that I managed to escape in 2002 or so.

Its content is debateable:
I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
United States being debateable.
and to the Republic for which it stands
Considering two certain elections and the "nuclear option", this isn't much of a republic
under God
The existence of a deity is open to debate
[/i]indivsible[/i]
Considering the last election...
with Liberty and Justice for all.
Not much liberty and justice nowadays.

You say that no one is made to say "under god" or the pledge at all, but I am just wondering as to the state of the child that does not say either one. My guess is that they would be bullied/teased, so many people are in a way FORCED to say it whether they want to or not due to peer pressure.

You say that no one is made to say "under god" or the pledge at all, but I am just wondering as to the state of the child that does not say either one. My guess is that they would be bullied/teased, so many people are in a way FORCED to say it whether they want to or not due to peer pressure.

Hell man, in my old school you had to have a parent's permission note to not say the pledge or you would be written up

Hell man, in my old school you had to have a parent's permission note to not say the pledge or you would be written up

Yeah, not to mention the problems you would get from christian staff in your school. In some schools they might even make you do councelling because being seen as not christian is very.... unpatriotic :)

Wow, hasnt this topic been beaten to death before?

I feel that I should point out the following:
-Nobody is FORCED to say the Pledge.
-'Under God' can EASILY be replaced by "Under Vishnu", "Under Jedi Master Windu", or "Under Generic Diety of your Choice".
-OR simply not said at all, I know a number of people who skip straight to 'indivisible, with liberty and justice for all', and dont constantly whine about other people saying 'God'
-IMO, the "under God" phrase is freedom of speech at its best, removing it is a blatant attempt to limit freedom of speech of any religion of your choice.

Point being:
If you dont like it, dont say it. Plug your ears and hum or something.

You gotta make sure those godless commies aren't infiltrating our schools. it's easy to pick them out, they are the ones that refuse to pledge allegance to our great nation and our wonderful God.

You gotta make sure those godless commies aren't infiltrating our schools. it's easy to pick them out, they are the ones that refuse to pledge allegance to our great nation and our wonderful God.

Damn right, we wouldn't want no liberal communists in our midst, poisoning the minds of our freedom-loving christian children. AMEN BROTHER!!! </texas accent> :rolleyes:

Wow, hasnt this topic been beaten to death before?

I feel that I should point out the following:
-Nobody is FORCED to say the Pledge.
-'Under God' can EASILY be replaced by "Under Vishnu", "Under Jedi Master Windu", or "Under Generic Diety of your Choice".
-OR simply not said at all, I know a number of people who skip straight to 'indivisible, with liberty and justice for all', and dont constantly whine about other people saying 'God'
-IMO, the "under God" phrase is freedom of speech at its best, removing it is a blatant attempt to limit freedom of speech of any religion of your choice.

Point being:
If you dont like it, dont say it. Plug your ears and hum or something.
You obviously don't understand why the words "Under God" offend me, personally, in the Pledge of Allegience, do you? Well, allow me to inform you:


I live in a very, very, predominately fundamentalist Christian area. I am expected to be a "good Christian", and have been since birth. I have been expected to say the Pledge of Allegience every school day and on several other occasions in my lifetime.

Do you know what would happen if I DIDN'T say the Pledge, or if I said, "Under Satan", or simply refused to say, "under God" in any given local event? Those around me would be shocked. I would become a social outcast instantly.

So, no, no one is FORCED to say the Pledge of Allegience, or the words "under God", but many are PRESSURED to. I am NOT a Christian. The Pledge of Allegience infers that the entire nation is ruled "Under God". That is a clear violation of the Constitution and ugly generalization for this nation. Supposedly, one of the great things about the United States is the cultural diversity. Those two words in the Pledge undermine that. It's disgusting.

You obviously don't understand why the words "Under God" offend me, personally, in the Pledge of Allegience, do you? Well, allow me to inform you:

I live in a very, very, predominately fundamentalist Christian area. I am expected to be a "good Christian", and have been since birth. I have been expected to say the Pledge of Allegience every school day and on several other occasions in my lifetime.

Do you know what would happen if I DIDN'T say the Pledge, or if I said, "Under Satan", or simply refused to say, "under God" in any given local event? Those around me would be shocked. I would become a social outcast instantly.

So, no, no one is FORCED to say the Pledge of Allegience, or the words "under God", but many are PRESSURED to. I am NOT a Christian. The Pledge of Allegience infers that the entire nation is ruled "Under God". That is a clear violation of the Constitution and ugly generalization for this nation. Supposedly, one of the great things about the United States is the cultural diversity. Those two words in the Pledge undermine that. It's disgusting.
Removing or changing this passage will not solve your problem then, because people in your area will continue to say it anyway. I know I would if it was removed in my area.
Of course, Im also the kid that stood just off school property and sang "Oh Christmas Tree" really loudly after the school announced that depictions of Christmas trees were no longer allowed on campus.

The thing is, the people who are preassuring you to say the "under God" bit do not represent Christians in general, who usualy realize that FORCING somebody to say "under God" is a bit like putting a monkey in a tuxedo, it might look good and be amusing, but in the end, its still a monkey.
Bad metaphore, but hey.
Thus you can laugh at their idiocy on the inside, or you can simply say 'under God' in the most miserable, lowest, ugliest tone you think you can get away with.

As noted, the two words in the Pledge or infinitly changeable. This country can be one nation under whichever diety you like, or none at all. The point is that, regardless of your communities views, the FBI will not track down and kill people who dont say 'Under God'.

EDIT:
Its 11:30 here, Im going to bed. So unless you post while Im editing this in, dont expect a response for the next 6-10 hours :P

Adding the words "under God" to the pledge was probably a bad thing to do, for the reasons that have already been mentioned. I dont have a problem with someone writing legislation to undo that. However, I would have a problem with the supreme court ruling against it because, although it is a bad law, it is not an unconstitutional one. The first amendment of the constitution was designed to prevent the government from establishing an official religion, it was not meant to completely remove any trace of religion from the government. Heck, the supreme court building it's self is filled with religious artwork including renditions of the ten commandments.

Actually, why have a pledge at all? I'm not sure, but I don't think many countries have them. And having every child say it every day at school, it just creates patriotism and nationalism....

Second of all, it's michael newdow and I think many can agree this bastard is a douche.

http://maddox.xmission.com/pledge.html <-- I think Maddox describes Michael perfectly.

I think your points are mostly valid, except for this one. It's just an attack on the PERSON rather then the CLAIM. It's like saying Fanta is evil because Hilter was evil and liked Fanta. :headbang:

Point being:
If you dont like it, dont say it. Plug your ears and hum or something.


Ahh then why not remove it and tell the Christians "if you want to say it then say it"....

As noted, the two words in the Pledge or infinitly changeable. This country can be one nation under whichever diety you like, or none at all. The point is that, regardless of your communities views, the FBI will not track down and kill people who dont say 'Under God'.


Considering it was added in the 50's as a statement against the commies, then why not remove it since they aren't a threat anymore?

Ahh then why not remove it and tell the Christians "if you want to say it then say it"....
That's an excellent point. The argument can just as easily work for the "dark side", can't it? :D

Considering it was added in the 50's as a statement against the commies, then why not remove it since they aren't a threat anymore?
I hear you, it's pretty redundant today. The only fear that I have is that it would only encourage a very scary backlash from every whackjob fundie who was previously "moderate" by comparison.

Ahh then why not remove it and tell the Christians "if you want to say it then say it"....
Because its already there and removing it would cost some millions of dollars (government finances there).
That and you would get nutters like the people in Zotona's area would try to seccede and all that good stuff.
Basicaly its easier to leave it.

As to commies...there ARE still commies, but NOW theyre dirty job-taking Asian commies, which is even worse. ;)

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.


That is true, although in 4th grade my teacher demanded that everyone say it. I remember my friend Fadee* Spelling on that as I'm not good with arabic names* refused to say it and my teacher grabbed him by the arm and told him right infront of the class. That he either say it and look proudly at the American flag while doing so or take his butt back to Lebanon. I knew where my teacher was coming from as he had fought in both World War II and Korea and didn't like anyone in his eyes disgracing his country. That was back in 1986.

Now if any teacher did that today they would most likely be fired.

Removing or changing this passage will not solve your problem then, because people in your area will continue to say it anyway. I know I would if it was removed in my area.
Of course, Im also the kid that stood just off school property and sang "Oh Christmas Tree" really loudly after the school announced that depictions of Christmas trees were no longer allowed on campus.

The thing is, the people who are preassuring you to say the "under God" bit do not represent Christians in general, who usualy realize that FORCING somebody to say "under God" is a bit like putting a monkey in a tuxedo, it might look good and be amusing, but in the end, its still a monkey.
Bad metaphore, but hey.
Thus you can laugh at their idiocy on the inside, or you can simply say 'under God' in the most miserable, lowest, ugliest tone you think you can get away with.

As noted, the two words in the Pledge or infinitly changeable. This country can be one nation under whichever diety you like, or none at all. The point is that, regardless of your communities views, the FBI will not track down and kill people who dont say 'Under God'.

EDIT:
Its 11:30 here, Im going to bed. So unless you post while Im editing this in, dont expect a response for the next 6-10 hours :P
Christmas trees have been held to be secular, and thus not subject to being rmoved by the first amendment...

Christmas trees have been held to be secular, and thus not subject to being rmoved by the first amendment...
Tell that to the people running this school, or the people that (I think) threatened to sue them for having Christmas decorations and mentioning Christmas and so on.
Have an enjoyable Generic Non-Denominational Winter Holiday. :rolleyes:

okay, first of all, thank you Zexland, that's all i wanted was for ppl to respect my postion, just like i respect yours even if you don't agree with it. I'm not fiercly patriotic so, i wonder why we have to say the pledge at all, too? but since we do, those of you who say it offends you, i'm sorry you feel that way, but i'm sure it would offend me just as much to have to say "Under Allah"(Although "Under Jedi Master" would be cool ;) ) jk, ne wayz, but just ignore it.....if you take it away, your taking christians rights away, just like you claim having to say it does to you.....I mean i'm an American citizen, and i would like to, at least, have access to the first amendment, including the freedom of speech and religion(i think the founding fathers put that in for a reason) And since Blacks didn't get our 40 acres and a mule like we were promised......don't you think that's the least i should get....if you take away this, then some ppl will decide that church signs are "offensive" and will have to take that away too, soon christians will be the minority hiding in our basements for worship(and take it from me, i know about minorities)

Tell that to the people running this school, or the people that (I think) threatened to sue them for having Christmas decorations and mentioning Christmas and so on.
Have an enjoyable Generic Non-Denominational Winter Holiday. :rolleyes:
They're fucking (pardon) idiots who make the rest of us look bad. That's one of the reasons, too many people are throwing around logical chaff that causes some people to confuse the real issues with the things that are harmless.

Dude. If you live in Australia, WTF do you care about whether America has "under God" in its Pledge of Alliegance or not?

You seem to have ... issues. I recommend a good anger management seminar.

haha yeah i know, "wtf mate?"

yeah, Zexland, you never answered that question.....why do u care?

They're fucking (pardon) idiots who make the rest of us look bad. That's one of the reasons, too many people are throwing around logical chaff that causes some people to confuse the real issues with the things that are harmless.
Keep in mind, theyre hypothetical, it might be something else.
Like the ban on plastic lightsabers.
Theyre concealed weapons now, because some kid got the skin scrapped on one of his knuckles during a 'duel'.

Of course, if it IS 'Conerned Parents', then its rather funny. This is a moderatly conservative area, and there are lots of religious families. Not the sort that whatshername (too lazy to look :P) was talking about, but the socialy acceptable kind ;)

Yes we can.

To quote the Treaty of Tripoli, "The United States is not in any sense founded on Christianity." Well, it's more of a paraphrase, and not a quote, because I don't recall the exact words. The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously ratified by the Unisted States Senate. This has been pointed out in this thread before. Why have you chosen to ignore it?
*blinks* Didn't the treaty of Tripoli involve quite a bit of blackmail and distortion on the part of the Barbary pirates? Oh yeah, IT DID. Using that as a basis for anything concerning constitutional law is just fucking stupid.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Quoth the constitution of the United States: "Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

The definition of the word "respecting" according to Dictionary.com:

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

It also defines "establishment" as "An arranged order or system, especially a legal code."

The pledge was established by the federal government of the United States. It "respects" an "establishment" of religion, as does printing "In God We Trust" on currency, and as does making Christmas a federal holiday. All of the above actions show deferential regard for or at the very least they relate or refer to religion. This is an arranged order in itself; the references to religion within the US government. In the face of this evidence, it is very hard to honestly say that the government does not endorse a specific religion (Christianity, obviously, one of the two religions, ever, that refer to their god as "God", and let's please not kid ourselves).

In short, it's unconstitutional. :) But that's not what ultimately should define your positions on the issue; it has to do with what's right. Sure, it's a very trivial issue, and no one is being forced to be Christian. But there is a right and a wrong answer to it. There is a real danger of religiously-motivated legislation following this precedent (e.g. stem cell research limitations).

Ok, this is already too long. I'm done.

*blinks* Didn't the treaty of Tripoli involve quite a bit of blackmail and distortion on the part of the Barbary pirates? Oh yeah, IT DID. Using that as a basis for anything concerning constitutional law is just fucking stupid.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
True, but last time I checked tripoli no longer had a Bey, and the entire government had changed hands, which essentially voids the treaty in question. It no longer applies.

You know, I hate to point this out, but something like 72% or something along those lines believe that there is a God, in some way shape or form. America is a republic, hence a tyranny of the majority, at least on certain issues. Like this one. You know that no politician in America cannot be elected unless he is aligned with a religious party of some kind? I dare you to find a publicly atheist politician. In America, you won't find one. They may not practice religion, but they can't get elected unless they at least pay lip service. I feel for you, I really do, being part of the oppressed minority and all. But somethings, you just have to live with.

Nothing says that you have to say "Under God", or that you have to say the pledge. Just say that you don't believe in God or whatever the reason is you don't want to say it so that people won't think of you as a treasonous weasel.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

The problem is that many Americans believe in god (not only christians) and tend to dislike removing something that wasn't there till the 50's. The country is pretty divided now, and this issue does throw gas in the fire.

So for now, don't worry about it. In the future, perhaps there will be a cultural shift with the whole growth of secularism and scientific understanding. It is a republic, so laws change with time and people. Nothing to get smoking hot about. We have bigger problems than "under god" in a pledge of alliegence.

I personally have more of a problem with the line "With liberty and justice for all." than with "under God". I find it wrong to pretend that there is "liberty" and "justice" for all in America.

lol, yeah i agree with you there, there isn't justice for all, there's alot of ppl who do things that go un-punished, and then there are ppl sitting on death row right now for crimes they didn't commit.......

If I wanted to make friends, I'd actually get off my ever-widening ass and go out to flirt with some girls. LOL. :p


The root of bitterness revealed.

I believe it was put into the Pledge during the Cold War. The government didn't want to seem Communist, so they added God's name into it.

I read that somewhere, and my history teacher(s) backed it up.

lol, yeah i agree with you there, there isn't justice for all, there's alot of ppl who do things that go un-punished, and then there are ppl sitting on death row right now for crimes they didn't commit.......Yeah, I mean I don't "know" if God exists or not, so I don't think it matters if it's in the pledge, but I know that having money means that you'll be more likely to get a better or no sentence. The difference between lawyers is enormous.

yeah, it's all about the benjamins.....

the "under god" part was added in the 50'sto show those "godless commies" that we weren't "godless"

The First Amendment prohibits endorsement of religion, and since the existence of an all powerful, all benevolent God is advertisement in and of itself the claim of such a being's existence is an endorsement of its chuch, thus banned.

while some.. (mind you I say some to attribute you to those hard core liberals wanting no mention of religion in any fashion in any governmental institution) interpret the first amendment this way, it is not the commonly accepted interpretation...

If it WERE ... we would not be swearing on a Bible when testifying in court, our currency wouldn't have "In God We Trust" on it, and the Supreme court wouldn't open every session with "My God Save this Court"!! The First Amendment does not PROHIBIT the endoresment of a religion, but prohibits the creation of law which ESTABLISHES a STATE religion (Much like the Church of England). God is a generic term which refers to many religions.

Quoth the constitution of the United States: "Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

The definition of the word "respecting" according to Dictionary.com:

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

It also defines "establishment" as "An arranged order or system, especially a legal code."

The pledge was established by the federal government of the United States. It "respects" an "establishment" of religion, as does printing "In God We Trust" on currency, and as does making Christmas a federal holiday. All of the above actions show deferential regard for or at the very least they relate or refer to religion. This is an arranged order in itself; the references to religion within the US government. In the face of this evidence, it is very hard to honestly say that the government does not endorse a specific religion (Christianity, obviously, one of the two religions, ever, that refer to their god as "God", and let's please not kid ourselves).

In short, it's unconstitutional. :) But that's not what ultimately should define your positions on the issue; it has to do with what's right. Sure, it's a very trivial issue, and no one is being forced to be Christian. But there is a right and a wrong answer to it. There is a real danger of religiously-motivated legislation following this precedent (e.g. stem cell research limitations).

Ok, this is already too long. I'm done.

two small points... the founding fathers.. didn't use dictionary.com when drafting the consitution.. langauge changes over time. Modern day translation is not equivalent to what was said 200 years ago. Secondly, its not for you or me to interpret the constituion... but the Supreme Court. And the Supreme court has ruled on many issues much like this (which is why "In God we Trust" , " May God Save this Court" and all other references not otherwise removed remain!)

two small points... the founding fathers.. didn't use dictionary.com when drafting the consitution.. langauge changes over time. Modern day translation is not equivalent to what was said 200 years ago. Secondly, its not for you or me to interpret the constituion... but the Supreme Court. And the Supreme court has ruled on many issues much like this (which is why "In God we Trust" , " May God Save this Court" and all other references not otherwise removed remain!)

Exactly, that's what i was trying to say when i said, unless we have some special knowledge that no one else has, it's not our place to interpret what the founding fathers meant with some of the things they wrote in the consitution.

while some.. (mind you I say some to attribute you to those hard core liberals wanting no mention of religion in any fashion in any governmental institution) interpret the first amendment this way, it is not the commonly accepted interpretation...


We are not based on the majority rules over all. Just becaus a theologian says it means something doesn't make it right.


If it WERE ... we would not be swearing on a Bible when testifying in court,

Not all courts do that and when did they start doing that?


our currency wouldn't have "In God We Trust" on it,

It was only recent times we made it official. Teddy R. fought it's inclusion very hard.


and the Supreme court wouldn't open every session with "My God Save this Court"!! The First Amendment does not PROHIBIT the endoresment of a religion,

Nope sorry. It prevents the endorsement of one Religion over others.


but prohibits the creation of law which ESTABLISHES a STATE religion (Much like the Church of England). God is a generic term which refers to many religions.

Actually god is generic. God is Christian.

If you don't like the line than don't say it. Seariously, i'm a Communist and I don't care, why should you athiests?!?

Bunch of crybabies....

two small points... the founding fathers.. didn't use dictionary.com when drafting the consitution.. langauge changes over time. Modern day translation is not equivalent to what was said 200 years ago. Secondly, its not for you or me to interpret the constituion... but the Supreme Court. And the Supreme court has ruled on many issues much like this (which is why "In God we Trust" , " May God Save this Court" and all other references not otherwise removed remain!)

Language changes over time? Not enough to change the intent of what they wanted.

The changes that are done is usually when people take quotes out of context. For example, there is a quote (too lazy to look it up) where it gives the impression Madison was all for Religion. Yet when you read the Federalist Paper where it came from, the original meaning is vastely different.

Funny I thought being americans gave us the right to argue over hte interpretation of the Constitution.

The SCOTUS job is to intrepet the Constitution but they are hardly Constitutional scholars. Especially when you consider the CJ, Scalia and Thomas.

The establishment clause will continue to be debated and the SCOTUS will be called many more times. Sometimes the Christians win; sometimes they don't. Sometimes the athiests win; sometimes they don't.

They have done ok so far. The Kentucky ruling was quite valid and the Austin ruling was also valid.

The question of the use of Religion in a public setting depends on the intent.

If you don't like the line than don't say it. Seariously, i'm a Communist and I don't care, why should you athiests?!?

Bunch of crybabies....

Not an athiest. Care to play again?

and God is generic, God is Christian


I'm not even gonna mess with that one.....because you wouldn't understand.


and i agree with the New Soviet State, why do atheists care? ignore it, don't say it, insert something else, close your ears!! DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO!!


and if your not an atheist, mind to tell us what you believe then........

Exactly, that's what i was trying to say when i said, unless we have some special knowledge that no one else has, it's not our place to interpret what the founding fathers meant with some of the things they wrote in the consitution.

What?!?!?!?!?!

Yes it is. The founding fathers would be horrified if you didn't question things. Jefferson especially.

The Constitution was not designed to be solely black and white on everything. Madison and company had the brilliance to realize things change and they wanted a document to stand the test of time.

The fact that you try to interpret can mean that you also try to go about reading what they wrote(ie diaries, the Federalist Papers).

Of the major players; they wrote quite extensivly over their opinions so you can get a decent idea as to what they were thinking.

I'm not even gonna mess with that one.....because you wouldn't understand.

Ok. Whatever. Why not "educate" us then. Especially me.


and i agree with the New Soviet State, why do atheists care? ignore it, don't say it, insert something else, close your ears!! DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO!!

The athiests aren't the only ones seeking it's removal. There are religious organizations that believe in the seperation of church and state. Madison wanted it that way so why are they wrong?

"Under God" is not the original pledge. That only appeared in Ikes time.

If it's so simple to suggest that you don't have to say it then why have it in the first place?


and if your not an atheist, mind to tell us what you believe then........

I am a RC.....

i agree with you that the founding fathers would want us to question it, but the questions could go either way, It could lead to it was based on God or not....but the truth of the matter is, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE!!, you can question, speculate, analyize, but all your going to get are theories, never facts. once again, why do u care if "Under God" is in the pledge or not? it doesn't kill you if you don't say it or ignore it.

i agree with you that the founding fathers would want us to question it, but the questions could go either way, It could lead to it was based on God or not....but the truth of the matter is, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE!!, you can question, speculate, analyize, but all your going to get are theories, never facts. once again, why do u care if "Under God" is in the pledge or not? it doesn't kill you if you don't say it or ignore it.

Well actually...

well, like it has been mentioned SO many times before, it was inserted to show a "godless" nation that American wasn't "godless" If we take it out now, are we suddenly, "godless" again, and something i think you ought to know, that even though there are a large group of ppl that think "Under God" should be taken out of the pledge, in the last National Census taken, 82% of American's claimed to be a christian or believe in God. That is a large percent and an even larger percent if you tick them off.

Wow, hasnt this topic been beaten to death before?

I feel that I should point out the following:
-Nobody is FORCED to say the Pledge.

In some states students and adult staff are forced to say the pledge. We just recently had such a law overturned here in Colorado.

-'Under God' can EASILY be replaced by "Under Vishnu", "Under Jedi Master Windu", or "Under Generic Diety of your Choice".
-OR simply not said at all, I know a number of people who skip straight to 'indivisible, with liberty and justice for all', and dont constantly whine about other people saying 'God'

Not when the pledge is forced and you are forced to say it "correctly".

-IMO, the "under God" phrase is freedom of speech at its best, removing it is a blatant attempt to limit freedom of speech of any religion of your choice.

It is only freedom of speach if you are allowed to say it or leave it out as you will, that is not the case in every school in every state.

i agree with you that the founding fathers would want us to question it, but the questions could go either way, It could lead to it was based on God or not....but the truth of the matter is, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE!!, you can question, speculate, analyize, but all your going to get are theories, never facts. once again, why do u care if "Under God" is in the pledge or not? it doesn't kill you if you don't say it or ignore it.

Where it goes is part of the game. Just as long as you question it all the time. Remember Jefferson and his comments about keeping Democracy pure.....

This is not a simple case of absolutes. It would be one thing, if very little information or writings were left. Jefferson and Madison wrote a great deal.

The fact people don't look into this is what is scary. As such you get people like Scalia who said that no founding father ever used the phrase seperation of chruch and state. Yet you read Madison once remarked:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"

How do you misinterpret his meaning? Especially when other writings shows that he felt Religion was a good thing just as long as you don't start making laws to placate Religion.

Now you comment about facts? Ok? When you read their diaries and they write about what they think about things that is not a fact?

Finally as to "Under God" I belive in the Consitution and it's intent. The goverment is supposed to be Religious neutral. That is where you get freedom of religion and freedom from Religion. You should not have to take a religous test to be empolyed or a member of goverment(Well something like a Priest is a different matter but I hope you get what I mean).

If it was to be generic as you claim then why not take the approach of Jefferson and the DOI?

Why did we need it? Did it prove the commies we were more religious? Did it make the people more Religious? Was Ike playing political games with the Religious vote at the time?

It may have served it purpose but as you have mentioned things change, so why not the Pledge?

Is the pledge even really needed anymore? What good is a pledge when you don't even know the history of the very country you are pledging too?

Are many schools even using it anymore? I think we stoped reciting it when I was in the 8th grade.

You gotta make sure those godless commies aren't infiltrating our schools. it's easy to pick them out, they are the ones that refuse to pledge allegance to our great nation and our wonderful God.

The computer says we should hunt down ALL the commie mutant traitors.

well it's not true in every school, but taken it out would take away the freedom of speech for christians who want to say it. Besides, are there really people watching to see if you close your mouth during "One Nation, Under God" while all the other classmates are saying it. You could cough, get creative if it hurts you SO much to say it.

well it's not true in every school, but taken it out would take away the freedom of speech for christians who want to say it. Besides, are there really people watching to see if you close your mouth during "One Nation, Under God" while all the other classmates are saying it. You could cough, get creative if it hurts you SO much to say it.
Which isn't the point. The government isn't allowed to say that they support any religion. One nation, under god, is a clear endorsement of the nations that have God, the juedo-christian branch.

well, like it has been mentioned SO many times before, it was inserted to show a "godless" nation that American wasn't "godless" If we take it out now, are we suddenly, "godless" again, and something i think you ought to know, that even though there are a large group of ppl that think "Under God" should be taken out of the pledge, in the last National Census taken, 82% of American's claimed to be a christian or believe in God. That is a large percent and an even larger percent if you tick them off.

Ahh but saying you are a Christian and belive in God is not the same as saying we have to have God on everything. The 10 commandments on everything.

Many Christians don't want the 10 commandments in the classroom nor the court rooms. Many Christians don't want Religion in Politics.

I give you something to consider from John Leland who was a Baptist Minister

". .Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . . "

"July 4th Oration" by John Leland, July 5, 1802. The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press &amp: The New York Times New York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself, With Additional Sketches &amp:c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.

Are many schools even using it anymore? I think we stoped reciting it when I was in the 8th grade.

that's true i don't think it is recited in schools anymore...well, maybe not in public schools.....but i know private schools do

well, my point is.....if we take away this, how far is the goverment going to go against the christians, next atheists and other non-christian groups will think churchs and church signs are offensive, and next christian T.V. networks and radio stations will be shut down. How far will the christians be pushed untill we push back?

And my question to all of you in here who claim to want "under God" out of the pledge, what did you do during 9/11? i'm sure it really bothered you all the praying and reciting the pledge over and over again.....or how about Christmas, Do yall hate that too? Easter? I'm curious

In some states students and adult staff are forced to say the pledge. We just recently had such a law overturned here in Colorado.

Not when the pledge is forced and you are forced to say it "correctly".

It is only freedom of speach if you are allowed to say it or leave it out as you will, that is not the case in every school in every state.
Forcing people to say the pledge, again IMO, constitutes a breach of the freedom of speech, so does forcing people to say it 'correctly'.
However, as I pointed out above, simply removing the phrase is not going to stop people from making otheres say it. Nor will it stop people from saying it.
I know that, for myself, Ill shout 'Under God' fairly loudly every time if it comes to it, simply because it was removed.

Put simply, self-righteous nutters who see it as their duty to make everybody say 'God' alot A) Arent real Christians and B) Should be pitied, not hated.

Put a bit more simply, people are assholes. Deal.

lol, yeah, i wouldn't make anyone say "God" if they don't want to, but you CAN'T make me stop saying it. Because just like he said, i'm gonna yell it as loud as i can, just for the fact that it was removed...... ;)

that's true i don't think it is recited in schools anymore...well, maybe not in public schools.....but i know private schools do

well, my point is.....if we take away this, how far is the goverment going to go against the christians, next atheists and other non-christian groups will think churchs and church signs are offensive, and next christian T.V. networks and radio stations will be shut down. How far will the christians be pushed untill we push back?

I think that is called the slippy slope argument.


And my question to all of you in here who claim to want "under God" out of the pledge, what did you do during 9/11? i'm sure it really bothered you all the praying and reciting the pledge over and over again.....or how about Christmas, Do yall hate that too? Easter? I'm curious

I was busily trying to track down friends and family for a few days. I even worked on locating the fiance of a friend in Indonesia who was in the trade center at the time......

Put a bit more simply, people are assholes. Deal.

:D

Hey you can't label me that way........well.......not all the time!

:D

lol, yeah, i wouldn't make anyone say "God" if they don't want to, but you CAN'T make me stop saying it. Because just like he said, i'm gonna yell it as loud as i can, just for the fact that it was removed...... ;)
So I take it you wouldn't mind if I screamed "Satan" during the Pledge?

:D

Hey you can't label me that way........well.......not all the time!

:D
OMG! YOUR VIOLATING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
*tackles*

So I take it you wouldn't mind if I screamed "Satan" during the Pledge?
I might look at you funny the first few times, but I would probobly dismiss you as an attention whore after that.

lol, yeah, that's your freedom, i don't agree with it, but you do what you believe, i wouldn't stop you if you don't stop me..........

I might look at you funny the first few times, but I would probobly dismiss you as an attention whore after that.
Why the double-standard? You said that you'd do the same thing, only screaming "God".

Why the double-standard? You said that you'd do the same thing, only screaming "God".
Thats people for ya. Its perfectly within your rights to consider me (or anybody) an attention whore, and vice versa.

So I take it you wouldn't mind if I screamed "Satan" during the Pledge?
Shouldnt you be screaming something like Shub-Niggurath instead?

Shouldnt you be screaming something like Shub-Niggurath instead?
Satan's shorter. And would be more likely to offend someone.

Satan's shorter. And would be more likely to offend someone.
Which isn't the point that the poster who you quoted was trying to make. He truly believes it should be there, for whatever reason. Although I did already point out a few pages back that the guy who orginally wrote the pledge was part of the clergy and decided not to put it in there, so it really doesn't need to be there.

Which isn't the point that the poster who you quoted was trying to make. He truly believes it should be there, for whatever reason. Although I did already point out a few pages back that the guy who orginally wrote the pledge was part of the clergy and decided not to put it in there, so it really doesn't need to be there.
I didn't miss the point. I was trying to see if he had a double standard.

The Under God part is there, and while I completely respect your viewpoint and your right to believe whatever you believe, America's Constitution was written to follow the general moral code marked out in the Ten Commandments. In God we trust is on every single piece of printed currency and the Founders of our country were also all pretty much Freemasons. A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation. The same priniciple is behind the Under God in the Pledge. Despite what you choose to think about it, it's there to both honor a creator and to honor the men who created this country. Yes I'm Christian and yes I disagree with you but I understand your point, so my response is: It is not just honoring God, it honors the forefathers. That is why it stays. It isn't sucking up to any group but the Founders of our nation. That is all.

America's Constitution was _NOT_ set out to mirror the Ten Commandments or any moral code set forth by them. In fact, American law only addresses four of the Commandments, and said four Commandments (prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and perjury) are hardly unique to any system of law.

The Code of Hammurabi, which also has those four prohibitions, as well as punishments and remedies, is far more comprehensive system of law, as well as significantly predating the 10C. (The Code of Hammurabi was created no later than about 1700 BC, most estimates for the Ten Commandments put their origin about 400 years later.)

And "Under God" was not an original part of the Pledge. It was inserted in the 5th revision to the Pledge (in 1954). And as far as it violating the First Amendment, it is in violation of the First Amendment if the Pledge is mandatory, which it was at the time in the CA school district in question, and was also mandatory when I was going through elementary school.

America's Constitution was _NOT_ set out to mirror the Ten Commandments or any moral code set forth by them. In fact, American law only addresses four of the Commandments, and said four Commandments (prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and perjury) are hardly unique to any system of law.

Where does the Constitution address adultery?

The Under God part is there, and while I completely respect your viewpoint and your right to believe whatever you believe, America's Constitution was written to follow the general moral code marked out in the Ten Commandments. In God we trust is on every single piece of printed currency and the Founders of our country were also all pretty much Freemasons. A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation. The same priniciple is behind the Under God in the Pledge. Despite what you choose to think about it, it's there to both honor a creator and to honor the men who created this country. Yes I'm Christian and yes I disagree with you but I understand your point, so my response is: It is not just honoring God, it honors the forefathers. That is why it stays. It isn't sucking up to any group but the Founders of our nation. That is all.


Well my take on the entire issue of christianity can be summed up with a quote from William S. Burroghs...

Consider the impasse of a one God universe: he is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere because he is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So he has to create friction: war, fear, sickness, death to keep this dimeshow on the road. Sooner or later: "look boss, we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a fleabag hotel fire".

"Well, we'll have to start faking it."

Joe looks after him sourly and mixes a bicarbonated soda. {urp} "Sure, start faking it and leave the details to Joe."

That pretty much covers it. I don't think "god" has any place in politics. He taints the descision making process with useless moral rhetoric that most "good christians" only trot out when they want to get votes, and completely disregard after said election.

Well, if ppl thought that God shouldn't be in politics, then why is he there? obviously the person that wrote the pledge, or came up with the inscriptions on money, or the founding fathers thought he should be there, personally, i just don't want it to get the other way around, Politics in God(even though in some places it has)

Well, if ppl thought that God shouldn't be in politics, then why is he there? obviously the person that wrote the pledge, or came up with the inscriptions on money, or the founding fathers thought he should be there, personally, i just don't want it to get the other way around, Politics in God(even though in some places it has)

Um, those were likely added during the 50's to contrast and make the country seem less like "godless" communists like the Soviet Union. They don't belong there anymore.

Well, if ppl thought that God shouldn't be in politics, then why is he there? obviously the person that wrote the pledge, or came up with the inscriptions on money, or the founding fathers thought he should be there, personally, i just don't want it to get the other way around, Politics in God(even though in some places it has)

The pledge was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy; the original contained no mention of God, nor did he intend it to.
The original:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Again, the "under god" stuff was added in the 50's to make us look less like the "godless" commies. None of it actually belongs there.

okay, i get that because it's been repeated in here A MILLION times. but my point is, it's still in there, and it's been there for 50 years, why not leave it there? Once again, if it bothers you take it out, just like if it is ever removed people who want to say it will say it.........

okay, i get that because it's been repeated in here A MILLION times. but my point is, it's still in there, and it's been there for 50 years, why not leave it there? Once again, if it bothers you take it out, just like if it is ever removed people who want to say it will say it.........

If it doesn't matter then if it's in there, why not take it out? You ask why, I ask why not.

The pledge was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy; the original contained no mention of God, nor did he intend it to.
The original:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In God We Trust was added to the money in the reconstruction years following the civil war too.

It's funny the Christians who don't even read their own book. A book which quite rightly advises caution when mixing Caesar and God. The reason is that politics is all but inevitably corrupt, and if you begin mixing religion into that broth some is bound to pollute the religion. Why was Jesus rebelling against the Jewish orthodoxy after all.

God was added to the mix so the politicians could give the appearence they were doing something to people who lacked a certain sophistication. E pluribus unum, is a far more potent sentiment, but where to learn latin anymore.... Doing something can be hard or expensive, and is always an uncertain proposition, but appearing to do something, well...they're politicians, their faults have been widely publicized for millenia.

And the wages of that is now politicians are giving political speeches in churches. God is no where to be found, run out of His own house by the very people who think they're tending it. Why nourish the soul when one can treat with the devil. For what? To realize one's own brand of tyranny, so that people might be extorted to virtue or else? How Christian. To purchase short term power (the pendulum will swing back) at the expense of one's faith seems ill-considered to say the least.

But what has come to amuse me most about the Pledge of the Cold War Era is my memory of how I interpereted it as a small child. Raised Catholic it never made any sense, God lives above the sky, so one nation (which is on the ground) under God is fine, if a bit obvious (I hadn't seen Conan or heard of Krom). But God is divisible, he comes in three parts, and by the way what did that have to do with the nation. Nevermind the finer points of what a republic was.

screw the whole restrictive christianity convert to satanism and do what you feel like www.churchofsatan.com

Yeah, but I'm not entirely sure any of were atheists either. As far as I know, pretty much all of them belonged to some denomination of Christian church.

1. George Washington
A deist, attended an Episcopalian Church with his wife; though was never a member.

2. John Adams
Unitarian

3. Thomas Jefferson
Self-Admited Deist.

4. James Madison
Episcopalian

5. James Monroe
Episcopalian

6. John Q. Adams
Unitarian

7. Andrew Jackson
Presbyterian

8. Martin Van Buren
Dutch Reformed

9. William Henry Harrison
Episcopalian

10. John Tyler
Epsicopalian

11. James K. Polk
Presbyterian, later turned to Methodism

12. Zachary Taylor
Espicopalian

13. Milard Filmore
Unitarian

14. Franklin Pierce
Episcopalian

15. James Buchanan
Presbyterian

16. Abraham Lincoln
Deist...

17. Andrew Johnson
Deist

18. Ulysses Grant
Presbyterian, later became a Methodist

19. Rutherford B. Hayes
Methodist

20. James A. Garfield
Disciples of Christ

21. Chester A. Arthur
Episcopalian

22. Grover Cleveland
Presbyterian

23. William McKinley
Methodist

24. Theodore Roosevelt
Dutch Reformed

25. William H. Taft
Unitarian

26. Woodrow Wilson
Presbyterian

27. Warren G. Harding
Baptist

28. Calvin Coolidge
Congregationalist

29. Herbert Hoover
Quaker

30. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Episcopalian

31. Harry S. Truman
Baptist

32. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Presbyterian

33. John F. Kennedy
Roman Catholic

34. Lyndon B. Johnson
Disciples of Christ

35. Richard M. Nixon
Quaker

36. Gerald Ford
Episcopalian

37. James Carter
Baptist

38. Ronald Reagan
Presbyterian

39. George H.W. Bush
Episcopalian

40. William J. Clinton
Baptist

41. George H.W. Bush
Episcopalian, now Methodist

hahahahahahaha, WOW, you must have been bored to type all that up........yall crack me up, because yall do all this research and stuff to support your case(i would guess some of you are lawyers or want to be one), and no one who can change anything is going to see this, and the ppl your trying to convince to understand your point of view don't care or are not going to change their point of view toward the subject.


and Zexland, like i said, Nobody and no law is going to get between me and my faith, like some of yall feel about other religions or no religion at all........so, if it is taken out, even though i don't want it to be, i'll never change, just like some of you feel right now while it's still there.

*snip*

Deists still believe God the last time I checked. Your list means nothing. He said that they may not hav e been mainstream Christians, but they still believed in God, and that has yet to be disproved.


Historical and modern Deism are defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject organized religion and promote reason as the essential element in making moral decisions. This "rational" basis was usually founded upon the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

and Zexland, like i said, Nobody and no law is going to get between me and my faith, like some of yall feel about other religions or no religion at all........so, if it is taken out, even though i don't want it to be, i'll never change, just like some of you feel right now while it's still there.

Sigh. Pal, listen. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU OR YOUR FAITH. STOP SAYING THAT I DO. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I HAVE NOT SAID ANY INSULTING TO YOUR RELIGION THAT I HAVEN'T APOLIGISED FOR. NO1 HERE HAS SAID YOU CAN NOT GO TO CHURCH OR PRAY. (The caps are there for emphasis, I'm not yelling at you.)

I'm an atheist too, but the "under god" clause is the least of my worries. I don't like the stuff about pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth or to the state. Both are anti-American, and if the country invades my liberties, it can demand no loyalty. Thus I won't pledge any loyalty. Imagine George Washington in 1776 pledging allegiance to flag and country, haha :)

I do like the idea of taking words out though. Here's my version:
"I pledge allegiance to... liberty and justice for all."

Nice and short, so the students can start doing what they came to school to do much more quickly.

I'm an atheist too, but the "under god" clause is the least of my worries. I don't like the stuff about pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth or to the state. Both are anti-American, and if the country invades my liberties, it can demand no loyalty. Thus I won't pledge any loyalty. Imagine George Washington in 1776 pledging allegiance to flag and country, haha :)

I do like the idea of taking words out though. Here's my version:
"I pledge allegiance to... liberty and justice for all."

Nice and short, so the students can start doing what they came to school to do much more quickly.

Cute.

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.

If you read the First Ammendment--above--you will note that the statement is such that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibition of religion.

As a Christian, what that says to me is, let's just keep it civil. You have a right to announce your religion or lack thereof and I have right to do so as well. What you don't have a right to do is use the judicial branch of the government to take away my freedom to express my religion whenever and wherever I please.

As for "under God" in the pledge, go ahead and take it out. They took any possibility of religious or moral education out of the public schools and the kids started killing each other a few years later.

Go ahead and take what little morality is left out of all facets of government. The US will just die that much sooner and someone else can attempt the great experiment of self determined government.

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.

If you read the First Ammendment--above--you will note that the statement is such that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibition of religion.

As a Christian, what that says to me is, let's just keep it civil. You have a right to announce your religion or lack thereof and I have right to do so as well. What you don't have a right to do is use the judicial branch of the government to take away my freedom to express my religion whenever and wherever I please.

As for "under God" in the pledge, go ahead and take it out. They took any possibility of religious or moral education out of the public schools and the kids started killing each other a few years later.

Go ahead and take what little morality is left out of all facets of government. The US will just die that much sooner and someone else can attempt the great experiment of self determined government.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a troll.

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.

If you read the First Ammendment--above--you will note that the statement is such that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibition of religion.

As a Christian, what that says to me is, let's just keep it civil. You have a right to announce your religion or lack thereof and I have right to do so as well. What you don't have a right to do is use the judicial branch of the government to take away my freedom to express my religion whenever and wherever I please.

As for "under God" in the pledge, go ahead and take it out. They took any possibility of religious or moral education out of the public schools and the kids started killing each other a few years later.

Go ahead and take what little morality is left out of all facets of government. The US will just die that much sooner and someone else can attempt the great experiment of self determined government.

Please control yourself.

People started dying in school when parents left haphazardly leaving their guns around their house.

But please tell me further how church can redeem my poor immoral soul. I've lead a life of sin helping the poor and hungry without church. Help me reform my sinful ways.

Oh please tell me how to live my life. I'm lost without guidance. I cannot read and understand religious texts all by my feeble self. I fear I might vote democratic.

Please send help soon.

Those who know me personally can tell when I'm on a rant. That last post of mine was actually a calm and reasoned session of typing.

Granted, I don't join in these conversations much because most of them end up as rants or hate mongering in one form or another.

I will not attempt to belittle you or call you a lost soul. My faith states that until you are ready to hear, you will be deaf, and until you are ready to see, you will be blind. Not much to do but wait, if it's going to happen.

Meanwhile, what I intended in the comment about schools and kids is that, while, yes, kids usually use a gun an adult left laying around available to kill their fellow students, there was a time when chilldren were brought up to be morally responsible for their behavior, and to have a sense of the value of those lives around them. This is something that has gone away. Sadly, I equate that departure with the departure of the teaching of things like, "love your neighbor as yourself" and "as you would have men do to you, do you unto them likewise" Both from your much maligned and abused scriptures.

As for "under God" in the pledge, go ahead and take it out. They took any possibility of religious or moral education out of the public schools and the kids started killing each other a few years later.
Yes yes. No one ever got hurt before religion was taken out of schools. If we're going to use that kind of moronic argument, taking religion out of public schools caused the microchip (incidently all modern microchips owe their existance to the seminal work of a transexual how's your God feel about that), email, packet switched networks, accurate weather forecasting and digital entertainment. Leave It To Beaver is not a historical account.

Sorry, not chickening out of the conversation. I'm leaving work and going home now. (by the by, I work for a company that heavily depends on the microchip and God loved the man that developed it whatever his choice, the man may just not have accepted that love)

I wish I could speak of the love of God and not be called a troll.

I wish I could speak of morality and not be called a bigot.

I wish I could speak of the loss of innocence and not be called an idealistic fool who believes black and white TV was right out of the Bible.

Sorry. I know I can't. That's just the nature of our world.

Peace, I leave you. God's love, I wish for you and may you all sleep with a clear conscience, knowing you did the best you could with what you had today.

I'm trying.

Washington, Madison, and Jefferson were not Christians. They were deists. Lincoln was an atheist, but at some point before or during his presidency, he became a deist.

isnt a deist still considered a theist?

Sorry, not chickening out of the conversation. I'm leaving work and going home now. (by the by, I work for a company that heavily depends on the microchip and God loved the man that developed it whatever his choice, the man may just not have accepted that love)

I wish I could speak of the love of God and not be called a troll.

I wish I could speak of morality and not be called a bigot.

I wish I could speak of the loss of innocence and not be called an idealistic fool who believes black and white TV was right out of the Bible.

Sorry. I know I can't. That's just the nature of our world.

Peace, I leave you. God's love, I wish for you and may you all sleep with a clear conscience, knowing you did the best you could with what you had today.

I'm trying.

None of us reject your morality. We reject your willingness to apply your morality to every citizen of a secular nation.

I'd like to think I have higher morals than the nation's bare minimum, but I like to think morals are something a person should decide on. Not something that should be forced upon someone.

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.

Thank the/any/all/no god(s) that someone is intelligent/observative here. (PC required to post, else much grief is received) Last time I checked, unless you are the most influencable person alive, even by saying something doesn't demand that you believe it. I would bet half of you people looking to win a few minutes of fame by complaining this stuff use the term hell on a regular basis. Probably without knowing it. See, mere words do not demand belief.

How many religions refer to their 'God' as "God".

"God" is the word used by Christians to describe the divine being.

The pledge refers to God as used by christians. Meaning if someone wants to take it they have to pledge to a christian god.

How many of you Christians would be happy to make a pledge that includes the words "Under Allah", after all, Muslims simply use 'Allah' to describe the same being as we use the word "God".

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

Uh, that's Michael Newdow. Although I agree with your basic sentiments, you could have expressed them at something higher than a 3rd grade level, couldn't you?

How many religions refer to their 'God' as "God".

"God" is the word used by Christians to describe the divine being.

The pledge refers to God as used by christians. Meaning if someone wants to take it they have to pledge to a christian god.

How many of you Christians would be happy to make a pledge that includes the words "Under Allah", after all, Muslims simply use 'Allah' to describe the same being as we use the word "God".

Though the idea of the term 'god' has been used in many cultures besides Christianity. In Latin: 'deus/dea', in Yiddish: 'Yahweh'. Most terms for a godlike being are just whatever the language of the area/time uses. For Romantic languages, it just happened to fall into 'god.' Only Christianity, changed from making it a common noun to a Proper noun, and thus 'God'.

PS. For all I care, we could be referring to a short lived cult declaring Alexander the Great their god. Actually, from now on, I think I wil be doing that.

Deists still believe God the last time I checked. Your list means nothing. He said that they may not hav e been mainstream Christians, but they still believed in God, and that has yet to be disproved.

That is not what he said...

He said, "...denomination of Christian church."

Deism is not a "Christian" denomination.

isnt a deist still considered a theist?

Are you trying to argue that all Theists are Christians?

How many religions refer to their 'God' as "God".

"God" is the word used by Christians to describe the divine being.

The pledge refers to God as used by christians. Meaning if someone wants to take it they have to pledge to a christian god.

How many of you Christians would be happy to make a pledge that includes the words "Under Allah", after all, Muslims simply use 'Allah' to describe the same being as we use the word "God".

Let's see... How many religions reffer to their God as "God"?

Muslims (Allah), means "God";
as well, arabic Christians reffer to "God" as "Allah" because that is the Arabic word for "God"....

This is particularly monotheistic, but valid in most monotheisms. Many Deists use "God" as well.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*


Don't be so hard on the Christians, good point though...
but if you live in america your view would be different

Let's see... How many religions reffer to their God as "God"?

Muslims (Allah), means "God";
as well, arabic Christians reffer to "God" as "Allah" because that is the Arabic word for "God"....

This is particularly monotheistic, but valid in most monotheisms. Many Deists use "God" as well.

Finally somebody notices.

Let's see... How many religions reffer to their God as "God"?

Muslims (Allah), means "God";
as well, arabic Christians reffer to "God" as "Allah" because that is the Arabic word for "God"....

This is particularly monotheistic, but valid in most monotheisms. Many Deists use "God" as well.

Does this mean you would be perfectly happy if the words were changed to "Under Allah"? or to make a pledge to Allah? or Buddha? or Vishnu?

"Under God" and "In God we Trust" were the product of the ant-communist paranoia of the fifties. America is going through an anti-terroist paranoia right now, thanks to the White House. Since Bush (who thinks 'Intelligent Design' should be taught along side evolution) will get to nominate two new justices to the supreme court, things are not going to change for generations. Isn't it ironic that the dollar bill also has the phrase novus ordo seclorum: New secular order, on the great seal?

I'm a pagan American and resent seeing "In God We Trust" on my money and having to hear "Under God" every morning at the public school where I work. I also can't stand seeing prayer circles at football games and hearing athletes thank Jesus for their victories. According to Matthew 6:5, Jesus said, "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees you in secret will reward you." Why not follow your Lord's teachings, Christians? Public piety is obnoxius.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

Hey I assume you are a sodomite.

So.... Why aren't you homosexuals training your guns at saudi arabia? thats a far worse theocracy than America (if you want to call america a theocracy). Churches are effectively pressure groups in America, and they are quite powerful pressure groups due to their membership, ergo they can invoke this pressure to influence Government, simple Pressure Group Democratic Politics.

If AmericanAtheists weren't so fucking up their own asses maybe people would take those sodomites seriously?

"Under God" and "In God we Trust" were the product of the ant-communist paranoia of the fifties. America is going through an anti-terroist paranoia right now, thanks to the White House. Since Bush (who thinks 'Intelligent Design' should be taught along side evolution) will get to nominate two new justices to the supreme court, things are not going to change for generations. Isn't it ironic that the dollar bill also has the phrase novus ordo seclorum: New secular order, on the great seal?

I'm a pagan American and resent seeing "In God We Trust" on my money and having to hear "Under God" every morning at the public school where I work. I also can't stand seeing prayer circles at football games and hearing athletes thank Jesus for their victories. According to Matthew 6:5, Jesus said, "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees you in secret will reward you." Why not follow your Lord's teachings, Christians? Public piety is obnoxius.

I don't mind your resentment, but public displayed of atheism is obnoxious too. No offense. And due to your lack of informed opinion concerning our Lord's teachings, I will inform you. This passage you quote so beautifully, but interpret so poorly, was intended towards those who perform acts in a holier-than-thou attitude, such as the Pharisees and Sadducess. I would hardly consider a prayer circle of fully consenting athletes to be holier-than-thou.
PS. If you don't like America move to Canada
PSS BE A MOUNTEE, SAVE AMERICA!!!!

[QUOTE=UNSDAP]Hey I assume you are a sodomite.

QUOTE]

Troll.

I wonder what he has against gay people anyway?

Maybe he was raped last time he was in prison for hate crimes?

Hey I assume you are a sodomite.

So.... Why aren't you homosexuals training your guns at saudi arabia? thats a far worse theocracy than America (if you want to call america a theocracy). Churches are effectively pressure groups in America, and they are quite powerful pressure groups due to their membership, ergo they can invoke this pressure to influence Government, simple Pressure Group Democratic Politics.

If AmericanAtheists weren't so fucking up their own asses maybe people would take those sodomites seriously?

You're on thin ice. Stop flaming. OFFICIAL WARNING

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

Wrong. All US Presidents have been practicing Christians. We have never had a nonchristian President. Some of them practiced a false version of Christianity, but that was because of their lack of knowledge on the matter. But practice christianity they did indeed do.
Just not in the form we see it today.

OK, I can understand a genuine outpouring of faith from an athlete, but if Bush doesn't fit the description of definition of holier-than-thou, I don't know who does.

P.S. I don't have to leave America, we have elections to change things

P.P.S. I'm Cherokee, we were here first, anyway.

Wrong. All US Presidents have been practicing Christians... Some of them practiced a false version of Christianity.

A false version of Christianity??

Dare I ask the true version? And what your qualification is to tell the former leaders of your nation their religion was false?

A false version of Christianity??

Dare I ask the true version? And what your qualification is to tell the former leaders of your nation their religion was false?
You missed the point. As to whether their religion was false, since they didn't have the biblical knowledge we have today, their sincerity and their faith covers for them. And I believe that they were indeed sincere in their beliefs.

OK, I can understand a genuine outpouring of faith from an athlete, but if Bush doesn't fit the description of definition of holier-than-thou, I don't know who does.

P.S. I don't have to leave America, we have elections to change things

P.P.S. I'm Cherokee, we were here first, anyway.
Finally another Cherokee.
Oh, wait, I am only part.
Sorry.

You missed the point. As to whether their religion was false, since they didn't have the biblical knowledge we have today, their sincerity and their faith covers for them. And I believe that they were indeed sincere in their beliefs.

How has the Bible changed?

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

I say remove the pledge period, and we don't have have a problem. Who's idea was it to make kids stand up in the morning and recite some communist chant of pledging their lives to a piece of cloth anyway?

Does this mean you would be perfectly happy if the words were changed to "Under Allah"? or to make a pledge to Allah? or Buddha? or Vishnu?

The pledge is in English, thus English is used.

"God" English
"Theos" Greek
"Deos" Latin
"Deiu" French
"Gott" German
"Dio" Latin
"Deus" Porugues
"Gor" Russian
"Dios" Spanish
"Allah" Arabic
"Jumalan" Finnish
"Sun" Cantonese
"De-su" Japanese
"D'yos" Phillipino
"Jah Nyuh" Korean
"Shen" Mandarin
"Gud" Swedish
"Atua" Samoan

How has the Bible changed?
It hasn't. The way we read it has.

OK, I can understand a genuine outpouring of faith from an athlete, but if Bush doesn't fit the description of definition of holier-than-thou, I don't know who does.

P.S. I don't have to leave America, we have elections to change things

P.P.S. I'm Cherokee, we were here first, anyway.


lol, i agree with you Bush acts holier than-thou, but like i said he doesn't NOT represent all christians. He doesn't represent my faith.....oh and by the way, THANK YOU SO MUCH Rightwingconservia, for everything you said.

oh and Cephali Psitticae, that's true about the Cherokees, i'm part cherokee, and part african so, half of my acenstors were kicked off there homeland and the other half was brutaly pulled away from theirs, but that's a WHOLE different argument.

Wrong. All US Presidents have been practicing Christians. We have never had a nonchristian President. Some of them practiced a false version of Christianity, but that was because of their lack of knowledge on the matter. But practice christianity they did indeed do.
Just not in the form we see it today.
Deism is not Christianity. You lose.

...
"Gor" Russian
...
'Bog' actually. :)

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*LOL who said all presidents were Christians unles you have a bit of proof noone will take you serious. Wait let me try what you did. Have all australians been smart no BAM there all dumb then.

fuck you ur an atheist

screw the whole restrictive christianity convert to satanism and do what you feel like www.churchofsatan.com

Go Discordian, we're funnier.

Go Discordian, we're funnier.

Can't argue with that one.

fuck you ur an atheist
Is it just me or have all the flamers been sucking horribly at flaming recently?

Is it just me or have all the flamers been sucking horribly at flaming recently?

Either tepid or moronic, I'd give them lessons but then I'd get banned . . .

"Under God" and "In God we Trust" were the product of the ant-communist paranoia of the fifties.
In God We Trust was added in the period of reconstruction following the American Civil war.

In God We Trust was added in the period of reconstruction following the American Civil war.
It wasn't made official until the 1950s, when it became the new national motto.

The point is, it's in there. I learned it with "Under God" in it, and until the day I die, I'll continue saying it that way.

Yes, the nation was founded by Freemasons: George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc...

The pilgrims sought religious assylum (bit of a fact for everyone)

Christian fundies outnumber athiests, and a bloody civil war, or a number of riots WILL start if it's taken out.

What's happened has happened, why screw with it?

You used the "F-word", whether censored or not, completly invalidating any argument, valid or not. You also used smilies (not to mention one giving the finger), again, that invalidates any argument and pisses off a lot of people, me included. Some could say that you're even flamebating. If you're not, you're damn close.

You live in Australia, no matter how close our governments are, you've no business sticking your nose into our politics. What we do is none of your concern. Please leave our internal affairs to our own devices.

i totally agree, and Zexland, you STILL never answered why u care about it in the first place...........

The pilgrims sought religious assylum (bit of a fact for everyone)

A bit of a myth for everyone. They found that assylum in Holland. They didn't want to be integrated into Dutch society so they left. Once they hit the shores, they set up a quasi-theocracy that basically said you couldn't challenge the elders unless you wanted to be booted out.


Christian fundies outnumber athiests, and a bloody civil war, or a number of riots WILL start if it's taken out.

So what you are saying is that we basically are going the way of a theocracy?

How long before it changes to "if you don't put that in, then violece will happen."

The Under God part is there, and while I completely respect your viewpoint and your right to believe whatever you believe, America's Constitution was written to follow the general moral code marked out in the Ten Commandments. In God we trust is on every single piece of printed currency and the Founders of our country were also all pretty much Freemasons. A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation. The same priniciple is behind the Under God in the Pledge. Despite what you choose to think about it, it's there to both honor a creator and to honor the men who created this country. Yes I'm Christian and yes I disagree with you but I understand your point, so my response is: It is not just honoring God, it honors the forefathers. That is why it stays. It isn't sucking up to any group but the Founders of our nation. That is all.

Very Well Put. Keep it up. You're exactly right

Very Well Put. Keep it up. You're exactly right
I notice that you ignored the multiple posts that tore his argument to shreds afterwards.

The point is, it's in there. I learned it with "Under God" in it, and until the day I die, I'll continue saying it that way.


Yay for you. What does that have to do with it being in the official version?

Yay for you. What does that have to do with it being in the official version?


well.....i think he was saying, that most of us in here on this thread only remember it with "under God" in it. So, even for the ppl who hate it in there, you will always remember it was there, and there will be a void there if they take it out......(at least to me)

Deism is not Christianity. You lose.
actually it is. Deism is not a religion. Its a philosophy. Christianity however, is a religion.
The deists, regularly attended sunday service. That made them christians.

Whoa. I stepped on a lot of people's toes, didn't I?
But seriously, there are some errors in your arguement:

1) The Constitution is a god-less document, it isn't based on the Ten Commandments, otherwise it might've mentioned God AT LEAST ONCE (IT DOESN'T).

2) The "In God We Trust" thing appeared in the 50's to spite the godless commies, not because of the Freemasons.

3) The founders of your country were not Freemasons, but Diests or something like that.

4) There are other moral codes then the Ten Commandments, and a few of them are more similar to the words and basic ideals of the Constituion then the Ten Commandments. The COnstituion could've been based on those.

Little History Lesson, ok? Why did our founding father come to America????? They Didn't agree how the King was Running his CHRISTIAN Church. Case Closed... My God be with you... For our Savior will return... and you WILL be left behind.

i totally agree, and Zexland, you STILL never answered why u care about it in the first place...........

I did. In the first 5 or so pages.

Little History Lesson, ok? Why did our founding father come to America????? They Didn't agree how the King was Running his CHRISTIAN Church. Case Closed... My God be with you... For our Savior will return... and you WILL be left behind.

No, they were actually all born in America. Most of them were Deist, and Franklin was likely atheist. Thus, that premise is wrong.

A bit of a myth for everyone. They found that assylum in Holland. They didn't want to be integrated into Dutch society so they left. Once they hit the shores, they set up a quasi-theocracy that basically said you couldn't challenge the elders unless you wanted to be booted out.


So what you are saying is that we basically are going the way of a theocracy?

How long before it changes to "if you don't put that in, then violece will happen."

actually, I am kind of saying that we're going in the way of a theocracy. Our form of government is based off of pleasing the majority using systems such as "majority rules". And unfortunatly, it may very well become time for violence, none of which will I support. There are times for violence, times to speak out, and times to sut up. This is a time when EVERYONE should just shut up and live their lives.

(And if it really is a myth, a lot of text-books will have to become "myth-books")

Yay for you. What does that have to do with it being in the official version?

Destiny44 basically got it right here. It's got nothing to do with the original. I'm just saying that most of us now only remember it with "Under God" in it, so it will create a large gap in there. I'm just stating that I'm gonna say it true to the way I learned and believe it, just as people today have the option of ommitting that line.

By the way, I've heard talk of not saying the pledge in protest to that line. This got me to thinking: why do you not say the pledge and just ommitt that line? It doesn't make sense to not say the whole thing in protest of one line, just the way I will if they DO take it out.

LOL who said all presidents were Christians unles you have a bit of proof noone will take you serious. Wait let me try what you did. Have all australians been smart no BAM there all dumb then.

Me thinks this retort would be much more moving if it was written in ENGLISH. Yes, me LOL presidents Christians proof BAM australians very much. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Little History Lesson, ok? Why did our founding father come to America????? They Didn't agree how the King was Running his CHRISTIAN Church. Case Closed... My God be with you... For our Savior will return... and you WILL be left behind.

actually he would be taken.

The bible says that it will be as in the days of noah now if you remeber noah and his family were believers, the rest were nonbelievers. Now noah and his family were rescued in the ark and the rest perished aka the nonbeliever's were taken and the believers were left.

actually he would be taken.

The bible says that it will be as in the days of noah now if you remeber noah and his family were believers, the rest were nonbelievers. Now noah and his family were rescued in the ark and the rest perished aka the nonbeliever's were taken and the believers were left.

I think he meant metaphorically. Also, you = off-topic.

First off: I don't consider myself a Christian. i really wish i could believe but i'm just 2 logic driven( That wasn't a burn, in case anyone was wondering. Religion is not a logical phenomenon.)


However, I do not appreciate the assumption that all Christians are close minded psychos. Practically all the people dear to me are practicing Christians.( As in the kind Gandhi would have approved of.)

As for the thing about the Pledge of Allegiance: who gives a sh!t? As long as it doesn't go any farther than the little things like that, I personally don't care. Sometimes u just have to swallow your pride and move on. Get concerned about bigger isssues! :D

First off: I don't consider myself a Christian. i really wish i could believe but i'm just 2 logic driven( That wasn't a burn, in case anyone was wondering. Religion is not a logical phenomenon.)


However, I do not appreciate the assumption that all Christians are close minded psychos. Practically all the people dear to me are practicing Christians.

As for the thing about the Pledge of Allegiance: who gives a sh!t? As long as it doesn't go any farther than the little things like that, I personally don't care. Sometimes u just have to swallow your pride and move on. Get concerned about bigger isssues! :D

This guy has the right idea... :)

Originally posted by: Zexaland

This guy has the right idea ;)

About what: Religion not being logical, or the Pledge of Allegiance thing?