NationStates Jolt Archive

I didn't read the whole thread because it was at 244 posts when I started reading...
anyways a couple disclaimers first. I'm canadian and an atheist.

I don't see why atheists and secularists get so worked up over this. it would not bother me to say "under god" during a pledge. makes no difference to me. it wouldn't bother me if someone wanted me to pledge an allegiance to santa claus because santa claus doesn't exist. I used to sing o canada every day in school growing up and that didn't bother me. for those of you who aren't aware there are a couple references to god in the canadian national anthem. as long as you are not specifying a religon, there shouldn't be a problem.

Originally posted by: Colyell

My God be with you... For our Saviour will return.. and you WILL be left behind

:eek: This thread is a burnfest, man. Not cool.

I notice a lot of people debating about whether all our presidents have been Christian or not. I fail to see how this defines America. Even if 43 random men were Christian, non-Christians number a lot more than 43 in this country. Lol!

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.
I call bullshit. Back up your assertions, or you will be considered a liar.

I notice a lot of people debating about whether all our presidents have been Christian or not. I fail to see how this defines America. Even if 43 random men were Christian, non-Christians number a lot more than 43 in this country. Lol!
true. but they don't outnumber the christians. Its the other way around. Over 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians. The other 19 is mostly the other religions. Less than 1% are officially athiest.

What irks me, is the less than 1% think they have a right to dictate to the remaining 99% and that they are somehow superior to everyone else.
If you ask me, those in 1 percentile bracket should be grateful that we have a constitution that forbids a state church. Instead they are trying to ban all religion in public places.
Though there have been only 43 Presidents, they are responsible to the will of the people. Course, by people, I mean the 99% who have chosen to believe in some type of religion whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, New Ageism, Wiccaism, etc. See the athiests get all the attention because they very vocal. But when it comes to policy decisions, all those other (nonathiest) groups get together and work against the athiests.
Quite interesting in fact, considering that those different religions each consider each to be false. Yet, when it comes to public policy, they are inadvertantly working together against the athiests. See, it will always be people of strong religious conviction who decide who are our leaders our and what laws and policies will be passed. Why? Because despite the vocalness of one or two athiests, the majority of that 1% is infected with apathy. They are not involved politically nor do they vote, especially as much as people who do believe in and practice a religion do.

I call bullshit. Back up your assertions, or you will be considered a liar.
This isn't a schoolhouse. If you don't know American history, study up. If you don't know the difference between philosophy and religion, go read an encyclopedia.
Fact is that the Presidents, all of them, considered themselves Christians as did everyone who lived in their respective time periods.
Even Bill Clinton considered himself a christian, as does Hillary. They're false christians, but they are christians nonetheless.


Edit: Since you are not the only one equating deism with athiesm, let me help you out.

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

Deism is not a form of athiesm.

"Deism teaches there is a God"

What deism as a philosophy does however, is official religion.

"Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God."

All other answers as to what deism is, can be found on that link.

Edit: Since you are not the only one equating deism with athiesm, let me help you out.

I'm not fucking equating deism with fucking atheism. I'm saying that deism is not Christianity. Are you truly naive enough to believe that, if you aren't a Christian, you're an atheist?

I'm not fucking equating deism with fucking atheism. I'm saying that deism is not Christianity. Are you truly naive enough to believe that, if you aren't a Christian, you're an atheist?
You really enjoy trolling don't you. I'm saying that deism and christianity are not exclusive. Which is what you are saying.
Deists believe in a form of christianity based on reason.

You really enjoy trolling don't you.
Trolling? Trolling?! You accuse me of trolling?!

well, uh, yeah.

Deists believe in a form of christianity based on reason.
No. They don't. Deism specifically states that, while a god created the universe, he did nothing since then. This is mutually exclusive to Christianity.

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


Well you have to ask yourself why would we honor the pilgrims over say the Jamestown people?

well, uh, yeah.

Hello pot, meet kettle.....

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.

Interesting:

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.? Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

So either they were hypocrites or they were just going through the motions....

Interesting:

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.? Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

So either they were hypocrites or they were just going through the motions....
well, everyone goes through the motions. Because they do so, they and everyone else tend to believe they are christians, as if going through the motions was enough. Even today people do it. People did it back then too. Not because they believed what was preached, but because they benefited socially, economically, or politically from it. Of course, that would make them hypocrites. But in the case of the founders, I am not sure the term hypocrite would apply. Because they sincerely believed they were right and they went through the right motions.

Did you just copy paste from that link?

No. They don't. Deism specifically states that, while a god created the universe, he did nothing since then. This is mutually exclusive to Christianity.
divine intervention in human affairs is not exclusive to christianity. All the other faiths, teach supernatural intervention as well.
Deism claims to be the only faith based on reason alone. Which of course, no other faith can truly claim to. That is only difference between it and other faiths.

well, everyone goes through the motions. Because they do so, they and everyone else tend to believe they are christians, as if going through the motions was enough. Even today people do it. People did it back then too. Not because they believed what was preached, but because they benefited socially, economically, or politically from it. Of course, that would make them hypocrites. But in the case of the founders, I am not sure the term hypocrite would apply. Because they sincerely believed they were right and they went through the right motions.

Did you just copy paste from that link?

Wasn't it word for word? ;)

The founders being good christians would not fly by todays standards. Jefferson gives pretty much a picture of being an athiest towards the end of his life. Frequented nasty comments, refusing the Clergies presense at his deathbead and a simple grave with no religous comments or pictures.

Church was a place for business and to basically jocky your postition in society and flaunt your wealth. People don't remember that pews were once for sale.

An interesting comment about the actions involving the Church is the History of Mydle(sp). Don't have the book at hand. In a box somewhere. It's the diary of man from the 1600s. Mentions business and pew purchasing, etc.

Ahhh well......

Something Shaun Canada said got me thinking, In the pledge it says "Under God"(which is what we have been arguing over), Christians aren't the only group that profess to believe in a God or on Supernatural being called "God"(in whatever language, "Allah") This thought may have been already brought out but i just got it(lol)


and something Whittier-- said got me thinking too, how in the world is 1% of the population more powerful and vocal than 99%? Why don't us in the 99% speak up for ourselves?

Wasn't it word for word? ;)

The founders being good christians would not fly by todays standards. Jefferson gives pretty much a picture of being an athiest towards the end of his life. Frequented nasty comments, refusing the Clergies presense at his deathbead and a simple grave with no religous comments or pictures.

Church was a place for business and to basically jocky your postition in society and flaunt your wealth. People don't remember that pews were once for sale.

An interesting comment about the actions involving the Church is the History of Mydle(sp). Don't have the book at hand. In a box somewhere. It's the diary of man from the 1600s. Mentions business and pew purchasing, etc.

Ahhh well......

1. By today's standards they would not be.

2. I beleive that was because he had good reason to despise the clergy of his time. Since the majority were hypocrites. I doubt they put pics on graves in those days. Perhaps you meant engraving? President Jefferson believed in a supreme being or creator. If he was an athiest he would not have had such a belief. It was not religion that he rejected but the hypocrisy and authoritarian ceremonialism of those in the religious profession of his time.

3. Unfortunately, in many places it still is. All these "christian" businesses popping up. Do you really think they are selling that stuff cause they are actual christians? The reality is no. The majority of such business are only in it, because they know that activist christians have been becoming a major economic factor in American society. So what happened is they basically said "How can we get these people's money?" And what they did is open businesses that catered to the Christian market and it worked. And its not just businesses.

4. I justed noted that in many places, pews, in a sense, are still for sale. Though people don't use always use money for it.

If you take the entire modern christian church (put all the denominations together) you will get a far different picture than that of the original church (which is not the Catholic Church, which became different the minute it adopted pagan practices and "christianized" them. Though credit should be given to JP II for trying to return the church to the original teachings from which it had strayed for over 500 years.
Even in the protestant churches you will find pagan beliefs and pagan practices in place.

A good book would "History of Christianity". I don't have it on me now (its home in California with my 500 other books.)

Something Shaun Canada said got me thinking, In the pledge it says "Under God"(which is what we have been arguing over), Christians aren't the only group that profess to believe in a God or on Supernatural being called "God"(in whatever language, "Allah") This thought may have been already brought out but i just got it(lol)


and something Whittier-- said got me thinking too, how in the world is 1% of the population more powerful and vocal than 99%? Why don't us in the 99% speak up for ourselves?
The term "God" is meant to be generic and apply to all religions. Not just christianity. The founders likely believed that the God of the Christians and the God of Allah and all the world's other religions was the same being.
So by mentioning "God" in their writings, the founders were being respectful, not just of Christianity, but of all faiths and religions.
Over the years, this became twisted to mean that America was founded to be a christian nation. That is the real reason why "under God" was put in the constitution. Not out of respect for all religions, but to say that "unlike Russia, America is a christian nation".
"Even in the oath of office, the phrase "so help me God"", is a generic term. It is not a reference to America being a christian nation. It refers to the faiths that people have. Even the religions that don't have a God have a supreme being.
If you look at the founder's reference to God or to "the creator" you find they were making a general reference to some type of supreme being. They were not referencing a specific Christian god.
Even the high court has ruled that references to God on public property or documents is constitutional as long as it does not promote a specific religion. The criteria being that it has to be general and unspecific.

I'm Australian

Then it doesn't concern you to begin with. But if you were an American you'd know you don't have to say the pledge if you don't want to. Freedom of speech means you can not say what you don't want as much as being able to speak your mind.


The Constitution demands it,

Church in State demands that the goverment does not endorse a religion not that you must exclude religion. Our forefathers didn't want there to be one state sponsered religion. Under God does not endorse a certain religion.


As for all the Christian bashing I'd expect a more intelligent argument from an atheist. After all atheists are supposed to be intellectuals who think faith in God is silly and religon just superstition. Choosing to look to science for the big questions in life.

Didn't read all the posts so sorry if I rehashed.

Then it doesn't concern you to begin with. But if you were an American you'd know you don't have to say the pledge if you don't want to. Freedom of speech means you can not say what you don't want as much as being able to speak your mind.




Church in State demands that the goverment does not endorse a religion not that you must exclude religion. Our forefathers didn't want there to be one state sponsered religion. Under God does not endorse a certain religion.


As for all the Christian bashing I'd expect a more intelligent argument from an atheist. After all atheists are supposed to be intellectuals who think faith in God is silly and religon just superstition. Choosing to look to science for the big questions in life.

Didn't read all the posts so sorry if I rehashed.
Please read the rest of the thread before you respond. It is, obviously, highly frustrating to the rest of us.

Please read the rest of the thread before you respond. It is, obviously, highly frustrating to the rest of us.

You're right though from the pages I've read so far starting with the newest first it still applies.

Why does someone who isn't an American upset about a pledge they will never make?

And has been said many times in the thread the pledge never endores any one religion.

You're right though from the pages I've read so far starting with the newest first it still applies.

Why does someone who isn't an American upset about a pledge they will never make?

And has been said many times in the thread the pledge never endores any one religion.
Which has been said many times in this thread to be irrelevent. The endorsement of a set of religions above the rest is still a violation of the first amendment. The government is supposed to be neutral in the matters of religion, biased in any direction towards none.

Which has been said many times in this thread to be irrelevent. The endorsement of a set of religions above the rest is still a violation of the first amendment. The government is supposed to be neutral in the matters of religion, biased in any direction towards none.
It is relevant. The phrase "under God" references all religions. Not just a few.
You can't use the "but its opposite athiest beliefs" argument because athiests claim their beleifs are not a religion. Therefore, it is not a violation of their religious rights because, according to them, they have no religion whatever.
There is no bias.

It is relevant. The phrase "under God" references all religions. Not just a few.
You can't use the "but its opposite athiest beliefs" argument because athiests claim their beleifs are not a religion. Therefore, it is not a violation of their religious rights because, according to them, they have no religion whatever.
There is no bias.
Whitter, even if I conceed that "god" does not refer to the judeochristian religions, which is obviously the case, and I dare you to refute that the word "god" does not refer to christianity, the phrase still shows favor to a religion (many religions), creates an unnecessary entanglement between church and state, and has no real secular purpose. In short, it fails just about every standing first amendment test that the supreme court has ever used.

It is relevant. The phrase "under God" references all religions. Not just a few.

Not all. Ever heard of polytheistic religions? Or atheistic religions? They sure as hell don't have "God". (Which, by the way, is exclusively used by the Abrahamic religions.)

I will admit I have not yet read this entire thread. I started and my jaw was getting tired from clenching my teeth.

Here a few things to consider:

1. Who gives a flying #@% what were the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers? By the Founders own system, such is irrelevant. You will note they scrupulously left any reference to God or their religion out of the Constitution. The only reference to religion in the original Consititution was the pro-separation prohibition of religious tests of office.

2. The definitive point is that the Founders adopted the First Amendment. In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

3. As for further elaboration of what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither 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. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

5. In the most recent case of McCreary v. ACLU (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html ) (June 27, 2005), the Court re-emphasized the principles of Everson:

The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the "First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947); Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, at 53. When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government's ostensible object is to take sides. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 335 (1987) ("Lemon's 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing [government] from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters"). Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the "understanding, reached ... after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens ... ." Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 718 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting). By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government "sends the ... message to ... nonadherents 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members... .' " Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290, 309-310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring)).

....

The importance of neutrality as an interpretive guide is no less true now than it was when the Court broached the principle in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), and a word needs to be said about the different view taken in today's dissent. We all agree, of course, on the need for some interpretative help. The First Amendment contains no textual definition of "establishment," and the term is certainly not self-defining. No one contends that the prohibition of establishment stops at a designation of a national (or with Fourteenth Amendment incorporation, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940), a state) church, but nothing in the text says just how much more it covers. There is no simple answer, for more than one reason.

....

Given the variety of interpretative problems, the principle of neutrality has provided a good sense of direction: the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals under the Free Exercise Clause. The principle has been helpful simply because it responds to one of the major concerns that prompted adoption of the Religion Clauses. The Framers and the citizens of their time intended not only to protect the integrity of individual conscience in religious matters, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S., at 52-54, and n. 38, but to guard against the civic divisiveness that follows when the Government weighs in on one side of religious debate; nothing does a better job of roiling society, a point that needed no explanation to the descendants of English Puritans and Cavaliers (or Massachusetts Puritans and Baptists). E.g., Everson, supra, at 8 ("A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape [religious persecution]"). A sense of the past thus points to governmental neutrality as an objective of the Establishment Clause, and a sensible standard for applying it. To be sure, given its generality as a principle, an appeal to neutrality alone cannot possibly lay every issue to rest, or tell us what issues on the margins are substantial enough for constitutional significance, a point that has been clear from the Founding era to modern times. E.g., Letter from J. Madison to R. Adams (1832), in 5 The Founders' Constitution at 107 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987) (" I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points"); [I]Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 422 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting) ("The constitutional obligation of 'neutrality' ... is not so narrow a channel that the slightest deviation from an absolutely straight course leads to condemnation"). But invoking neutrality is a prudent way of keeping sight of something the Framers of the First Amendment thought important.

...


6. I've seen some selective and misleading quotes from other Supreme Court cases. I'll come back to those.

7. I'll deal specifically with the Pledge in a seperate post.

"under God" changed the whole nature of the pledge. It changed the pledge fron inclusive to exclusive. Putting "under God" into the pledge excluded a large number of people who love the United States and would've liked to pledged loyalty to the country but no longer could without being liars. It also nullified the next word "indivisible".
Putting "under God" in the pledge says to me, "if you don't believe in God then you're not wanted in this country. Please leave"

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
[Republican Presidential Nominee George Bush Sr.]

Let's talk about the actual "under God" case. Clicky (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf).

1. Like many states, California has a statute that requires that public schools begin each school day with “appropriate patriotic exercises” and that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement. Cal. Educ. Code § 52720 (1989) (hereinafter “California statute”).

2. To statisfy the California statute, most schools promulgate a policy requiring each (at least) elementary class to recite the pledge each day. Students are thereby led by their teacher in saying the pledge.

3. On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Pub. L. No. 623, Ch. 435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 1972).
On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the words “under God” after the word “Nation.” Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (“1954 Act”). The Pledge is currently codified as “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494 (1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now found in Title 4.).

4. The legal question is whether the 1954 law adding "under God" violated the First Amendment. Contrary to some sophistry argued here: (1) Congress (2) made a law. The question is whether that law is "respecting an establishment of religion."

5. The purpose of the law was religious. It has the tendency to aid religion. It favors some religions over others. It violates the Establishment Clause. QED.

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.

Um, a mention of "in God we trust" on some coins first appeared in 1864. So you are several decades

It was not made an official motto, nor did it appear on paper money, until 1956.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

Let's talk about the actual "under God" case. Clicky (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf).

1. Like many states, California has a statute that requires that public schools begin each school day with “appropriate patriotic exercises” and that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement. Cal. Educ. Code § 52720 (1989) (hereinafter “California statute”).

2. To statisfy the California statute, most schools promulgate a policy requiring each (at least) elementary class to recite the pledge each day. Students are thereby led by their teacher in saying the pledge.

3. On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Pub. L. No. 623, Ch. 435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 1972).
On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the words “under God” after the word “Nation.” Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (“1954 Act”). The Pledge is currently codified as “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494 (1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now found in Title 4.).

4. The legal question is whether the 1954 law adding "under God" violated the First Amendment. Contrary to some sophistry argued here: (1) Congress (2) made a law. The question is whether that law is "respecting an establishment of religion."

5. The purpose of the law was religious. It has the tendency to aid religion. It favors some religions over others. It violates the Establishment Clause. QED.

As to point five, that's been said over and over again. I've given it my best go at explaining it, but some people don't want to listen to me. I think you'd be better off explaining why the phrase violates the first amendment, rather then just stating that it does. I think you could do a much better job of it then I could :)

Hey Cat!

Where you been? Actually doing some work for a change? ;)

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.

Um, your quote is an incomplete one from a concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part by 4 Justices in County of Allegheny v. ACLU (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/492/573.html ), 492 U.S. 573 (1989). It is questionable law at best -- and certainly not definitive. Nor does it even pretend to address the full scope of the First Amendment.

Nice try. No cigar.

Hey Cat!

Where you been? Actually doing some work for a change? ;)

Nah. Still on leave, but had out-of-town guests the last 2 weeks.

Damn real life! Interferes with NS!. :D

The Newdow opinion (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf) speaks for itself. Here is just one part:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the
current form of the Pledge.

.... “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Id. at 642.

The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy, in his dissent in Allegheny, agreed:
By statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
describes the United States as ‘one nation under
God.’ To be sure, no one is obligated to recite this
phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that
the reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full
member of the political community every time his
fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression
of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he
believed to be false.
Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 672 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the policy and the Act fail the endorsement test.

A lot of people tend to skip over the psychological effects that having Under God has on children. It's like saying "You're only a true loyal American if you beleive in God." And as little children's friends notice them not saying it they get picked on and pressured into thinking a lack of beleif is a bad thing.

Also... let's be honest. How many of us knew we didn't have to say the pledge in 1st grade? I sure as hell didn't. I went on beleiving I had to say that damned oath for 5 years before I found out I didn't have to.

Not only does "Under God" violate both the text and spirit of the establishment clause, it also has a detrimental effect on minorities 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.
Well, yeah... not unless you actually want to pledge alliegance to your country (silly people).

Well, yeah... not unless you actually want to pledge alliegance to your country (silly people).

Hmmm....I think I should've closed this thread when I had the chance..

Not all. Ever heard of polytheistic religions? Or atheistic religions? They sure as hell don't have "God". (Which, by the way, is exclusively used by the Abrahamic religions.)
No. All religions, even the polythiestic religions have an ultimate supreme being that is over the many gods that they have.

Whitter, even if I conceed that "god" does not refer to the judeochristian religions, which is obviously the case, and I dare you to refute that the word "god" does not refer to christianity, the phrase still shows favor to a religion (many religions), creates an unnecessary entanglement between church and state, and has no real secular purpose. In short, it fails just about every standing first amendment test that the supreme court has ever used.
You can't go by modern culture when interpreting what someone from the past said. You have to go by their culture and their way of thinking.
Today, we associate "god" with judeochristianity. Back then, they thought "god" was universal to all religions. Therefore, "god" was too general to be seen as a reference specifically to judeochristianity. And some of the founders said so in their in a couple of their communications.
The word by itself has never violated a test used by the supreme court. The word can only be seen to violate the first if it is provably used to promote a specific religion. Which in most cases it is not.
In cases where it is, the court rightly strikes it down, as in the Moore case where the judge said he was specifically using it to promote a specific religion.
The court recently (last few months) made two rulings on the subject. In one case they ruled the ten commandments violated the first amendment and had to be taken down because they were being used to promote a specific religion, in another case, they ruled the ten commandments and other displays did not violate the first amendment because they were being used generally, and not to promote a specific religion. The latter was a case from Texas, the former I think was Louisiana.

The Constitution demands it

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

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT



1. If you look in the Constitution, the phrase Seperation of Church And State
is not used at any point.

2. All American Presidents were Protestant with the exception of JFK who was
a Catholic

3. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954 to show the nation had a
general belief in a higher being and to differ themselves from the USSR (If
we believe in a higher being, then the pledge can't be nation-worship, while
Soviets felt the state was God)

The Nednow opinion (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf) speaks for itself. Here is just one part:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the
current form of the Pledge.

.... “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Id. at 642.

The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy, in his dissent in Allegheny, agreed:
B]y statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
describes the United States as ‘one nation under
God.’ To be sure, no one is obligated to recite this
phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that
the reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full
member of the political community every time his
fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression
of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he
believed to be false.
Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 672 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the policy and the Act fail the endorsement test.


You seem to be qouting the 9th circuit decision. But later in the same year, the US Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Newdow had no standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, which effectively overturned the 9th's decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state."

"The 8-0 ruling by the high court reversed a lower-court decision that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional."


Just wish I could find the actual text of the high court's opinion.

1. If you look in the Constitution, the phrase Seperation of Church And State
is not used at any point.

2. All American Presidents were Protestant with the exception of JFK who was
a Catholic

3. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954 to show the nation had a
general belief in a higher being and to differ themselves from the USSR (If
we believe in a higher being, then the pledge can't be nation-worship, while
Soviets felt the state was God)
Actually, it was an inappropriate response to the Soviets ban on all religion and declaring themselves an officially athiest state.
What Congress should have done, is put in something to the effect that we, unlike the Russians, valued religious freedom. Putting in the words "under God" confused the situation. I think something more along the lines of "one nation, with religious freedom" would have sufficed and if adopted instead, would have avoided the conflict we see today.
So all they have to do is change "under God" to "with religious freedom".

The high court did not rule on whether the pledge itself was constitutional:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/currentevents/a/061404_pledge.htm

but by declaring Mr. Newdow had no legal standing, they effectively overturned the lower court's decision (see link from my previous post). Such that if athiests want the phrase removed they have to start over with someone who does have a valid legal standing.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/pldg-j01.shtml

http://www.nsba.org/site/doc.asp?TRACKID=&VID=2&CID=90&DID=33928

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/14_pledge.shtml


The facts show that 9th was overturned in its decision.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922654.html
5th case down.

You seem to be qouting the 9th circuit decision. But later in the same year, the US Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Newdow had no standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, which effectively overturned the 9th's decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state."

"The 8-0 ruling by the high court reversed a lower-court decision that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional."


Just wish I could find the actual text of the high court's opinion.

Duh. When I quote the 9th Circuit opinion in Newdow, I am quoting the 9th Circuit opinion in Newdow that was reversed on the technical ground of standing. (I expressly linked to the case.)

The meritis of the case were not decided by the Supreme Court. I quote it here for its clear, persuasive reasoning -- not that it is the law of the land.

I thought that was obvious. I apologize if it was not.

Now, care to adddress the substance?

No. All religions, even the polythiestic religions have an ultimate supreme being that is over the many gods that they have.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Buddhism
Taoism
Shaivism and Vaishnavism in Hinduism
Ayyavazhi
Shintoism
Jainism

do I really need to continue?

You can't go by modern culture when interpreting what someone from the past said. You have to go by their culture and their way of thinking.
Today, we associate "god" with judeochristianity. Back then, they thought "god" was universal to all religions. Therefore, "god" was too general to be seen as a reference specifically to judeochristianity. And some of the founders said so in their in a couple of their communications.

Back then?

Clear back in 1954 when the law in question was enacted?

The word by itself has never violated a test used by the supreme court. The word can only be seen to violate the first if it is provably used to promote a specific religion. Which in most cases it is not.
In cases where it is, the court rightly strikes it down, as in the Moore case where the judge said he was specifically using it to promote a specific religion.

I'd love to see you cite the cases where "under God" or similar pronunciations under law have held not to violate the First Amendment.

The court recently (last few months) made two rulings on the subject. In one case they ruled the ten commandments violated the first amendment and had to be taken down because they were being used to promote a specific religion, in another case, they ruled the ten commandments and other displays did not violate the first amendment because they were being used generally, and not to promote a specific religion. The latter was a case from Texas, the former I think was Louisiana.

You haven't actually read either case, have you? I already quoted one of them.

It is relevant. The phrase "under God" references all religions. Not just a few.
You can't use the "but its opposite athiest beliefs" argument because athiests claim their beleifs are not a religion. Therefore, it is not a violation of their religious rights because, according to them, they have no religion whatever.
There is no bias.

You walk a dangerous road, my friend.

If atheism is not a religion, then it can be official taught in schools, right?

Atheism could be officially established as the belief system of the government -- because, if it is not a religion, its establishment would not be the establishment of a religion.

Your position that only some religious beliefs qualify a religion is either simple prejudice or a disingenuous tap-dance.

Regardless, they are not the law.

From the majority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

You might also read some of the conscientious objector cases. It is has been clearly held that "religion" does not require belief in a God or gods. That firmly held athiestic beliefs qualify as a religion.

In addition to be the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face, your attempt to deny that some religious views are religions is simply wrong.

2. All American Presidents were Protestant with the exception of JFK who was a Catholic

As was posted earlier, several Presidents were Deists. Last time I checked, Deism was not Protestantism by any stretch of the imagination.

A lot of people tend to skip over the psychological effects that having Under God has on children. It's like saying "You're only a true loyal American if you beleive in God." And as little children's friends notice them not saying it they get picked on and pressured into thinking a lack of beleif is a bad thing.

Happened to me. That's probably one of the reasons I'm not too fond of organized religion now anyway.

Duh. When I quote the 9th Circuit opinion in Newdow, I am quoting the 9th Circuit opinion in Newdow that was reversed on the technical ground of standing. (I expressly linked to the case.)

The meritis of the case were not decided by the Supreme Court. I quote it here for its clear, persuasive reasoning -- not that it is the law of the land.

I thought that was obvious. I apologize if it was not.

Now, care to adddress the substance?
No. I actually agree on the substance. I doubt you would find any who wouldn't. They tried to make a statement to contrast the US from the USSR and in doing so, they made a mistake that violates the US Constitution. Point is, it has never received a valid challenge. That is why it is still there.

Under God was put into the pledge during the Cold War in order to distinguish the US from the dirty commies (Russia).

Now that the cold war is over, there is no need for Under God. It's a violation of the separation of church and state. Though you can also argue that Under God is secular.

Back then?

Clear back in 1954 when the law in question was enacted?



I'd love to see you cite the cases where "under God" or similar pronunciations under law have held not to violate the First Amendment.



You haven't actually read either case, have you? I already quoted one of them.
1. I wasn't referring to the pledge. I was just referring to the founders use of "God" and "creator". When they used those terms, they weren't referring specifically to the christian god. They referring to their belief that whatever religion has it right, there is certainly someone up there, higher than men who brought all this into existance and instituted certain natural laws.

2. Again, it depends on the context in which they are used. The high court has ruled that context does make much difference.

3. No. You qouted the 9th's decision on the Newdow case. The two I was referring to were related to the display of religious monuments on public property. Though it could be said that religious displays on public property and the phrase "under God" are two aspects of the same coin.

You walk a dangerous road, my friend.

If atheism is not a religion, then it can be official taught in schools, right?

Atheism could be officially established as the belief system of the government -- because, if it is not a religion, its establishment would not be the establishment of a religion.

Your position that only some religious beliefs qualify a religion is either simple prejudice or a disingenuous tap-dance.

Regardless, they are not the law.

From the majority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

You might also read some of the conscientious objector cases. It is has been clearly held that "religion" does not require belief in a God or gods. That firmly held athiestic beliefs qualify as a religion.

In addition to be the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face, your attempt to deny that some religious views are religions is simply wrong.

You misunderstood me. I was not saying that. Go back and check my previous posts on religion. Never once have I said that athiesm is not a religion. What I did in your qoute of me, was note that the athiests themselves claimed they didn't have a religion. In many of the religion posts here in general, you will read athiests posting that athiesm is not a religion.
I was saying that if that is true, then surely their religious rights are not being violated, because you have to have some semblance of a religion to have such rights. If athiesm is a religious system, then indeed, athiests have religious rights. If not, then such rights cannot exist for them.


And I have always held the view that the government should neither promote nor restrict religions. For the first half of our nations' history, the states have promoted a religion. For the second half, some groups, such as the ACLU, have sought to ban or restrict religion from the public places. My view is that the clock's hand should be kept still, in the middle. Neither promoting nor restricting. And that view is supported by the first amendment.

Under God was put into the pledge during the Cold War in order to distinguish the US from the dirty commies (Russia).

Now that the cold war is over, there is no need for Under God. It's a violation of the separation of church and state. Though you can also argue that Under God is secular.
How are you going to do that?

And I have always held the view that the government should neither promote nor restrict religions. For the first half of our nations' history, the states have promoted a religion. For the second half, some groups, such as the ACLU, have sought to ban or restrict religion from the public places. My view is that the clock's hand should be kept still, in the middle. Neither promoting nor restricting. And that view is supported by the first amendment.


And the phrase "Under God" neither promotes or restricts religion.... Right...

And.... Contrary to the christian persecution complex no one is keeping religion out of the public, just out of GOVERNMENT and government owned land. Completely different.

And the phrase "Under God" neither promotes or restricts religion.... Right...

And.... Contrary to the christian persecution complex no one is keeping religion out of the public, just out of GOVERNMENT and government owned land. Completely different.
1. Where'd I say that?

2. There are several groups attempting to do so.

3. Keeping it out of government is one thing, keeping it off government owned land is different. You can't ban private people from praying, reading Bibles, or displaying religious stuff on public lands with out violating the first amendment. You can only prevent the government from doing it, but not people. You can't ban religion from government owned land. Its not constitutional.

1. Where'd I say that?

2. There are several groups attempting to do so.

3. Keeping it out of government is one thing, keeping it off government owned land is different. You can't ban private people from praying, reading Bibles, or displaying religious stuff on public lands with out violating the first amendment. You can only prevent the government from doing it, but not people. You can't ban religion from government owned land. Its not constitutional.

1. You seem to be arguing it constantly...

2. Bull, that's the christian persecution complex speaking and you know it.

3. I never said anything about private citizens, I was talking about putting things on government land by government action (or innaction for that matter). Religious statues don't belong on government land, government organized prayer groups are unnacceptable, prayer lead at a high school football game with the backing of the administration is unnacceptable, but private religious practice is a bit different.

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.

I call bullshit! In Texas, there's a law on the book sthat all children in public schools must recite, every morning, the Pledge of alliegiance...as well as the Pledge to the Texas Flag. Betcha didn't even know Texas had it's own pledge!!

It goes like this:

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

How do I know this? I went to Texas public schools! Graduated Class of 1989 from David Crockett High School, in Austin, Texas.

And a guy I know was once given ISS (in-school suspension) for three days for refusing to say the "Under God" part of the Pledge. I, likewise, refused to say it, but I always made sure my lips were MOVING, even though they moved to something other than "Under God" and so I never got caught.

This guy did...and was ordered to recite the Pledge, solo. He did so, again omitting the "Under God" part, which is when he was given the three-day in-school suspension.

This is very much a compulsory activity, and the only way out is to have a note signed by your parent or guardian that says you don't have to. Well, this guy was an athiest, his parents were not, so you can well imagine his parents were not about to give him a letter! Same for me at the time. I, too, was an athiest (I've since changed.) I knew better than to ask my parents for a letter, I knew I'd not be given one.

Many other states ALSO require recital of the Pledge of Alleigiance, thus making this a COMPULSORY activity. And the words "Under God" in there, require everyone, in reciting the Pledge, to also pay lip-service to a monotheism. This is against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

And it was intended to be just that, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Look in The Congressional Record from 1954, when the law adding those words to the Pledge was passed "in order to differentiate ourselves from Godless Communists" (remember this was the height of McCarthyism) and Eisenhower, on signing it into law, stated that at least now, once a day, children would be forced to pay homage to the Christian God. He SAID THAT!!

And since it was the stated intent of the law, to force just such lip-service...it becomes a violation of the Establishment Clause, and thus, even though I am now a Unitarian Christian...I still believe the 9th Circuit was correct, and those words should be removed from the Pledge. Those who wish to add them on their own may be free to do so, but no one ought to be forced to say them, when it goes against THEIR beliefs.

More to the point, I feel I should be able to pledge alleigiance to my country, and to my flag...without involving my God, your god, or any man's god...for that matter! My relationship with my God is just that. Mine. No one else's business. It's between Him and me, and let no man, or any of man's institutions, interpose itself into that relationship! I won't allow it.

The point is...it's unconstitutional, and it's just plain wrong. No one should be compelled to give lip service to a god they do not believe in. God would not want that. God only wants willing servants, worshippers, and supplicants. God does not want anyone before Him that is not there of their own free will. So I really wish the fundies would quit trying to drag people there, kicking and screaming. That is not what God wants.

As to the other issue on a similar topic...I have no problem with "In God We Trust" on our money. I don't have to look at it, say it, or believe in it...in order to spend that money...so what's the harm? There really isn't any. So that can stay, as far as I am concerned. But compulsory activities such as reciting the Pledge must be purged of any and all religious references.

How would you like it if YOU were compelled to give lip-service to someone else's God rather than your own...or how would you feell if you were forced to violate your own disbelief in God, and be forced into giving lip-service, every day, to a God you don't believe in? There is a severe shortage of empathy in our country these days! Try putting yourself in the shoes of one who is forced to pay homage to a God he does not believe in...or to a God other than the one he believes in. How would you like it if that were done to you?

How would you like it if Islam suddenly became the dominant religion, and you were forced to say, every day, "One nation, under Allah, ..." How would you like THAT?? Bet you'd be pissed off about it, if you are a Christian! Yet, you care not that you are doing exactly that to others who do not share your religious beliefs.

1. You seem to be arguing it constantly...

2. Bull, that's the christian persecution complex speaking and you know it.

3. I never said anything about private citizens, I was talking about putting things on government land by government action (or innaction for that matter). Religious statues don't belong on government land, government organized prayer groups are unnacceptable, prayer lead at a high school football game with the backing of the administration is unnacceptable, but private religious practice is a bit different.
1. You haven't read my posts on the subject.

2. Its a fact of life. You have athiests trying to do it everyday. Suing the government in an attempt to ban people from praying or reading bibles on public property.

3. If a private person or group wishes to place a statue of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha on public land, there is little the government can do to stop them without violating their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has ruled in a couple of cases, that if you allow any statue, you have to allow all, regardless of whether such statues are secular or religious.
Its the same with prayer groups in schools. If you allow secular groups, you have to allow religious groups. You are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of the groups' or the proposed activities religious nature. Religious neutrality means you have to treat all groups and activities the same without reference or spite toward the secular or religious nature of such groups or activities.

I call bullshit! In Texas, there's a law on the book sthat all children in public schools must recite, every morning, the Pledge of alliegiance...as well as the Pledge to the Texas Flag. Betcha didn't even know Texas had it's own pledge!!

It goes like this:

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

How do I know this? I went to Texas public schools! Graduated Class of 1989 from David Crockett High School, in Austin, Texas.

And a guy I know was once given ISS (in-school suspension) for three days for refusing to say the "Under God" part of the Pledge. I, likewise, refused to say it, but I always made sure my lips were MOVING, even though they moved to something other than "Under God" and so I never got caught.

This guy did...and was ordered to recite the Pledge, solo. He did so, again omitting the "Under God" part, which is when he was given the three-day in-school suspension.

This is very much a compulsory activity, and the only way out is to have a note signed by your parent or guardian that says you don't have to. Well, this guy was an athiest, his parents were not, so you can well imagine his parents were not about to give him a letter! Same for me at the time. I, too, was an athiest (I've since changed.) I knew better than to ask my parents for a letter, I knew I'd not be given one.

Many other states ALSO require recital of the Pledge of Alleigiance, thus making this a COMPULSORY activity. And the words "Under God" in there, require everyone, in reciting the Pledge, to also pay lip-service to a monotheism. This is against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

And it was intended to be just that, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Look in The Congressional Record from 1954, when the law adding those words to the Pledge was passed "in order to differentiate ourselves from Godless Communists" (remember this was the height of McCarthyism) and Eisenhower, on signing it into law, stated that at least now, once a day, children would be forced to pay homage to the Christian God. He SAID THAT!!

And since it was the stated intent of the law, to force just such lip-service...it becomes a violation of the Establishment Clause, and thus, even though I am now a Unitarian Christian...I still believe the 9th Circuit was correct, and those words should be removed from the Pledge. Those who wish to add them on their own may be free to do so, but no one ought to be forced to say them, when it goes against THEIR beliefs.

More to the point, I feel I should be able to pledge alleigiance to my country, and to my flag...without involving my God, your god, or any man's god...for that matter! My relationship with my God is just that. Mine. No one else's business. It's between Him and me, and let no man, or any of man's institutions, interpose itself into that relationship! I won't allow it.

The point is...it's unconstitutional, and it's just plain wrong. No one should be compelled to give lip service to a god they do not believe in. God would not want that. God only wants willing servants, worshippers, and supplicants. God does not want anyone before Him that is not there of their own free will. So I really wish the fundies would quit trying to drag people there, kicking and screaming. That is not what God wants.

As to the other issue on a similar topic...I have no problem with "In God We Trust" on our money. I don't have to look at it, say it, or believe in it...in order to spend that money...so what's the harm? There really isn't any. So that can stay, as far as I am concerned. But compulsory activities such as reciting the Pledge must be purged of any and all religious references.

How would you like it if YOU were compelled to give lip-service to someone else's God rather than your own...or how would you feell if you were forced to violate your own disbelief in God, and be forced into giving lip-service, every day, to a God you don't believe in? There is a severe shortage of empathy in our country these days! Try putting yourself in the shoes of one who is forced to pay homage to a God he does not believe in...or to a God other than the one he believes in. How would you like it if that were done to you?

How would you like it if Islam suddenly became the dominant religion, and you were forced to say, every day, "One nation, under Allah, ..." How would you like THAT?? Bet you'd be pissed off about it, if you are a Christian! Yet, you care not that you are doing exactly that to others who do not share your religious beliefs.
Most states mandate the pledge of allegiance in their schools.

1. Where'd I say that?

2. There are several groups attempting to do so.

3. Keeping it out of government is one thing, keeping it off government owned land is different. You can't ban private people from praying, reading Bibles, or displaying religious stuff on public lands with out violating the first amendment. You can only prevent the government from doing it, but not people. You can't ban religion from government owned land. Its not constitutional.


But a government institution, such as a public school...has no business compelling a private citizen to partake in any sort of religious reference whatsoever. Thus, when the government compels schoolchildren to recite the Pledge...they are compelling these children to at least pay lip-service to a monotheism they may not share a belief in, and thus, that makes the practice unconstitutional.

1. You haven't read my posts on the subject.

2. Its a fact of life. You have athiests trying to do it everyday. Suing the government in an attempt to ban people from praying or reading bibles on public property.

3. If a private person or group wishes to place a statue of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha on public land, there is little the government can do to stop them without violating their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has ruled in a couple of cases, that if you allow any statue, you have to allow all, regardless of whether such statues are secular or religious.
Its the same with prayer groups in schools. If you allow secular groups, you have to allow religious groups. You are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of the groups' or the proposed activities religious nature. Religious neutrality means you have to treat all groups and activities the same without reference or spite toward the secular or religious nature of such groups or activities.


In response to point number 3....
But government cannot COMPEL anyone to partake of the activities of that group! And by forcing the recital of the Pledge, with "Under God" included...that is exactly what government is doing. and it's unconstitutional, un-American, and just plain wrong.

But a government institution, such as a public school...has no business compelling a private citizen to partake in any sort of religious reference whatsoever. Thus, when the government compels schoolchildren to recite the Pledge...they are compelling these children to at least pay lip-service to a monotheism they may not share a belief in, and thus, that makes the practice unconstitutional.
true. Again, as in my response to Cat Tribe, I was referring to general situations and not the pledge in particular, which would fail the test.

Most states mandate the pledge of allegiance in their schools.

And that is PRECISELY WHY the "Under God" part should be dropped. Because if it remains, then government is, by dint of passing such laws, COMPELLING AND FORCING private citizens to pay homage to a God that they may not believe in...and that is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and it is a violation of the Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion means just that...freedom of religion...not just freedom of Christian religion. and it also includes freedom FROM religion.

When schoolchildren are allowed to say "one nation, under Allah" or "one nation, under Krishna" or "one nation, under Yahweh" or "one nation, under Satan" or "one nation, indivisible..."

THEN it is no longer compelling one to pay homage to a God or god that they do not believe in.

When the Pledge is chaged to remove the words completely, or it is changed to "one nation Under (insert your favorite diety here)..." THEN it no longer violates the Establishment Clause.

1. You haven't read my posts on the subject.

2. Its a fact of life. You have athiests trying to do it everyday. Suing the government in an attempt to ban people from praying or reading bibles on public property.

3. If a private person or group wishes to place a statue of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha on public land, there is little the government can do to stop them without violating their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has ruled in a couple of cases, that if you allow any statue, you have to allow all, regardless of whether such statues are secular or religious.
Its the same with prayer groups in schools. If you allow secular groups, you have to allow religious groups. You are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of the groups' or the proposed activities religious nature. Religious neutrality means you have to treat all groups and activities the same without reference or spite toward the secular or religious nature of such groups or activities.


1. To be fair you seem to be complaining more about the fact that people are trying to overturn the law than that the overturning is wrong.

2. The average atheist cares only about when the government tries to push the christian religion off on the rest of us. Christians and other monotheists are more than happy to see that not-so-subtle support of their beleif systems, so when someone has the gall to actually fight the injustice they label it a "war against religion" and say non-beleivers are "trying to rid the world of public religion,"

3. If a private citizen places a statue on government grounds without permission hie is commiting a crime, and since the statue is on government property by the citizen's choice it is the governments and therefore in violation of the establishment clause. Private prayer groups are fine, but not government supported or sponsored ones. Hence why a prayer before a school football game is wrong, because it is directly sponsored by the school and therefore a government endorsement of religion.

In response to point number 3....
But government cannot COMPEL anyone to partake of the activities of that group! And by forcing the recital of the Pledge, with "Under God" included...that is exactly what government is doing. and it's unconstitutional, un-American, and just plain wrong.
again true, but the Supreme Court, note, has never ruled that it is unconstitutional. So until then, (or until Congress changes the pledge), you will have people who argue that it doesn't.
Though things are unconsitutional, they continue so because no one with legal standing challenges them. And the legal test here is what the US Supreme Court says about it. And they have never declared it unconstitutional.
THough, I am sure they will when the right person challenges it.

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 completly agree with you. :gundge:

And that is PRECISELY WHY the "Under God" part should be dropped. Because if it remains, then government is, by dint of passing such laws, COMPELLING AND FORCING private citizens to pay homage to a God that they may not believe in...and that is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and it is a violation of the Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion means just that...freedom of religion...not just freedom of Christian religion. and it also includes freedom FROM religion.

When schoolchildren are allowed to say "one nation, under Allah" or "one nation, under Krishna" or "one nation, under Yahweh" or "one nation, under Satan" or "one nation, indivisible..."

THEN it is no longer compelling one to pay homage to a God or god that they do not believe in.

When the Pledge is chaged to remove the words completely, or it is changed to "one nation Under (insert your favorite diety here)..." THEN it no longer violates the Establishment Clause.

It would still violate.
You would have to change it to something akin to "with freedom to believe as I choose". in order for it to no longer violate the first amendment.

true. Again, as in my response to Cat Tribe, I was referring to general situations and not the pledge in particular, which would fail the test.

So we actually do agree on this point, then?

As I said earlier, I'm a Unitarian Christian. I support removal of "Under God" from the Pledge, because it fails the test of the Establishment Clause, and thus, is unconstitutional. No other reason. I've nothing against someone practicing their religion, even if it does not match my own. what I DO have a problem with is anyone, especially government, forcing THEIR religious beliefs upon me...and compelling me to pay homage to THEIR God, or their religion. that is where the line is crossed.

If you give all the freedom to pay homage to their own god or their own religion (or lack thereof) then you're okay. If not, then it fails the Constitutional test.

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.


Children in Virginia are forced to say it every day.

It would still violate.
You would have to change it to something akin to "with freedom to believe as I choose". in order for it to no longer violate the first amendment.

You're even stricter than I am about it!

I say that if someone is allowed to completely omit the words in the recital...or is allowed to insert their own diety in the place of "God" then it's okay. But you go even further than I do!

Children in Virginia are forced to say it every day.

So are children in Texas. See my first posting on this topic, on page 21.

1. To be fair you seem to be complaining more about the fact that people are trying to overturn the law than that the overturning is wrong.

2. The average atheist cares only about when the government tries to push the christian religion off on the rest of us. Christians and other monotheists are more than happy to see that not-so-subtle support of their beleif systems, so when someone has the gall to actually fight the injustice they label it a "war against religion" and say non-beleivers are "trying to rid the world of public religion,"

3. If a private citizen places a statue on government grounds without permission hie is commiting a crime, and since the statue is on government property by the citizen's choice it is the governments and therefore in violation of the establishment clause. Private prayer groups are fine, but not government supported or sponsored ones. Hence why a prayer before a school football game is wrong, because it is directly sponsored by the school and therefore a government endorsement of religion.

1. Where are you getting that?

2. Why are you targeting Christians? What did they ever do to you. The constitution requires that all people and all groups be given equal treatment without regard for the religious nature of their activities. If you allow a gay club to have activities on a school campus, you are required by the US Constitution to allow a christian club, even if the activities of that club include prayer or some other religious activity. Only official government support is banned. Though, I observe the average atheist tends not care about such things, compared the extremist athiests such as Mr. Newdow.


3. It doesn't work that way. If you allow any statues or displays by private groups on any public grounds you must allow all. You can ban some just because they are religious in nature. The fact that they are on public lands does not mean they are no longer privately owned. Of course every city has a set of procedures you have to follow if you want to display something in a park or other public land. They can't deny you that. But they can set a time limit for how long you can have it out there. After which you are expected to remove it or pay a fine. The process works, but the extremist athiests are seeking to legally discriminate on the basis of religion, which is unconstitutional. Statues and religious displays on public land do not violate the 1st as long as all rules and procedures for obtaining the permits are followed. They have to be same rules and procedures that all other groups are required to follow.

As for school prayer, the school cannot lead the prayer. But any attempt to ban private people from praying before the official event, is unconstitutional.
You can prayer at football game as long as you do it as a private person. You can't do that as a school official. Nor can you ask someone to go up to the lectern at the opening ceremony and have them do it.

So are children in Texas. See my first posting on this topic, on page 21.
It used to be required in California. I think they changed the law on it though because of religious freedom concerns. They leave it up to the school boards now.

It is relevant. The phrase "under God" references all religions. Not just a few.

Kindly explain how "under God" (note the capitalisation, masculine form, and singular nature of the word used) refers to polytheistic or goddess centered religions.

No. All religions, even the polythiestic religions have an ultimate supreme being that is over the many gods that they have.

<bzzt> Incorect.

Under God was put into the pledge during the Cold War in order to distinguish the US from the dirty commies (Russia).

Now that the cold war is over, there is no need for Under God. It's a violation of the separation of church and state. Though you can also argue that Under God is secular.

I can also argue that the sky is made of cotton candy.

Kindly explain how "under God" (note the capitalisation, masculine form, and singular nature of the word used) refers to polytheistic or goddess centered religions.
its a generic term. "God" is almost always capitalized in the US even when referencing the main diety or super being of another religion.

Government shouldn't involve itself religion or religious beleifs. Why? Because all forms of religious beleif are entitled to equal treatment by the law, and the wide diversity of religious beleifs ensures that by making ANY religious statement the government will be directly contradicting the tennents of one or more religions.

For example, let's imagine that a community, for one reason or another, ends up having a slim majority of it's citizens converting to the Church of Satan. The school board, controlled by the majority, votes that they shall recite the pledge of allegiance with the line "one nation under satan" instead.

Doesn't it infringe on the rights of the non-satanist children if their teacher actively encourages the class to recite a statement that the USA is "one nation under satan"? If so you can clearly see that using public employees and funds to encourage children to say "one nation under god" is a violation of the rights of those who have many gods, those who have a goddess, and those who have no gods.

I can also argue that the sky is made of cotton candy.
That's like arguing that the swastika or confederate flags are always evil. Which of course, would be a false argument.

Government shouldn't involve itself religion or religious beleifs. Why? Because all forms of religious beleif are entitled to equal treatment by the law, and the wide diversity of religious beleifs ensures that by making ANY religious statement the government will be directly contradicting the tennents of one or more religions.

For example, let's imagine that a community, for one reason or another, ends up having a slim majority of it's citizens converting to the Church of Satan. The school board, controlled by the majority, votes that they shall recite the pledge of allegiance with the line "one nation under satan" instead.

Doesn't it infringe on the rights of the non-satanist children if their teacher actively encourages the class to recite a statement that the USA is "one nation under satan"? If so you can clearly see that using public employees and funds to encourage children to say "one nation under god" is a violation of the rights of those who have many gods, those who have a goddess, and those who have no gods.

I agree with you on all except one point.

You can't have public employees doing religious stuff in their official government capacities. The matter of funding is very different though.
As with property, if you grant public funds to any group, you have to grant it to all. The procedure you give to one afterschool program or homeless shelter, you are required to apply to all after school programs or homeless shelters. You can't deny groups funding on the basis of the religious nature of their sheltering or afterschool programs. Because that would unconstitutional because it's punishing them for their religion. The only way you could deny funding to religious people or groups is if you deny all funding to all people and all groups. There can't be discrimination in funding on the basis of religion.

Edit: I think I need to use an example here.

If you fund the football team or even the Gay Chess Club or Athiests United with public money, you are constitutionally required to fund the school Bible club or christian club, or even the Club of Satan Worshippers.

I agree with you on all except one point.

You can't have public employees doing religious stuff in their official government capacities. The matter of funding is very different though.
As with property, if you grant public funds to any group, you have to grant it to all. The procedure you give to one afterschool program or homeless shelter, you are required to apply to all after school programs or homeless shelters. You can't deny groups funding on the basis of the religious nature of their sheltering or afterschool programs. Because that would unconstitutional because it's punishing them for their religion. The only way you could deny funding to religious people or groups is if you deny all funding to all people and all groups. There can't be discrimination in funding on the basis of religion.

Edit: I think I need to use an example here.

If you fund the football team or even the Gay Chess Club or Athiests United with public money, you are constitutionally required to fund the school Bible club or christian club, or even the Club of Satan Worshippers.
I was merely addressing the issue of the pledge, not of clubs.

its a generic term. "God" is almost always capitalized in the US even when referencing the main diety or super being of another religion.

Not all religions have a main diety or super being. The only religions that internaly and exclusivly use the singular, capitalised, masculine form (to my knowldge) are the Abrahamic religions.

I was merely addressing the issue of the pledge, not of clubs.
I agree as regards the pledge. Because of the fact that it is not neutral. For it to be neutral it must recognize that some people don't believe in anything.

The term "God" is meant to be generic and apply to all religions. Not just christianity. The founders likely believed that the God of the Christians and the God of Allah and all the world's other religions was the same being.
So by mentioning "God" in their writings, the founders were being respectful, not just of Christianity, but of all faiths and religions.
Over the years, this became twisted to mean that America was founded to be a christian nation. That is the real reason why "under God" was put in the constitution. Not out of respect for all religions, but to say that "unlike Russia, America is a christian nation".
"Even in the oath of office, the phrase "so help me God"", is a generic term. It is not a reference to America being a christian nation. It refers to the faiths that people have. Even the religions that don't have a God have a supreme being.
If you look at the founder's reference to God or to "the creator" you find they were making a general reference to some type of supreme being. They were not referencing a specific Christian god.
Even the high court has ruled that references to God on public property or documents is constitutional as long as it does not promote a specific religion. The criteria being that it has to be general and unspecific.


couldn't have said it better myself.......that's what i meant....

couldn't have said it better myself.......that's what i meant....
yikes. I meant Pledge, not Constitution. Hopefully anyone who reads that post will understand that.

No. I actually agree on the substance. I doubt you would find any who wouldn't. They tried to make a statement to contrast the US from the USSR and in doing so, they made a mistake that violates the US Constitution. Point is, it has never received a valid challenge. That is why it is still there.

So, you agree the addition of "under God" to the Pledge was unconstitutional! Yeah. :)

Why have you been arguing otherwise? :headbang:

I agree that "under god" should not be in the US pledge, but I want to extend this further. "Under god" should not be in any national pledge. DOWN WITH THEOCRACY!!

1. I wasn't referring to the pledge. I was just referring to the founders use of "God" and "creator". When they used those terms, they weren't referring specifically to the christian god. They referring to their belief that whatever religion has it right, there is certainly someone up there, higher than men who brought all this into existance and instituted certain natural laws.

2. Again, it depends on the context in which they are used. The high court has ruled that context does make much difference.

3. No. You qouted the 9th's decision on the Newdow case. The two I was referring to were related to the display of religious monuments on public property. Though it could be said that religious displays on public property and the phrase "under God" are two aspects of the same coin.

You really are flailing around blindly. This is especially bizarre given you have conceded the 9th Circuit was correct in substance in ruling the "under God" addition to the Pledge was unconstitutional. :headbang:

1. What the Founders meant by "God" or "Creator" is irrelevant. Neither is mentioned in the Constitution. And the Founders had nothing to do with the Pledge or the addition of "under God." (Not to mention the Founders were not as religiously ignorant as you assume.)

2. Non-responsive. You have no such cases to cite. You asserted they exist, but don't actually know of cases upholding "under God" or similar language by the Supreme Court.

3. By "no," I assume you mean you have not read either case you are relying on. I've quoted several cases in my posts. In post 278 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9426662&postcount=278), I did -- as I said -- quoted at length from McCreary v. ACLU (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html), (June 27, 2005) one of the two most recent Supreme Court opinions dealing with the display of the 10 Commandments. I rarely say I have quoted something when I have not.

(NOTE: Everyone appears to just wish to ignore my posts 278 and 280. Only you have addressed post 286 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9426846&postcount=286). I guess it is just so much easier to discuss constitutional law without actually looking at the Constitution or constitutional caselaw. :headbang: )

You misunderstood me. I was not saying that. Go back and check my previous posts on religion. Never once have I said that athiesm is not a religion. What I did in your qoute of me, was note that the athiests themselves claimed they didn't have a religion. In many of the religion posts here in general, you will read athiests posting that athiesm is not a religion.
I was saying that if that is true, then surely their religious rights are not being violated, because you have to have some semblance of a religion to have such rights. If athiesm is a religious system, then indeed, athiests have religious rights. If not, then such rights cannot exist for them.

You misunderstand the relevant law. As I explained, your simplistic dichotomy does not exist. Athiests are not faced with a Hobson's choice.

All individuals have freedom of conscience protected by the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment -- by maintaining the wall of separation of Church and State.

And I have always held the view that the government should neither promote nor restrict religions. For the first half of our nations' history, the states have promoted a religion. For the second half, some groups, such as the ACLU, have sought to ban or restrict religion from the public places. My view is that the clock's hand should be kept still, in the middle. Neither promoting nor restricting. And that view is supported by the first amendment.

This "history" is BS. But regardless, something changed about the time you are pointing at -- the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. Prior to that neither the First Amendment nor any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

I'd love to see you give an example of the ACLU seeking to ban the free exercise of religion by individuals in public places.

So, you agree the addition of "under God" to the Pledge was unconstitutional! Yeah. :)

Why have you been arguing otherwise? :headbang:
?
Where was I arguing otherwise?

You really are flailing around blindly. This is especially bizarre given you have conceded the 9th Circuit was correct in substance in ruling the "under God" addition to the Pledge was unconstitutional. :headbang:

1. What the Founders meant by "God" or "Creator" is irrelevant. Neither is mentioned in the Constitution. And the Founders had nothing to do with the Pledge or the addition of "under God." (Not to mention the Founders were not as religiously ignorant as you assume.)

2. Non-responsive. You have no such cases to cite. You asserted they exist, but don't actually know of cases upholding "under God" or similar language by the Supreme Court.

3. By "no," I assume you mean you have not read either case you are relying on. I've quoted several cases in my posts. In post 278 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9426662&postcount=278), I did -- as I said -- quoted at length from McCreary v. ACLU (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html), (June 27, 2005) one of the two most recent Supreme Court opinions dealing with the display of the 10 Commandments. I rarely say I have quoted something when I have not.

(NOTE: Everyone appears to just wish to ignore my posts 278 and 280. Only you have addressed post 286 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9426846&postcount=286). I guess it is just so much easier to discuss constitutional law without actually looking at the Constitution or constitutional caselaw. :headbang: )
I have not seen either of those two posts yet. So I cannot respond until I've read them.

I will admit I have not yet read this entire thread. I started and my jaw was getting tired from clenching my teeth.

Here a few things to consider:

1. Who gives a flying #@% what were the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers? By the Founders own system, such is irrelevant. You will note they scrupulously left any reference to God or their religion out of the Constitution. The only reference to religion in the original Consititution was the pro-separation prohibition of religious tests of office.

2. The definitive point is that the Founders adopted the First Amendment. In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

3. As for further elaboration of what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither 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. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

5. In the most recent case of McCreary v. ACLU (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html ) (June 27, 2005), the Court re-emphasized the principles of Everson:

The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the "First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947); Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, at 53. When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government's ostensible object is to take sides. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 335 (1987) ("Lemon's 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing [government] from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters"). Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the "understanding, reached ... after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens ... ." Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 718 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting). By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government "sends the ... message to ... nonadherents 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members... .' " Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290, 309-310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring)).

....

The importance of neutrality as an interpretive guide is no less true now than it was when the Court broached the principle in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), and a word needs to be said about the different view taken in today's dissent. We all agree, of course, on the need for some interpretative help. The First Amendment contains no textual definition of "establishment," and the term is certainly not self-defining. No one contends that the prohibition of establishment stops at a designation of a national (or with Fourteenth Amendment incorporation, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940), a state) church, but nothing in the text says just how much more it covers. There is no simple answer, for more than one reason.

....

Given the variety of interpretative problems, the principle of neutrality has provided a good sense of direction: the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals under the Free Exercise Clause. The principle has been helpful simply because it responds to one of the major concerns that prompted adoption of the Religion Clauses. The Framers and the citizens of their time intended not only to protect the integrity of individual conscience in religious matters, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S., at 52-54, and n. 38, but to guard against the civic divisiveness that follows when the Government weighs in on one side of religious debate; nothing does a better job of roiling society, a point that needed no explanation to the descendants of English Puritans and Cavaliers (or Massachusetts Puritans and Baptists). E.g., Everson, supra, at 8 ("A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape [religious persecution]"). A sense of the past thus points to governmental neutrality as an objective of the Establishment Clause, and a sensible standard for applying it. To be sure, given its generality as a principle, an appeal to neutrality alone cannot possibly lay every issue to rest, or tell us what issues on the margins are substantial enough for constitutional significance, a point that has been clear from the Founding era to modern times. E.g., Letter from J. Madison to R. Adams (1832), in 5 The Founders' Constitution at 107 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987) (" I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points"); [I]Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 422 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting) ("The constitutional obligation of 'neutrality' ... is not so narrow a channel that the slightest deviation from an absolutely straight course leads to condemnation"). But invoking neutrality is a prudent way of keeping sight of something the Framers of the First Amendment thought important.

...


6. I've seen some selective and misleading quotes from other Supreme Court cases. I'll come back to those.

7. I'll deal specifically with the Pledge in a seperate post.


1. Had much to do with the fact that there were way too many different religions in America at the time to allow such religious oaths. Try imagining the conflicts that would have conflicted.

2. You forget the founders didn't pass the 1st amendment. They only proposed it. It was the states and the American people that passed it.

3. What in here conflicts what I am saying?

4. what happened to number 4? You skipped to 5.

5. Again this parts from what I said where?

6. fine

7. You've been addressing the pledge specifically, when I've been addressing the issue of church and state in general. That is why you keep thinking I am defending it. But none of the prequisites I have posted can apply to the Pledge. Why? Because it is not neutral. I have been addressing the issue of what constitutes neutral treatment toward religion or nonreligion. And that is that the Constitution require religious groups to be treated the same as nonreligious groups.

[snip]

3. What in here conflicts what I am saying?

[snip]

5. Again this parts from what I said where?

6. fine

7. You've been addressing the pledge specifically, when I've been addressing the issue of church and state in general. That is why you keep thinking I am defending it. But none of the prequisites I have posted can apply to the Pledge. Why? Because it is not neutral. I have been addressing the issue of what constitutes neutral treatment toward religion or nonreligion. And that is that the Constitution require religious groups to be treated the same as nonreligious groups.

So.

1. You agree the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional. As that was 99.9% of the debate, that pretty much wraps things up.

2. You advocate some neutral treatment of religion or nonreligion that echoes much of the proper jurisprudence. It is unclear where or if you divert from the existing caselaw. If you could clarifiy what you mean I might be able to engange you on that subject.

3. All that stuff about "God" being OK to any religion was just sophistry.

Otherwise, I think we are done here folks.

Personally, I think the "under God" may survive despite its blatant unconsititionality. Some see defending it as a point of pride. Some see it as a point of compromise. Some that are against it, like myself, do not see it as a priority. Thus the politics of the issue will likely be framed in a way the the Pledge remains unchanged.

You misunderstand the relevant law. As I explained, your simplistic dichotomy does not exist. Athiests are not faced with a Hobson's choice.

All individuals have freedom of conscience protected by the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment -- by maintaining the wall of separation of Church and State.



This "history" is BS. But regardless, something changed about the time you are pointing at -- the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. Prior to that neither the First Amendment nor any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

I'd love to see you give an example of the ACLU seeking to ban the free exercise of religion by individuals in public places.


It will be my pleasure:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/12255984.htm
The ACLU forcing the taxpayers to support their crusade against all religion.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art34249.asp

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Theocracy_Alert/071305Madison/071305madison.html
excellent example of an athiest seeking to ban all religion from public lands

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050728/cm_usatoday/godandcountry/nc:742
the host seems to be off his rocker but it has some good stuff:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/24/163302.php
a history of the pledge

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123459/

the above are editorials. the following are more authoritative

http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_orgin.htm

http://www.ibka.org/en/articles/ag02/kirkhart.html

See the difference between then and now?

So.

1. You agree the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional. As that was 99.9% of the debate, that pretty much wraps things up.

2. You advocate some neutral treatment of religion or nonreligion that echoes much of the proper jurisprudence. It is unclear where or if you divert from the existing caselaw. If you could clarifiy what you mean I might be able to engange you on that subject.

3. All that stuff about "God" being OK to any religion was just sophistry.

Otherwise, I think we are done here folks.

Personally, I think the "under God" may survive despite its blatant unconsititionality. Some see defending it as a point of pride. Some see it as a point of compromise. Some that are against it, like myself, do not see it as a priority. Thus the politics of the issue will likely be framed in a way the the Pledge remains unchanged.

I disagree with your last point. It only takes the right person and the right set of circumstance to come along.
Abe Lincoln and his 14th amendment remedied the issue of state supported churches in the 19th century.
All it takes is a pol to propose a change to the pledge that everyone can agree on.

For the record, I challeged:
I'd love to see you give an example of the ACLU seeking to ban the free exercise of religion by individuals in public places.

It will be my pleasure:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/12255984.htm
The ACLU forcing the taxpayers to support their crusade against all religion.

Guest column by a layperson in the Fort Wayne Gazette. He complains about ACLU attempts to end preferential access to schools for religious groups. He then babbles on about how the ACLU is funded -- mostly by donations. Then, relying on third and fourth-hand information he accuses the ACLU in receiving attorney's fees paid for by tax dollars when the win some cases.

Sorry. Not only is this wrong and misleading and poorly documented, none of this is about the ACLU seeking to ban the free exercise of religion by individuals in public places

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art34249.asp

This on-line editorial starts with the unsupported premise: "But it is and is becoming illegal to pray in school, carry your Bible with you to school and only God knows where else. Our technology, common sense, and integrity are going where?"

The entire babbling editorial assumes the premise and does NOT show the ACLU seeking to ban the free exercise of religion by individuals in public places

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Theocracy_Alert/071305Madison/071305madison.html
excellent example of an athiest seeking to ban all religion from public lands

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050728/cm_usatoday/godandcountry/nc:742
the host seems to be off his rocker but it has some good stuff:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/24/163302.php
a history of the pledge

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123459/

the above are editorials. the following are more authoritative

[QUOTE=Whittier--]http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_orgin.htm

http://www.ibka.org/en/articles/ag02/kirkhart.html

See the difference between then and now?

:headbang:

After starting to go through these one-by-one, I won't. They are all over the place. They do not provide specific examples of the ACLU seeking to restrict the free exercise of religion by an private individual. Please either be more specific or try again.

So.

1. You agree the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional. As that was 99.9% of the debate, that pretty much wraps things up.

2. You advocate some neutral treatment of religion or nonreligion that echoes much of the proper jurisprudence. It is unclear where or if you divert from the existing caselaw. If you could clarifiy what you mean I might be able to engange you on that subject.

3. All that stuff about "God" being OK to any religion was just sophistry.

Otherwise, I think we are done here folks.

Personally, I think the "under God" may survive despite its blatant unconsititionality. Some see defending it as a point of pride. Some see it as a point of compromise. Some that are against it, like myself, do not see it as a priority. Thus the politics of the issue will likely be framed in a way the the Pledge remains unchanged.

I think this guy makes a very smart and calm arguement. Bravo! :)

I think this guy makes a very smart and calm arguement. Bravo! :)

You should watch him more often. Cat is probably one of the best debators here. Very detailed arguements backed up with sources.

For the record, I challeged:




Guest column by a layperson in the Fort Wayne Gazette. He complains about ACLU attempts to end preferential access to schools for religious groups. He then babbles on about how the ACLU is funded -- mostly by donations. Then, relying on third and fourth-hand information he accuses the ACLU in receiving attorney's fees paid for by tax dollars when the win some cases.

Sorry. Not only is this wrong and misleading and poorly documented, none of this is about the ACLU seeking to ban the free exercise of religion by individuals in public places



This on-line editorial starts with the unsupported premise: "But it is and is becoming illegal to pray in school, carry your Bible with you to school and only God knows where else. Our technology, common sense, and integrity are going where?"

The entire babbling editorial assumes the premise and does NOT show the ACLU seeking to ban the free exercise of religion by individuals in public places









[QUOTE=Whittier--]the above are editorials. the following are more authoritative









:headbang:

After starting to go through these one-by-one, I won't. They are all over the place. They do not provide specific examples of the ACLU seeking to restrict the free exercise of religion by an private individual. Please either be more specific or try again.

I tend to get sidetracked at times.
The first links, as I have stated, are merely editorials of people voicing their opinions. In fact, using Google, all I found were a bunch of dumb editorials so I chose to change it to something where I could find some good sites: the history of church and state.
The last set of links was in response to your saying "BS" about the states not seperating church and state in the 19th century.
This is not to say that the athiests and the ACLU never sought to ban religion from public places. I myself am personally familiar with such attempts from back in 92 and 93. Though I am at a loss to find out what has happened since then.

1. I myself was almost expelled for bringing a Bible to school. I keep to myself most of the time, and all the time back then. But some athiest complained cause she thought Bibles should be banned from schools. I was asked to stop bringing it. And as you can tell, I told the school and the athiest to go f themselves. I'll not have my rights violated.

2. The same athiest tried to bar a christian club (of which I was not a member or associated with at the time). I looked up the legal precedents and a court case had just been decided at the time that said that schools cannot discriminate and bar christian clubs on the basis of the group's religious activities/nature.

3. In more recent cases, a 5 year old girl on the east coast (last year) was arrested for saying "Jesus loves you" because an athiest parent was offended by it.

4. In another case, there was a legal battle where the ACLU was trying to get some people tossed in jail because they prayed not during the game, not during opening ceremonies, but just before, and they did as a group.

Of course, I am behind on what has happened to the latter two issues.
I was allowed to keep bringing Bible's after I made a militant threat to sue the school and the athiest. Militarism is the only way to deal with those who seek to violate the 1st amendment.

I know the case history is there. Damn google for giving nothing but blogs and editorials.


http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2451


http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra7.htm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061201a.htm

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31534

http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2005/nr070705.htm

http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2005/nr071505.htm (the ACLU was trying to ban a religious person from talking about politics on the air apparently, haven't read the whole article yet, just scanned it)

http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2005/nr072705.htm the decision in this case is different from that of the McCreary case but involves the same issue. The court is saying you can have religious displays if the goal is to show the historical role religion has played in American society.

http://www.lc.org/radiotv/fc1203.htm

http://www.lc.org/radiotv/fc1003.htm (addresses a range of issues regarding religion in public places. The guidelines were much needed when they were issued and still are)

http://www.religionlink.org/tip_020826a.php

http://www.lc.org/radiotv/nlj/nlj2004/nlj1104.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4633563

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jnt-sta.htm


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june00/prayerdecision.html


West Virginia State
Board of Education v. Barnette says you can't be compelled to say the pledge if it violates your conscience.

http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/comm_law/other_issues/prayerinschool.html
the policy was clearly an attempt to promote religion.

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr006=gk5dxghsn2.app13a&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=6185&news_iv_ctrl=1478
prayers at athletic events can neither be banned nor promoted.

You are allowed to pray at athletic events as long as the school district is not involved. If you are the speaker, they can't ban you mentioning God or even saying a quick prayer without violating your free speech and equal protection rights. According to each case, it only becomes unconstitutional when the school (openly or descretely) promotes religion. The school's attempt to promote religion was the reason that prayer was struck down in the Texas case. Had the school not been involved in holding "elections" to select people to pray, the case would have gone the otherway. It also forced religion, but requiring that only people who believed in a religion could be elected.
However, if you are giving a graduation speech or speaking at an athletic event, and your speech just happens to include a prayer or something about religion, you can't be banned from speaking since religious speech and political speech are constitutionally protected. Speech that is not protected is anything that is not political or religious in nature.
As noted earlier in the dialogue between myself and Cat Tribe, even athiests have the right to religious speech despite the fact they claim they have no religion.
It is illegal to bar speech, monuments, or religious groups or to discriminate against such groups on the basis of religion.

The issues of school prayers and christian clubs are but two peices of the current church state conflict. But I note that many of the problems from the 90's have been resolved in the courts with the courts ruling often in favor of protecting the rights of religious groups.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8378199/
I disagree with what this guy is saying. The courts are not saying that. They are saying religious displays are ok if they done to promote a historical background/perspective.
The old displays were allowed because they met the requirement. The new ones were not because they were flagrant attempt at promoting religion, as witnessed by the testimony of the officials who put up the displays.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_s3.htm

I must say, I believe the case would be different if the groups had applied for the proper permits and followed the proper procedures for putting their stuff on public property. In which case, requiring them to place items of other religions or that are secular with their display would violate their first amendment speech rights. But if the display is publicly sponsored, it would not violate said rights, because if a taxpayer is paying for a display, he has the right to have stuff from his own beliefs or lack thereof, included in the display. But that would only apply if the display were funded with tax dollars.
But even in the event of private funding, twould seem to me, based on the foregoing court cases, that such a display would still be unconstitutional if the government actively sought a private group to fund and set up a religious display. For public religious displays to be constitutional, the government would have to be strictly neutral. It would have to be entirely up to private groups. They would have to initiate it, go through the permit requirements, and provide the funding to put such display up.

There was a case, in Pico Rivera, a year or two back when the city was funding a parade being put on by the Catholic Church. I challenged it politically, because other groups weren't getting funding for their parades or events. I wonder what ever happened to those parades. I haven't heard about them since. Maybe that my reputation for political "stubborness" precedes me and they had no choice but to back down.

Church and state. An issue which I care very much about and which got me interested in politics.

snip.

1. For Pete's sake, boy, try to stick to a coherent point.

2. Don't rely on anecodotal evidence. I can counter every example with the theocratic schools I attended which confisicated my copies of Karl Marx, Betrand Russel and *gasp* John Locke as "inappropriate." The choir, of which I was a part, had the Lord's Prayer as its main number. :rolleyes:

I agree that "under god" should not be in the US pledge, but I want to extend this further. "Under god" should not be in any national pledge. DOWN WITH THEOCRACY!!


that's interesting......so that's must mean your an atheist, because that would get rid of religions, and you would have a lot of the population(not just christians) that would be on ur back, plus in the consitution there is a freedom of religion so, down with theocracy would be elminating that....which is inevitably against the constitution, which is what yall said "under God" was............so are u contradicting urself?

Atheists are a pain in the ass. Who cares what they think? In America they're (thank God!) nothing more than an annoying, inconsequential minority.

lol, well, i won't disrespect them....but i will say i don't agree with everything they believe, and even though they only make up 1% of the population, they speak out more than 99% of christians and other religions.........i hate that, but it's true......

that's interesting......so that's must mean your an atheist, because that would get rid of religions, and you would have a lot of the population(not just christians) that would be on ur back, plus in the consitution there is a freedom of religion so, down with theocracy would be elminating that....which is inevitably against the constitution, which is what yall said "under God" was............so are u contradicting urself?
Um...right.


Having a government being impartial on matters of religion doesn't 'elminate [sic] that", and seeing as how that's what the constitution means, that the government is impartial to all, biased towards none, I fail to see how it is unconstitutional. If you'd care to back up your argument that having an impartial government re: religion is unconstitutional with some case law, I'd be very happy.

that's interesting......so that's must mean your an atheist, because that would get rid of religions, and you would have a lot of the population(not just christians) that would be on ur back, plus in the consitution there is a freedom of religion so, down with theocracy would be elminating that....which is inevitably against the constitution, which is what yall said "under God" was............so are u contradicting urself?

YES!! Finally someone who has rational sense in this GODforsaken thread ... can't anyone see, the whole "religious freedom" doesn't mean that we should change the pledge! All it means is that we have the God-given freedom to live as Christians! You atheists are all damn hypocrites ... saying that the gorvernment shouldn't say anything about any religion at all because you think that it's "unfair" ... but then you say that the government isn't free to be a Christian theocracy .... wtf? :mad:
alot fo teh ppolation wil b on ur back!!


Atheists are a pain in the ass. Who cares what they think? In America they're (thank God!) nothing more than an annoying, inconsequential minority.

Yay for atheist-bashing! I love Jesus! :D

lol, well, i won't disrespect them....but i will say i don't agree with everything they believe, and even though they only make up 1% of the population, they speak out more than 99% of christians and other religions.........i hate that, but it's true......
5% in the U.S., 14% in the world. Get your goddamned numbers right.

that's interesting......so that's must mean your an atheist, because that would get rid of religions, and you would have a lot of the population(not just christians) that would be on ur back, plus in the consitution there is a freedom of religion so, down with theocracy would be elminating that....which is inevitably against the constitution, which is what yall said "under God" was............so are u contradicting urself?

Theocracy violates the Constitution via the establishment clause; thus, the entire premise that establishing one group of religions' beliefs as a part of law (which is a theocracy) constitutes religious freedom is flawed by its very definition.

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."*

It doesnt matter whether I agree with you or not, but you make yourself out to be an asshole.

1. For Pete's sake, boy, try to stick to a coherent point.

2. Don't rely on anecodotal evidence. I can counter every example with the theocratic schools I attended which confisicated my copies of Karl Marx, Betrand Russel and *gasp* John Locke as "inappropriate." The choir, of which I was a part, had the Lord's Prayer as its main number. :rolleyes:

1. The point of the apparently differing links, was
a. a response to you saying that my claim that some states sanctioned churches in the 19th century was BS. So I linked to sites that proved it. Some states had laws saying you could not vote or run for office unless you were a church member.
b. the other links were meant to show how much infringment still goes on. You should have noted that I did not say it was all from the secularists or athiests. But that an equal amount came from the religious end.
If you want a coherent point, it is this: Despite the 1st amendment, the federalist papers, and the rulings of the courts you still have wackos on both ends of the argument attempting to violate the seperation of church and state. Whether it be religious fundies claiming that America is an official christian nation or athiests and other secularists trying to ban religion from public. Eternal vigilance is required to counter the moves by both groups. We cannot afford to allow the hand to move either to the left nor the right, but must steadfastly use everything in our arsenal to keep it strictly in the middle.

2. Are you calling the cases cited in the links "anecdotal"?

Atheists are a pain in the ass. Who cares what they think? In America they're (thank God!) nothing more than an annoying, inconsequential minority.
Its the job of the US government to know what all of its people are thinking. This is the only way to arrive at consensus.

lol, well, i won't disrespect them....but i will say i don't agree with everything they believe, and even though they only make up 1% of the population, they speak out more than 99% of christians and other religions.........i hate that, but it's true......
Its the fault of the 99% for not speaking up. You can't blame the 1% if the 99% remain silent.

YES!! Finally someone who has rational sense in this GODforsaken thread ... can't anyone see, the whole "religious freedom" doesn't mean that we should change the pledge! All it means is that we have the God-given freedom to live as Christians! You atheists are all damn hypocrites ... saying that the gorvernment shouldn't say anything about any religion at all because you think that it's "unfair" ... but then you say that the government isn't free to be a Christian theocracy .... wtf? :mad:
alot fo teh ppolation wil b on ur back!!



Yay for atheist-bashing! I love Jesus! :D
The founders, if you read their writings, did not intend that religious freedom would apply only to christians. In fact the right to freedom itself, is not limited to just christians.

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.I agree with this sentiment. Why worry about what the US has in their pledge of alliegance? It's their business and is unlikely to affect us in some way.

that's interesting......so that's must mean your an atheist,


Problem: Stating no theocracies does not mean he is an athiest. Many religious minded people think religion does not belong in goverment.

Some of the earliest fighters for the seperation of church and states were Baptists.


because that would get rid of religions, and you would have a lot of the population(not just christians) that would be on ur back, plus in the consitution there is a freedom of religion so, down with theocracy would be elminating that....


*buzzer sound* Thank you for playing.

Sorry but disallowing a theocratic goverment is not the elimination of religion.

Becareful what you wish for. You may think we need a Christian Theocratic goverment and one day we could get a Muslim goverment.

Keeping the goverment Relgious neutral is good for everybody.

Also, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

No body should be required to pass a religious test.


which is inevitably against the constitution, which is what yall said "under God" was............so are u contradicting urself?
Nope; a theocracy violates the Constitution. Under God violates the Constitution. Being a Christian does not.

5% in the U.S., 14% in the world. Get your goddamned numbers right.
Your numbers are off:

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Atheist
athiest are only 3.8% of the world's population.
Being non-religious (the 14% figure) does not automatically make you an athiest. You can be a christian or a muslim or whatever, and still be nonreligious.

The most recent figures, from 2004 showed that only 2.4% of the world's population were athiests. And that the non religious catagory had dropped to 12.5%.

Not that the 3.8% was before 911. Is there a correlation?


As for the US numbers:
A 2005 poll found that only 2% of the population was athiest.

So I call bullshit on your numbers.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1147&dept_id=483434&newsid=14882797&PAG=461&rfi=9
this site says athiests are only .4% of the US population but they are probably using old stats.

Atheists are a pain in the ass. Who cares what they think? In America they're (thank God!) nothing more than an annoying, inconsequential minority.

Well, how would you like it if you were part of a minority...and the majority tried to force YOU to pay homage to a diety you don't believe in? Tried to shove it in your face, and down your throat everywhere you went? You'd be pissed off, too.

I mean, seriously...why the FUCK can't you evangelicals worship YOUR God...in YOUR OWN CHURCH and quit trying to shove Him in everyone else's face??

I got my own relationship with my on God, and I doubt that my God would have anything to do with the evangelical's God.

My God is all about peace, love, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, joy....the evangelical's God is all about hate, fire, brimstone, wratch, vengeance...no thanks, I don't want to partake of a God like that. And I don't want it shoved down my throat, either.

If y'all would quit trying to force YOUR God into everyone's daily lives....and quit trying to force YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS into civil law, perhaps you would find that we wouldn't give a shit anymore, and we'd just leave you alone if you left us alone. But, no, you guys can't stand it that way...you gotta push and push and push and push...and you get pissed off when someone else pushes back!

Problem: Stating no theocracies does not mean he is an athiest. Many religious minded people think religion does not belong in goverment.

Some of the earliest fighters for the seperation of church and states were Baptists.



*buzzer sound* Thank you for playing.

Sorry but disallowing a theocratic goverment is not the elimination of religion.

Becareful what you wish for. You may think we need a Christian Theocratic goverment and one day we could get a Muslim goverment.

Keeping the goverment Relgious neutral is good for everybody.

Also, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

No body should be required to pass a religious test.


Nope; a theocracy violates the Constitution. Under God violates the Constitution. Being a Christian does not.


I agree on all except where you say that freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Care to explain? Because for the government to be truely neutral, you can't bar religious people or events from public grounds. That in itself would be uconstitutional. You can only bar the government from sponsoring religion or religious events. But private people are still free to use public grounds for their events. Especially if said grounds were used by other groups. If you mean freedom from being offended by a religion, well there is no such right in the constitution or else where.

Well, how would you like it if you were part of a minority...and the mmajority tried to force YOU to pay homage to a diety you don't believe in? Tried to shove it in your face, and down your throat everywhere you went? You'd be pissed off, too.
That's a pretty extremist view. Most religious people don't go around doing any of that. But some athiests do go around trying to file frivolous lawsuits to sue anyone who prays in public.

That's a pretty extremist view. Most religious people don't go around doing any of that. But some athiests do go around trying to file frivolous lawsuits to sue anyone who prays in public.

Most evangelicals DO go around doing just that!!

they push and push and push and push and push...and then they wonder why people get pissed off and start pushing back!!

And then they get pissed off when people DO start pushing back!!

If they'd just keep it in their own church, and their own home...and quit trying to bring it into everyone else's life, and into the lawbooks of our country, we'd get along just fine.

If they left us the hell alone, we'd leave THEM the hell alone, too.

Most evangelicals DO go around doing just that!!

they push and push and push and push and push...and then they wonder why people get pissed off and start pushing back!!

And then they get pissed off when people DO start pushing back!!

If they'd just keep it in their own church, and their own home...and quit trying to bring it into everyone else's life, and into the lawbooks of our country, we'd get along just fine.

If they left us the hell alone, we'd leave THEM the hell alone, too.
You can't ban religion from public life if that's what you're asking for. Its unconstitutional.
If a guy is preaching in a park, there is no law that says you required to listen, you are free to go somewhere else so you don't have to hear him. But you cannot ban him from preaching in the park just because it offends you.

Most evangelicals don't push and push and push as you are claiming. Most will move on if you tell them you aren't interested.

As for the lawbooks, to be fair, there are athiests trying to ban people from practicing their religion in public places. Both are equal dangers to religious freedom.

Most evangelicals DO go around doing just that!!

they push and push and push and push and push...and then they wonder why people get pissed off and start pushing back!!

And then they get pissed off when people DO start pushing back!!

If they'd just keep it in their own church, and their own home...and quit trying to bring it into everyone else's life, and into the lawbooks of our country, we'd get along just fine.

If they left us the hell alone, we'd leave THEM the hell alone, too.
You can't ban religion from public life if that's what you're asking for. Its unconstitutional.
If a guy is preaching in a park, there is no law that says you required to listen, you are free to go somewhere else so you don't have to hear him. But you cannot ban him from preaching in the park just because it offends you.

Most evangelicals don't push and push and push as you are claiming. Most will move on if you tell them you aren't interested.

As for the lawbooks, to be fair, there are athiests trying to ban people from practicing their religion in public places. Both are equal dangers to religious freedom.

If you’re an atheist then why do you care if other people believe in a god or any great being? Does this offend you somehow? You don’t have to believe what others believe. And who are you to tell others when they can express their beliefs.

YES!! Finally someone who has rational sense in this GODforsaken thread ... can't anyone see, the whole "religious freedom" doesn't mean that we should change the pledge! All it means is that we have the God-given freedom to live as Christians! You atheists are all damn hypocrites ... saying that the gorvernment shouldn't say anything about any religion at all because you think that it's "unfair" ... but then you say that the government isn't free to be a Christian theocracy .... wtf? :mad:
alot fo teh ppolation wil b on ur back!!


Yay for atheist-bashing! I love Jesus! :D

The last part makes me think that this was either parody or sheer idiocy, but I will respond as though you were serious.

Let's make something entirely clear. It isn't just atheists, or even the non-religious who want the establishment clause to be upheld properly.

This brings up an interesting point, the meaning of the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So it follows that a theocratic government (one ruled by religious principle, not by religious people; there's a big, highly important, difference there.) violates the free exercise part of the law.

The first part states that government cannot establish religion either. That means that "Under God", which clearly establishes government support of religion, is a violation of the constitution.

Moreso, it is an immoral attempt by evangelical "christians" to force their beleifs to be accepted by those who do not. Now, I freely admit to my agnosticism (albeit with a mild bias towards atheist beleif), and I realize this will cause my opinion to diminish in your eyes.

I can assure you that the God of my parents, the God of my many religious friends, and the God of the many good christians worldwide is not the God of the evangelicals, who is so crudely mentioned in the pledge, although they share a name. And they too have every reason to resent his naming.

I'm resisiting the urge to end this with "Yay for fundamentalist bashing! I love reality!" So I won't... But consider the disgusted sentiment expressed.

I'm certainly glad this has finally been brought out into the open. The anti-Christian bias in our society has reached absurd proportions. Consider:

1. During the 1988 election campaign, George Bush said that Christians should not be considered patriots or real American citizens.

2. Bill Clinton steadfastly refuses to give any speeches at local churches.

3. Both major political parties are dominated by anti-Christians. The Republican party, for example, gave us such hard-core atheists as Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, Phyllis Schlafly and Ronald Reagan. And the Democrats have given us such personalities as the Rev. Martin Luther King and the Rev. Jesse Jackson-- both noted for their vicious attacks on all forms of Christianity.

4. Let's talk about the media. On Sunday mornings, nearly all major television channels broadcast pro-atheist shows; it is nearly impossible to find religious programming during that time period. Further, Madalyn Murray O'Hair has her own cable TV channel, while Pat Robertson has been unable to obtain one for himself.

5. Most major newspapers run a special weekly section devoted to atheism. There are no equivalent sections for religious news.

6. Anti-Christian shows such as the American Atheist Forum are broadcast by major national networks. Meanwhile, Billy Graham is only able to get on the air through public access TV, which is watched by few people.

7. On news programs and "reality" TV shows such as Rescue 911, nobody is ever shown giving thanks to God after surviving a disaster.

8. It is almost impossible to find a shopping mall with a Christian Armory book store, while Atheist Book Centers are featured prominently on every corner.

9. While atheists couples who marry rarely have any difficulty finding a place to do so, it is nearly impossible for Christian couples to find a church where they can marry.

10. For that matter, churches themselves are extremely rare, while atheist meeting centers can be found every few blocks.

11. Recently, several atheists have shot and killed Christian priests as they were going to work in their churches. Similarly, atheists are well known for blockading churches on Sunday mornings.

12. Nearly all of our elected public officials are atheists; they even have to swear on a copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in order to take office.

13. In a similar vein, jurors must take an oath upon a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer before they can serve. There have even been court cases thrown out because one of the jury members was a Christian who insisted on swearing on a Bible.

14. And of course, people are free to wear pentagram jewelry, but those trying to wear cross-shaped earrings or pendants to work will be politely told to remove the jewelry or lose their job.

15. Speaking of the workplace, Christians often find it nearly impossible to get time off work for religious holidays such as Christmas.

16. Even our language reflects the radical anti-Christian bias that pervades our society. For example, when somebody sneezes, most people say "Darwin bless you". Similarly, "Voltaire dammit!" is a common cussword.

17. All of our money has the atheistic slogan "We do not trust in God" printed on it. (Contributed by Mike Hurben, <hurben@lamar.ColoState.EDU>.)

18. In school, our children are made to recite the pledge, "One nation, anti-God, indivisible...." (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)

19. One cannot rent a hotel room without finding a copy of Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ in the room. (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)

20. Organizations such as the Boy Scouts deny membership to Christians. (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)

21. In the military, it is nearly impossible to obtain Conscientious Objector status for religious reasons, even though those with philosophical reasons can obtain C.O. status relatively easily. (Contributed anonymously.)

22. Christian churches are forced to pay exorbitant taxes. (Contributed by Rick Gillespie, <rwg@abbyroad.fc.hp.com>.)

23. You can't drive anywhere without seeing a Darwin fish or a "Jesus Was A Fraud" bumper sticker stuck to a car. (Contributed by Rick Gillespie.)

24. Georgia recently passed a new law requiring schools to have a "moment of noise" during which children are encouraged to degrade Christianity. (Contributed by Rick Gillespie.)

25. College campuses usually have dozens of atheist organizations, but few if any for Christians. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom, <maanstro@iastate.edu>.)

26. There are several well-known atheist campus preachers who lecture on college campuses on the virtues of atheism. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)

27. Also common on college campuses are groups of students handing out copies of Betrand Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian"; some even force people who don't want these books to take them. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)

28. Campus newspapers often print editorials extolling the virtues of atheism. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)

29. People look at you funny and wonder if there's something wrong upstairs if you admit to being a Christian in public. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)

30. Many Christians are afraid to admit their Christianity to their parents and friends, for fear their kin will consider them immoral Christian scum and want nothing to do with them. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)

31. At presidential inauguration ceremonies, Madalyn Murray-O'Hair (that well-known friend of several presidents) gives a short pro-atheism speech. (Contributed by Matt Barry, <mbarry@u.washington.edu>.)

32. For decades, high school and college commencement ceremonies have included brief speeches at the beginning and end of the ceremony in which atheism is praised and Christians deemed irrational. Christians who object to the practice, or who ask for an opening prayer instead, are regarded as cranks at best and subversives at worst. (Contributed by Matt Barry.)

33. Not only do commencement ceremonies feature pro-atheist speeches, there's usually an entire two-hour ceremony the day before graduation dedicated to upholding the atheist foundation of our educational system. (Contributed by Jed Hartman, <logos@cathay.esd.sgi.com>.)

34. "There are no Christians in foxholes" is a popular slogan in our society.

35. Most hospitals are full of atheist symbols, and many prominently feature statues of Nietszche, Darwin, and so forth. (Contributed by Bill Pursell, <pursell@mathfs.math.montana.edu>).

36. Communities set up atheist brainwashing facilities, and apply social pressure to citizens to report to these facilities every Sunday morning. Furthermore, attendees are expected to contribute money to support these facilities, and to build others through "outreach" programs. (Contributed by "me", <silly@blend.ugcs.caltech.edu>.)

37. Most parents in America indoctrinate their children at an early age to be atheists by forcing them to attend these brainwashing sessions, whether they want to or not. (Contributed by "me".)

38. While atheists hold huge rallies in 25,000-seat amphitheatres, Christians are so few in number that they can only dream of holding such rallies. (Contributed by Payton Chung, <pchung@unity.ncsu.edu>.)

39. At baseball games, you can often spot people carrying signs that read "Origin Of Species, page 34".

40. Hospital waiting rooms usually come equipped with children's copies of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time", complete with order forms so that parents can send off for their own copy. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

41. Atheist magazines such as "Atheism Today", "Today's Atheist Woman", "Atheist Homeschooler", "The Atheist Century", "Atheist Ministry", "The Atheist Archeological Review", "Atheist Parenting Today" and "The Atheist Science Monitor" are featured prominently in newsstands across the country. (Contributed by Payton Chung. Additional magazine names contributed by Dave Chapman, <chapman@ims.com>.)

42. The Fellowship of Atheist Athletes has local chapters on college campuses throughout America. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

43. According to recent Gallup polls, approximately 86% of Americans do not believe in God. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

44. Politicians often refer to America's "Agnosto-Atheist heritage" when trying to woo voters. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

45. Atheists are beginning to subvert the American political process. For example, the American Atheists recently published over thirty million voter's guides for distribution at atheist meeting-houses. These guides gave specific instructions note to vote for those who oppose atheist values. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

46. It's easy to buy checks with quotes from Thomas Paine, but almost impossible to buy checks with Bible verses on them. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

47. Businesses often refuse to admit that they are Christian owned and operated, for fear of being boycotted by their atheist customers. Meanwhile, atheist-owned businesses often feature Darwin-fish logos in their ads. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

48. There are large networks of atheistic private schools in America, while it's nearly impossible to find a private Catholic school. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

49. It's difficult to find people with good Christian names like John or Paul or Christopher. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

50. Most gravestones in America are engraved with pentagrams; those few graves which are engraved with crosses usually end up being vandalized. (Contributed by Payton Chung.)

51. Atheists have often invented "deathbed deconversion" stories about famous Christians, claiming they became atheists just before they died.

52. Around the time of Darwin's birthday, Christians have to put up with songs about Darwin, which are played in shopping malls, restaurants, and even public restrooms. (Contributed by Dave Chapman, <chapman@ims.com>.)

53. We number our calendar years according to the number of years that have passed since Darwin's brithday. (Hence the term "A.D"-- "After Darwin".) (Contributed by Jeff Lowder, <jlowder@infidels.org>.)

54. Christian gatherings and funerals are often disrupted by atheists shouting slurs and holding signs that read, "Nature hates Christians." (Contributed by David Gellman, <dgellman@coho.halcyon.com>.)

55. Books which promote Christianity are often removed from library shelves in response to atheist pressure groups. (Contributed by David Gellman.)

56. A popular bumper sticker reads, "No Jesus, Know Peace. Know Jesus, No Peace." (Contributed by Stephanie Anderson, <ska@gas.uug.arizona.edu>.)

57. Insurance companies refer to natural disasters as "Acts of Darwin". (Contributed by Yellgnats P. Fiddlestein, <dentar@infinet.net>.)

58. Forms for job applications, government aid and so forth often ask what type of atheist you are, with checkboxes for "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist" and so forth. If you are a Christian, the only thing you can do is check the "other" box-- if one is provided. (Contributed by Yellgnats P. Fiddlestein.)

59. Sports teams often read from the Humanist Manifesto prior to the game, in the hopes that doing so will increase their chances of winning. (Contributed by Yellgnats P. Fiddlestein.)

60. Atheists constantly threaten television and movies producers with boycotts whenever they portray Christianity in a positive light. (Contributed by Yellgnats P. Fiddlestein.)

61. Atheists often hold bonfires at atheist meeting centers, where Christian literature can be thrown into the fire. (Contributed by Yellgnats P. Fiddlestein.)

62. Gambling is freely legalized for secular purposes, yet churches have to have their bingo halls in Las Vegas, Atlantic City or on Indian reservations. (Contributed by Clive Feckus, <yfcprod@localnet.com>.)

63. Baseball games and the like have "The Star-Spangled Banner" sung by hard-rock groups bellowing out lyrics such as, "Foolish god-crazed slaves (whip crack)/At the altar of Rock and Roll you'll kneel!" and the singers will encourage any Christians in the stands to get eaten by lions held ready on the playing field. (Contributed by Tatiana Covington, <tatiana@gas.uug.arizona.edu>.)

64. New military officers are expected to say "God does not exist" at the end of their commissioning oath. (Contributed by Jeff Lowder.)

65. It easy to support atheistic charities like, "Atheist Children's Fund", "Agnostics Against AIDS", etc., but virtually impossible to support important causes through *Christian* organizations. (Contributed by Jeff Lowder.)

66. Well-known atheists like Michael Martin and Quentin Smith have set up ministries to witness to Christians, but it is virtually impossible to find Christians who specialize in debating atheists. (Contributed by Jeff Lowder.)

67. Congress starts each session with selected excerpts from Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Each house of Congress also has its own "Atheist Chaplain". No Christian prayers are ever made in Congress and no Christian chaplains are available. (Contributed by Jeff Lowder.)

68. The word "Christian" is recognized as a term which represents the worst of human attributes: cynicism, pessimism, selfishness, and moral turpitude. The word "Atheist," on the other hand, is used to signify all that is virtuous, as in, "That's mighty Atheist of you!" (Contributed by Chad Docterman, <DOCTERM1@MARSHALL.EDU>.)

69. On sitcoms and movies of the week, the parents make references to how their lack of faith in God helps them get through life's troubles. Meanwhile, Christians are protrayed as pathetic folks who end up converting to atheism. (Contributed by Tara Powers, <tap@cs.umb.edu>.)

70. Many American cities are named after noted atheist figures; for example, there is Corpus Darwini, Texas and San Voltaire, California. (Contributed by Scott Bigham, <dsb@cs.duke.edu>.)

71. Historically, most private colleges and universities in the US were founded by atheists; while some have become religious over the years, many of them retain close ties with atheist organizations, and some of them still use hiring practices that exclude Christians from their faculty and staff. (And this discrimination against Christians is permitted and protected by law!) (Contributed by Scott Forschler, <forschler@butler.edu>.)

72. Atheists who convert to christianity are often told by their parents "It's just a rebellious phase. Once you move through this stage of life you'll realize that you never really believed in God." Similarly, people who are raised as Christians are condesended to, and told that if they would give atheism a chance, it would fill the empty hole that Chistianity must be leaving in their lives. (Contributed by Carla Schack, <cschack@emerald.tufts.edu>.)

73. When celebrities or musicians accept awards during one of the many awards programs, they often end their list of "thank-yous" with a humble acknowledgment to Darwin for their "evolution-given talents". (Contributed by John Caballero, <ediblened@mail.utexas.edu>.)

74. During the 1996 election campaign, Pat Buchanan declared that creationism should not be taught in public schools. "We need a president who will commit himself to restoring secular humanist values and driving out the false god of the Christians," he said. (Contributed by Jeff Lowder.)

75. Atheists regularly go door-to-door on Sunday mornings asking people not to go to church with them. (Contributed by CJP.)

76. Atheist cults are masters at luring lonely, young, disenfranchised people into their rational cults to brainwash them with reason so that they will give their lives and all worldly possessions to the Atheist leaders. (Contributed by CJP.)

77. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other Christian groups are banned (by Atheist-initiated zoning laws) from passing out literature from door to door. (Contributed by CJP.)

78. People who don't decorate their homes with images of the sun during the Winter Solstice season, are assumed to be irrational Christians in need of rational therapy and conversion. (Contributed by CJP.)

79. Even Atheist businesses hate the Winter Solstice season because people are encouraged to be rational and reasonable, thus encouraging our population to avoid senseless spending and debt and needless possession of material goods. (Contributed by CJP.)

80. In general, Christians are considered to be less-than-honest. If you are a Christian, you must have no reason or rational judgment; therefore, you cannot be trusted to tell the truth. (Contributed by CJP.)

81. Prisoners have become wise to the fact that they may receive early paroles if they claim to have found Atheism and been saved by Darwin. Such a conversion to rationality is thought to be a favorable sign of the rejection of a life of crime. (Contributed by CJP.)

82. Humanist hate group members shave their heads and run around painting red H's on the doors of churches to intimidate Christians. (Contributed by CJP.)

83. The Humanist Left and the Immoral Majority influence voting patterns in the Humanist Manifesto Belt states. (Contributed by CJP.)

84. The government declared an official holiday in November to give thanks to fellow humans for the hard work and labor of our agricultural workers who provide the plentiful food resources we have in the U.S. (Contributed by CJP.)

85. Atheist leaders of many sects bring in millions of dollars each week from TV and telephone solicitation and weekly meeting collections, enough to support at least one Atheist meeting hall in nearly every community in the country, while Christian groups barely have enough money to support a half-dozen national groups. (Contributed by CJP.)

86. Most people assume everyone else is an Atheist and are unbelievers as they are. It makes for uncomfortable social situations for Christians and other religious types. (Contributed by CJP.)

87. When one looks up "religion" or Christianity" in books of collected quotations, 99% of the quotes chosen for publication are negative while atheist or agnostic topics are filled with positive quotations. (Contributed by CJP.)

88. Bookstores have entire sections filled with Atheist literature while "spiritual" and 'religious" books are almost impossible to find, except through specialized distributors. (Contributed by CJP.)

89. Despite the overwhelming number of Atheists in the general population and in powerful legislative positions, when they don't get their own way, Atheists whine that this is an anti-Atheistic country. (Contributed by CJP.)

90. Atheists constantly cite, out of context, books of philosophy by noted Atheists to prove that Christians live irrational lives. (Contributed by CJP.)

91. Atheists do everything possible to get laws passed that will prevent irrational Christians from making their own choices in matters of sex, procreation, life-styles, family units, etc. (Contributed by CJP.)

92. Until recently, Atheists had passed laws (known as Green Laws) that require all businesses to stay open on Sundays, preventing Christians who wished to practice their religious beliefs to work, just like everyone else. (Contributed by CJP.)

93. Sci-fi movies almost always make rational scientific types into "good guys" while emotional, irrational people become the "heavies". (Contributed by CJP.)

94. Movies that featured myths of silly miracles (like the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection of Jesus or other Biblical tales) never made any money. Most big movie studios rejected all proposals to make such ridiculous stories into films. However, "The Humanist Manifesto", 1956, was one of Cecil B. DeMille's blockbusters. (Contributed by CJP.)

95. In small towns and communities all over the U.S. Atheist horns awake Christians at midnight on Saturdays preventing them from getting a good night's sleep before their Sabbath. Fortunately for much of the population, few church bells wake Atheists who want to sleep in on Sundays. (Contributed by CJP.)

96. At every banquet, no matter the occasion, an Atheist propagandist gets up and thanks Madalyn Murray O'Hair for her wisdom and insight in educating us rational beings so that we can provide the food that we are about to eat. The presence of non-Atheists is not even acknowledged. No consideration is given to those who might find such a practice offensive. (Contributed by CJP.)

97. Schools across the country force students to sing songs such as "Jesus Is Not the Son of God" during the Winter Solstice season. They rationalize this infringement on minority rights of religious freedom by claiming the songs are part of our collective culture. (Contributed by CJP.)

98. During the Solstice season, Atheist Army members in uniforms block entrances to stores ringing annoying bells and requesting donations to save non-Atheists from their pathetic irrational lives. (Contributed by CJP.)

99. Atheist Army (and other Freethought) soup kitchens force homeless Christians to listen to Atheist propaganda before serving them a meal. (Contributed by CJP.)

100. Hundreds of self-help groups replace codependence with the 12 Steps of A.B.A. (Atheist Brainwashing Anonymous), convincing people they don't have the power to help themselves but must rely on the power of Darwin to overcome addiction. (Contributed by CJP.)

101. U.S. Atheist organizations send missionaries to underdeveloped countries to convince people to renounce long-held local religious beliefs and become Atheists. (Contributed by CJP.)

102. On Solstice Eve, there is nothing to watch on TV except Atheist rituals from Stonehenge. (Contributed by CJP.)

103. During the Solstice Season, nearly every network airs reruns (ad nauseum) of "It's A Rational Life", "Reason on 34th Street", "A Solstice Story", "The Stupidest Story Ever Told", and other Atheist favorites. Christian programming cannot be found. (Contributed by CJP.)

104. Christian employees have to use personal days or sick leave to stay at home to celebrate their holidays while everyone gets the day off for Winter Solstice and the birthdays of Charles Darwin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. All major Atheist celebrations have been declared National Holidays with all government offices remaining closed on those days. (Contributed by CJP.)

105. All Rational People's Day, the 1st of November, is a holiday at Atheist private schools. It's a day to celebrate Voltaire, Edison, Russell, Asimov, O'Hair, and other Atheist leaders and philosphers for their rational and logical thoughts. (Contributed by CJP.)

106. Ronald Reagan denounced the Vatican as the "Heavenly Empire" because of its official status as a theocracy. (Contributed by CJP.)

107. When someone is pathetic enough to admit to being a Christian, friends respond by saying things like, "No you're not. You just think you are." (Contributed by CJP.)

108. Images of Lazarus Long, a fictional character in Robert Heinlein books, are frequently pretended to be seen by Atheists in paint stains, in the spots of cows, in tree bark, etc., causing large groups of people to make pilgrimages to those locations to confirm their lack of belief in the supernatural. These stories are given national news coverage to promote the status quo. (Contributed by CJP.)

109. Christians are unfairly scrutinized for wearing t-shirts that say things such as "God's Gym" or "Resurrection Day", whereas atheists can proudly and without any protest wear their "Reasons Beer is Better than Jesus" or Darwin fish t-shirts. (Contributed by Patty Lathan <pal4885@tamaix.tamu.edu>.)

110. Christians are constantly questioned as to where their morals come from. People always wonder why they have a reason to live, if god is the only thing they live for. Atheists, on the other hand, are praised for their high moral standards, and it is acknowledged that they don't need a reason to live--just "being" is enough. (Contributed by Patty Lathan.)

111. Professors are encouraged to tell the class that they are atheists during the first class period of the semester, since this conveys to the students that they sincerely care about their progress in the class, and about the student as a person. Christian professors would get ostracized for doing this; students would complain and the professor would be told to keep his beliefs to himself. (Contributed by Patty Lathan.)

112. Atheists offen try to scare Christians into disbelief by yelling that after they die they will be sent to the earth's firey core and tormented by Nietzsche for eternity. (Contributed by Captain Tripps <rexerm@umich.edu>.)

113. Each year, the U.S. Post Office is nearly brought to its knees as both devout and "cultural" Atheists celebrate Lucretius' birth by sending each other anti-religious cards and illuminated copies of De Rerum Natura. (Contributed by <BPGriffin@aol.com>.)

114. Atheists from Salt Lake City collect lists of dead people, so that they can be baptised posthumously as Atheists. (Contributed by Steven Carr <carrs@dial.pipex.com>.)

115. Atheists take sick people to doctors so that they can be 'cured', instead of sitting them in front of TV healing shows. Many of these so-called 'doctors' have no ministerial qualifications!. (Contributed by Steven Carr.)

116. Atheists have a superstitious dread of the number 13, because Darwin once invited 12 of his friends to supper. In fact, Atheists have such a strong superstition about certain numbers that road signs and house numbers and company logos have to be changed to avoid upsetting them. (Contributed by Steven Carr.)

117. NBC has shows that promote reason and skepticism in the face of Biblical prophecy or lone pseudoscientists while shows that promote irrational beliefs are on PBS and never reach as many people. (Contributed by The Mighty Timm <mutjl2@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>.)

118. Noted atheists own "The Family Channel" and show programming that they find appropriate for other atheists. (Contributed by The Mighty Timm.)

119. The shows "Ignored by an Angel" and "Ultimately Illusory Highway to Heaven" are getting more and more viewers every week. (Contributed by The Mighty Timm.)

120. Each year, the President lights the National Solstice Tree. (Contributed by Brian Helfrich <brianh2@chelsea.ios.com>.)

121. There is an entire genre of music known as "Contemporary Atheist Music." The notion of "Christian music" is unheard of. (Contributed by Jeff Lowder.)

122. Most radio markets have at least one Atheist radio station. There are no Christian radio stations anywhere. (Contributed by Jeff Lowder.)

123. Judges justify abortion based on evolutionary theory and Nietzche, instead of the Bible. (Contributed by Arturo Magidin <magidin@math.berkeley.edu>.)

124. Judges often give long speeches on atheistic morality and use them as a basis for strange or lenient sentences. (Contributed by Arturo Magidin.)

125. All prisons have a resident atheist philosopher, and inmates are encouraged to participate in weekly philophical dicussions on Bible Contradictions. This is often reported to parole board, who consider it a good indication of contritenes on the prisoner's part. (Contributed by Arturo Magidin.)

126. Atheists tend to call homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals criminals against nature while Christians accept them the way God made them. Moreover, while a few "liberal" atheist organizations do not make heterosexuality a requirement for membership, most atheist organizations strictly condemn such behavior and have used their massive political influence to criminalize same-sex marriages. (Contributed by the Mighty Timm and Jeff Lowder.)

127. School children who profess their Christianity are routinely held up to ridicule and harrassment by the students and teachers who make up the atheist majority in both public and private schools. (Contributed by George A Ricker <gricker@iu.net>.)

128. Relatively inoffensive movies, which might otherwise be rated G or PG, are likely to be rated PG-13 or R if they contain excessive religious content. (Contributed by Susan Mitchell <susanm@indirect.com>.)

129. According to comedian George Carlin, the "seven holy words" that cannot be broadcast on television are "God," "Jesus," "Christ," "bless," "heaven," "salvation," and "soul." (Contributed by Susan Mitchell.)

130. Congress has recently passed legislation requiring television manufacturers to install a so-called "H-chip," which enables viewers to automatically censor out any program containing excessive holiness. (Contributed by Susan Mitchell.)

131. Another bill recently signed by President Clinton includes the notorious "Communications Indecency Act," which will severely restrict the free speech rights of persons wishing to use Christian or other religious language or images on Usenet, Web pages, or even local bulletin boards. (Contributed by Susan Mitchell.)

132. A political candidate who declares himself a Christian will have far less chance of winning an election than one who flaunts his atheism. (Contributed by Alex Matulich.)

133. Former president Franklin Roosevelt always reminded his speech writers to put "some of that anti-god stuff"in his speeches." (Contributed by Gaetan Iavicoli <giav@CAM.ORG>.)

134. Because many forms of Christianity oppose homosexuality, the Atheist Left has installed rules allowing members of the armed services to lose their jobs simply because they have admitted to being heterosexuals. And, of course, heterosexual marriages are completely prohibited. (Contributed by Brett Pasternack <brett@cjbbs.com>.)

135. Every year in November, the President issues a proclamation for a national day of Thanksgiving, calling on Americans to spend the day thanking their parents for creating them and for all that they have done for them. No mention is ever made of the role of God in creating people, helping them acheive happiness, or keeping the country secure. (The proclamation is usually issued a few weeks before the ceremonial planting of the White House Solstice Tree.) (Contributed by Brett Pasternack.)

136. Similarly, after a major disaster the President usually calls for an official day of action; never is prayer suggested. (Contributed by Brett Pasternack.)

137. The President usually ends every speech with the words, "Let's all help America, since there is no God to do things for us." (Contributed by Brett Pasternack.)

138. Whenever an atheist commits a crime, invariably people will argue that this is not a sign that teaching atheism might not guarantee a better society, because anyone who would act that way "isn't a true atheist." (Contributed bt Brett Pasternack.)

139. Bill Bennett compiles a long list of questionable statistics about increasing social ills in American society, and alleges that the increase is due to the "disasterous social experiment" that has abandoned our Agnosto-Athestic heritage in favor of Christianity. Likewise, when he publishes a thick, pompous volume of other people's work entitled "The Book of Reason", the media (notably Time magazine) swoons in rapture and the book becomes a best seller (but rarely read by the children it's bought for, as they are not so easily indoctrinated as their Atheist parents hope). (Contributed by Linus Niksa <lglasttn@aol.com>.)

140. Hordes of angry scientists picketed the movie "Young Einstein", claiming that it depicted Einstein completely wrong, but no one cared enough to demonstrate against "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ". "Young Einstein" is still so controversial that it is difficult to find in the large video chains. (Contributed by Thomas Foote <tfoote@vlsi9.gsfc.nasa.gov>.)

141. "I don't need a co-pilot" is a popular bumper sticker. (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

142. Encyclopedia entries on Christianity are usually written by Atheists. (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

143. Every time a football team wins a game, the coach thanks his players for playing such a spectacular game. Every time a football team loses a game, the coach says, "Well, we would have won, but Jesus wouldn't let us." (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

144. Bookstores usually carry twenty or thirty versions of the Humanist Manifesto: The Children's HM, The Study HM, The Daily Advice HM, The Murray O'Hair Version HM, The Murray O'Hair Revised Version HM, The Complete HM, The Large Print HM, The Young Couple's Guide HM, The Living HM, The Family Reference HM, etc... The Christian Bible only has one version, and it's hard to find. (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

145. The Atheist Left labels itself "pro-responsibility" and "people of reason", implying that Christians are "anti-responsibility" and "people without reason". (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

146. "Godfull Christian" is a popular, if redundant, insult. (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

147. The phrase "Darwin devolve" was considered so indecent that for a long time it was not allowed to be broadcast on television or radio, even though both words originated from "The Origin of the Species". (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

148. Many Christians routinely use "Darwin devolve" as an expression of anger or disappointment even though they don't believe in Darwin. They have only picked up the phrase from their culture. Still, some Fundimentalist Atheists use this behavior as so-called "evidence" that all people are born believing in Darwin naturally. (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

149. "Christian" is often misspelled as "Christain". (Contributed by Thomas Foote.)

150. One often sees bumper stickers like, "Thomas Paine said it, I believe it, that settles it," but seldom sees Christian bumper stickers.

151. Numerous books and talk shows deal with the Near Death Experience and the phenomena are remarkably similar. The person enters a long dark tunnel, its pitch black and nobody is there!! (Contributed by Eolai <Eolai@halcyon.com>.)

152. Judges often rule in favor of the Atheist at a custody hearing, because Reason and Freethought are considered virtues, where belief in God makes you an unfit parent. (Contributed by Russel Miranda <amigaman@bitsy.hollyfeld.org>.)

153. Atheist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a speech given at an atheist non-prayer breakfast, declared that Christians are irrational for believing in miracles and the resurrection of Jesus. Scalia also complained that atheists are wrongly deemed "simple-minded" by the "worldly-wise." (Contributed by Matt Barry.)

154. Famous atheist Madalyn Murray-O'Hair was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, America's highest civilian award, for her decades-long devotion to atheism and the separation of church and state. The Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, and the Vice President were on hand at the ceremony, which occurred on the National Day of Non-Prayer. The Congressional resolution noted Murray-O'Hair's "outstanding and lasting contributions to morality, racial equality, family, philanthropy, and atheism." In her acceptance speech, Murray-O'Hair called on all Americans to cleanse themselves of irrational religion and commit their lives to atheism. The Christian evangelist Billy Graham, of course, has never won this award and never will. (Contributed by Matt Barry.)

155. Every summer, millions of children attend vacation bible-contradiction school. (Contributed by Jim Doherty <jdoherty@nando.net>.)

156. The sale of religious items is banned on sunday, which is considered a day of rational thought. Beer and wine can be purchased at anytime. (Conitributed by Jim Doherty.)

157. The southern states are often refered to as the atheist belt. (Contributed by Jim Doherty.)

158. Atheistic vandals frequently spraypaint such slogans as "Darwin Saves" and "Try O'Hair" on road signs and highway overpasses. No Christian would EVER think of painting "Try Jesus" on a bridge abutment, however. (Contributed by Michael A. Dexter <dextema5@wfu.edu>.)

159. A christian debater who cites divine mysteries to support his point is booed off the stage. Meanwhile, any atheist who contradicts with logical reason is applauded, and well known atheists like Pat Buchannan gives speeches praising their "disbelief in god." (Contributed by Ensrifraff@aol.com.)

160. Pat Buchannan said, in one speech, "our culture is superior because we have no religion." (Contributed by Ensrifraff@aol.com.)

161. Anyone who opposes any plan to impose atheism on citizens is bombarded by hate mail and death threats, some of which are carried out. (Contributed by Ensrifraff@aol.com.)

162. There are several incidents of groups of atheist teens beating on lone heterosexuals, and the police do nothing. They are known as "straight-bashings."" (Contributed by Ensrifraff@aol.com.)

163. The Atheist Coalition and Immoral Minority currently have a tight grip on the balls of the democratic party. (Contributed by Ensrifraff@aol.com.)

164. When children are born, the parents are considered evil if they do not splash its face in kool aid to verify its atheism. (Contributed by Ensrifraff@aol.com.)

165. Atheist organizations are given tax-free status that allows them to invest billions in non-Atheist interests, such as real estate, entertainment, utilities - and all these items come under the same tax-free status. (Contributed by gss@earthlink.net.)

166. For some odd reason, nobody teaches the uplifting, positive and affirming concept of "Original Sin" to our children in order to help them develop self assured and guilt free. (Contributed by Phil and Deena Shapiro <pshapiro@ix.netcom.com>)

167. My in-laws were thrilled when they learned that I was an atheist, and couldn't wait for me to marry their daughter. (Contributed by Phil and Deena Shapiro)

168. For years people in places like Ireland and the Middle East have been killing each other over the difference between Atheism and Humanism. (Contributed by Phil and Deena Shapiro.)

169. There are so few Christian websites while there are nearly 5000 Atheist websites. (Contributed by Doug Ittner <fsddi1@aurora.alaska.edu>.)

170. A prominent Atheist leader got his appendix removed and it received worldwide attention. The founder of American Christians (known as the most hated woman in America) is missing for over a year and the media hardly talks about it. (Contributed by Doug Ittner.)

171. It is much easier to adopt a child if the prospective parents assert they are not Christians. (Contributed by David Rice <shy.david@edenbbs.com>.)

172. People look at one oddly when one says ones' lack of belief in Jesus as a son of god is True, while everyone else's lack of belief in Jesus as a son of God is False. (Contributed by David Rice.)

173. Stealth evolutionists infiltrate churches to subvert sermons with evolutionary theory; there has never been any stealth Creationists who have taken over public school boards and inflicted Creationism upon its students. (Contributed by David Rice.)

174. From Samhain to almost a week past Solstice we are inundated by Athiest hymns in the stores. (Contributed by Kevin Reed <wagstaff@csulb.edu>.)

175. In every high school christain children are told not to where there pro-Christian t-shirts. (Contributed by Peggy A Montogmery <Pmont@ix.netcom.com>.)

176. Anything that a Christian says cannot be trusted. (Contributed by Peggy A Montgomery.)

177. Libraries across the country have books banned for their Christian influences. (Contributed by Peggy A Montgomery.)

178. No U.S. president has ever been a Christian. In fact, every U.S. president other than Kennedy was a card-carrying Atheist. (Kennedy was a Secular Humanist instead, and didn't believe in carrying cards.) (Contributed by Roger M Wilcox <rogermw@ix.netcom.com>.)

179. On game shows with trivia categories, whenever the category is "religion", the questions are almost always about religions other than Christianity. Icons used to display the "religion" category to the viewers at home never have pictures of crosses in them. (Contributed by Roger M Wilcox.)

180. If a charitable foundation is challenged in court, it is much easier to defend its charitable purpose if the foundation was established for non-religious purposes. Quoting a few passages from _Atheism: The Case Against God_ in its Mission Statement will usually do the trick. (Contributed by Roger M. Wilcox.)

181. Christians who are interested in striking down the I.R.S. as unconstitutional have a very difficult time finding like-minded Christians. Atheistic organizations devoted to "Sovereignty" or "Patriotism", however, are all over the place. (Contributed by Roger M. Wilcox.)

182. Governors have vetoed bills concerning natural disasters which did NOT refer to them as "acts of God", suggesting that God is responsible for the occurrence of natural disasters. (Contributed by Jeffery Jay Lowder.)

183. When the interjection "By Jove!" is spoken, hordes of angry non-Christians howl about dissolute believers using Jove's name in vain. Similary, "Go to Tartarus!" is a common vulgarity.

"Jesus - the Legendary Resurrections" is a popular T V show starring Kevin Sorbo, an ardent atheist. (Contributed by Matt Strayer <mxs362@email.psu.edu>)

184. "Jesus - the Legendary Resurrections" is a popular T V show starring Kevin Sorbo, an ardent atheist. (Contributed by Matt Strayer <mxs362@email.psu.edu>)

185. Seven states in the US -- Massachusetts, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island -- have blasphemy laws which make culpable those who revile secular humanists and/or Darwin. (Contributed by Matt Strayer <mxs362@email.psu.edu>)

186. Many jurisdictions are passing or dusting off laws which force Christians to fornicate. Christians who choose to abstain until marriage are not only jailed but excoriated as contributing to the degradation of America's humano-atheist heritage. (Contributed by Matt Strayer <mxs362@email.psu.edu>)

187. When NBC shows programs about the paranormal, one hears an average of three sentences from pro-paranormal experts even though NBC's reporters may have interviewed these experts for hours. Comments from skeptics dominate the telecast. (Contributed by Matt Strayer <mxs362@email.psu.edu>)

188. On paranormal television shows, Christians and parapsychologists are almost always portrayed as closed-minded and ornery. Their ace material is almost always left out of the broadcast. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

189. Many residents have statues of Pallas Athene, Zeus, Ch arles Darwin, Bertrand Russel, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, James Randi, Carl Sagan, Voltaire, Democritus, Thomas Paine, and Issac Asimov in their yards. If a Christian dares to put a statue of the Virgin Mary or St. Joseph in their yard, offen ded and irate neighbors immediately demand its removal. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

190. A common bumper sticker is "Real men hate Jesus." (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

191. NBC often runs programs debunking the resurrection of Jesus, Therapeutic Touch, the power of prayer, the shroud of Turin, psy chic police, alien abductions, ancient prophesy, and delphic doomsday predictions. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

192. Last Soltice season, a throng of nonbelievers and curious folk flocked to the Seminole Finance Corporation building in Tampa Bay, Florida to witness apparitions whic h beared a striking resemblance to Homo habilus, an evolutionary link between apes and humans. The media payed no attention to similar Christian apparitions. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

193. The national anthem of Great Britain is "Save the Queen from God." (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

194. Greek creationists, who believe the ancient story of the creation of man by Prometheus, have demanded that the teaching of Genesis be stopped in Christian fundamentalist schools. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

195. During the eighteenth century, supertitious humanist leaders d erided Benjamin Frankin's explanation of lightning and invention of the lightning rod as heretical. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

196. The top selling book in all of history is the Humanist Manifesto. Atheist apologists use this fallacious reasoning (the fact the HM is the top selling book) as proof of the non-existence of gods to immoral Christians. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

197. Atheist fundamentalists fervently object to Halloween for its promotion of belief in devils, witches, magic, and other claptrap. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

198. Jimmy Carter recently published a be st-selling book titled Religion: Destroying the Truth. Similarly, Robert Bork has written a best-selling book called America: Slouching Toward the New Jerusalem, explaining the pernicious influence of Christians and moral conservatives on America. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

199. Nancy Reagan is famous for her promotion of "Religion: Just say no." Similarly, her husband Ronald frequently contributes articles debunking astrology to the Skeptical Inquirer. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

200. American history books always portray indigenous peoples, blacks, atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers in a pos itive light. Christians, if they are ever mentioned at all, are portrayed as ignorant, irrational, ineffectual, naïve, and savage. Christian children often go home crying because of these distorted historical accounts. (Contributed by Matt Strayer.)

This list only scratches the surface. It is high time that God-fearing Christians rose up and spoke out against the horrendous anti-Christian bias that has taken hold in America."

http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/lioaca.html

I agree on all except where you say that freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Care to explain? Because for the government to be truely neutral, you can't bar religious people or events from public grounds. That in itself would be uconstitutional. You can only bar the government from sponsoring religion or religious events. But private people are still free to use public grounds for their events. Especially if said grounds were used by other groups. If you mean freedom from being offended by a religion, well there is no such right in the constitution or else where.

Nobody should be required to pass a religious test.

That doesn't make sense?

This was many, many pages back, but...

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


"De-su" is not a Japanese word (at least not one used to represent God... it could be a lengthened, emphatic version of the polite copula, but that has nothing to do with God)... There is the word "deusu" which is a loanword coming from Latin "deus," but it's used only in Christian circles (Japan is less than 1% Christian), and rarely there. They also have the word Goddo from English, but that doesn't mean it's the best translation of the English "God." The more common word for a single or supreme deity would be kamisama (commonly) or just kami (in the Bible, I think... been a long time since I've looked at a Japanese Bible).

Pretty sure the French one is wrong too (dieu) and also the Korean one (hahnahnim?). Not sure though. But kinda curious where this list came from...

In any case, the point is not that God is a general English word for a supreme deity (see below!), but that part of the population doesn't believe in a supreme deity at all. "Majority rules" is very unamerican; minorities deserve protection too. Well, and the whole pledge is just the U.S. version of the 5 minutes' hate, as far as I'm concerned (I kinda covered this in an earlier post).

Anyway, learn to spell "atheist," people. "i before e except after c lol" is not a failsafe rule. caffiene, wierd, sceince, and foriegn are all wrong.

Oh, and is it just me, or can 90% of NationStates threads be summed up in their entirety like this?:
i like me some jesus and its a child not a choice! and evolution is just a theery
xians are dum am i rite guys? keep ur laws off my body lol! intelligent design roflmao!

has it ever occured to anyone that seperation of church and state appears nowhere in the constitution? True it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" But how does Under God show a respect towards a specific establishment of religion? "God" in that sense can be used as a generic god to refer to any deity that one wishes. the pledge isnt forcing you to be christian, nor is it forcing you to be any other religion. In fact, you can choose not to say it if you want, if that be your choice as being an athiest. If you want to say athiesm is a religion, then wouldnt the pledge then be supporting athiesm with a lack of God? or if you just think athiesm is a lack of religion, then why do you think you have the right to even have an opinion that has nothing to do with you in the first place?

THAT'S IT! I'm closing this thread...when I learn how to.

THAT'S IT! I'm closing this thread...when I learn how to.

Go to the moderation board and request it's closure. They tend to respond to the thread owners. Also, spell out why you would like it closed.....

Being non-religious (the 14% figure) does not automatically make you an athiest. You can be a christian or a muslim or whatever, and still be nonreligious.

Bullshit. Nonreligious consists of atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism. Because what most people consider atheism is actually antitheism, and what most people consider agnosticism is actually atheism, and secular humanism is by definition atheistic, I'm still correct.

has it ever occured to anyone that seperation of church and state appears nowhere in the constitution? True it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


The phrase was used by both Madison and Jefferson. The fact they both spoke of the seperation of church and states pretty well says what they intended. Especially Madison. You know what he did right? :p


But how does Under God show a respect towards a specific establishment of religion? "God" in that sense can be used as a generic god to refer to any deity that one wishes.

Usually if you ask people what they then when they hear people talking about God and they will pretty well say a Christian.

Some religions belive in multiple gods. Some don't have a god. Some don't belive in Religion.

It is an endorsement.

[b]the pledge isnt forcing you to be christian, nor is it forcing you to be any other religion. In fact, you can choose not to say it if you want, if that be your choice as being an athiest. If you want to say athiesm is a religion, then wouldnt the pledge then be supporting athiesm with a lack of God? or if you just think athiesm is a lack of religion, then why do you think you have the right to even have an opinion that has nothing to do with you in the first place?[/QUOTE]

Athiests aren't the only ones against it.

Under God doesn't force you to be Christian but it is an endorsement of Christianity or at the least religion.

Now the fact you hear that this is a Christian country and the fact many are against it's removal kind of suggests the motivation is an endorsement of Christianity.

Would people say keep it if it was "under Allah"

That doesn't make sense?
That's not the same as saying "freedom from religion" which usually means a ban on people practicing their religion in public places.

Bullshit. Nonreligious consists of atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism. Because what most people consider atheism is actually antitheism, and what most people consider agnosticism is actually atheism, and secular humanism is by definition atheistic, I'm still correct.
No. I am again calling bullshit. You don't have to be athiest to be nonreligious.

Locked, pending moderator review.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Zexaland
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!

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up.

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. BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*
Your post right here starts off as trolling, though luckily, a decent debate comes out of it...eventually.


New Mustangs Canada
Not like you could voice your views in a less offensive DUMBASS INTOLERANT IGNORNANT WAY.
You need to calm down, before you end up receiving a warning for flaming.

CthulhuFhtagn
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?!
I'm not fucking equating deism with fucking atheism. I'm saying that deism is not Christianity. Are you truly naive enough to believe that, if you aren't a Christian, you're an atheist?

Enough with the usage of the 'f' word. There really is no need in its excessive usage in your responses.

Eyster
fuck you ur an atheist


Eyster: Official Warning for Flaming

El Caudillo
Atheists are a pain in the ass. Who cares what they think? In America they're (thank God!) nothing more than an annoying, inconsequential minority.

After reading the entire thread, and noticing that this is the only post that you've made; I've seen that you have not contributed a single way in the entire debate, and only came in to attack anyone claming to be 'athiest'. This would be considered trolling, and you're extremely close to receiving an official warning. Do not push your luck any further.

This thread is being re-opened for further debate, but this is just a reminder for all to stay civil, and if anyone says anything that may upset you, step away from the computer for a bit, and calm down before you respond.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

The government doesn't force anyone to say "Under God," I say it's already up to the person saying it. I don't want to alter the pledge though. I'm just a stubbern person. It's more out of habit than anything.

The government doesn't force anyone to say "Under God," I say it's already up to the person saying it. I don't want to alter the pledge though. I'm just a stubbern person. It's more out of habit than anything.I don't want to alter the pledge either...I don't want it altered by anyone...

But it has been altered...the "under God" part is the alteration...I'd rather it be restored to it's original form.

I don't want to alter the pledge either...I don't want it altered by anyone...

But it has been altered...the "under God" part is the alteration...I'd rather it be restored to it's original form.

Wow, really? Hmm, crazy. I suppose the original is the way to go then.

The government doesn't force anyone to say "Under God," I say it's already up to the person saying it. I don't want to alter the pledge though. I'm just a stubbern person. It's more out of habit than anything.
I take you read the Supreme Court ruling that said you can't forced to recite the pledge? It overturned a decision made 3 years earlier that said you could be forced to say it.

so just curious... if the pledge is neither forcing you to be religious, nor are you even forced to say the pledge... why do you even care and instead just chose not to say that part?

so just curious... if the pledge is neither forcing you to be religious, nor are you even forced to say the pledge... why do you even care and instead just chose not to say that part?I don't say the parts I don't agree with.

so just curious... if the pledge is neither forcing you to be religious, nor are you even forced to say the pledge... why do you even care and instead just chose not to say that part?

Let me put it to you this way, and I think maybe you'll understand: What if the Pledge included something really objectionable to you, tacked on in the 50's by a group of people you do not agree with (e.g., the KKK)? For example, what if it said, "...with liberty and justice for all white people"? Would you simply advocate not saying the "white people" part if it bothers you that much and letting it go at that? Or would you fight to have those divisive words removed? Basically, by leaving the words, "under God" in the Pledge, it's tantamount to saying "...with liberty and justice for all Judeo-Christian people." Is that an acceptable message in your eyes?

The Under God part should stay like it always did.

The Under God part should stay like it always did.

Do you mean: "The 'under God' part should stay out of the Pledge like it originally was"?

Or do you mean: "The 'under God' should stay like it has since it was added in the 1950s"?

The Under God part should stay like it always did.

You mean, like it always did since it was added by the Knights of Columbus in 1954 to distinguish Americans from the "godless communists"? :rolleyes:

Do you mean: "The 'under God' part should stay out of the Pledge like it originally was"?

Or do you mean: "The 'under God' should stay like it has since it was added in the 1950s"?

Under God Should Stay like it has since it was added in the 1950S.

Under God Should Stay like it has since it was added in the 1950S.

And your reasoning behind this is...?

Under God Should Stay like it has since it was added in the 1950S.

1. Why?

2. Doesn't that violate the First Amendment?

1. Why?

2. Doesn't that violate the First Amendment?

Right. What always comes to my mind is if God created Life who created God?? Plus why change the original part of the pledge its sounds good as it is.

Right. What always comes to my mind is if God created Life who created God?? Plus why change the original part of the pledge its sounds good as it is.

You're really not making any sense here. The original Pledge did not include the words, "under God." Earlier you advocated leaving those words in. Now it sounds like you are changing your mind (though it's difficult to really tell for sure). Which is it - leave 'em in or take 'em out - and why do you feel that way?

Let me put it to you this way, and I think maybe you'll understand: What if the Pledge included something really objectionable to you, tacked on in the 50's by a group of people you do not agree with (e.g., the KKK)? For example, what if it said, "...with liberty and justice for all white people"? Would you simply advocate not saying the "white people" part if it bothers you that much and letting it go at that? Or would you fight to have those divisive words removed? Basically, by leaving the words, "under God" in the Pledge, it's tantamount to saying "...with liberty and justice for all Judeo-Christian people." Is that an acceptable message in your eyes?I don't think the Pledge is something to really about. Because it is not an official document. It is not a law. It's your choice if you want to recite it or not.
Just something I just thought up.


My reasoning is returning to normal now that the Goddess of Love has spoken to me, after avoiding me for 4 very long months. And I missed her very very much.

I can assure you that the God of my parents, the God of my many religious friends, and the God of the many good christians worldwide is not the God of the evangelicals, who is so crudely mentioned in the pledge, although they share a name. And they too have every reason to resent his naming.

I'm resisiting the urge to end this with "Yay for fundamentalist bashing! I love reality!" So I won't... But consider the disgusted sentiment expressed.

Which is precisely why I have such a problem with evangelicals, and Whittier and others don't seem to want to acknowledge what I am saying.

Evangelicals are not happy to just live what they live, believe what they believe, and leave others the hell alone. They have to push and push and push and push, trying to get THEIR moral views codified into our civil law...and that is precisely what I object to.

As for the Pledge, it isn't really, itself, that big an issue, except that, if you give these evangelicals even an inch, they will take a mile, and that is what it is REALLY all about. I refuse to give them even an inch. Until they will be happy to just take their inch an go the hell away, and stay out of my private life, I refuse to even give them an inch without a hell of a fight.

This was many, many pages back, but...




"De-su" is not a Japanese word (at least not one used to represent God... it could be a lengthened, emphatic version of the polite copula, but that has nothing to do with God)... There is the word "deusu" which is a loanword coming from Latin "deus," but it's used only in Christian circles (Japan is less than 1% Christian), and rarely there. They also have the word Goddo from English, but that doesn't mean it's the best translation of the English "God." The more common word for a single or supreme deity would be kamisama (commonly) or just kami (in the Bible, I think... been a long time since I've looked at a Japanese Bible).

Pretty sure the French one is wrong too (dieu) and also the Korean one (hahnahnim?). Not sure though. But kinda curious where this list came from...

In any case, the point is not that God is a general English word for a supreme deity (see below!), but that part of the population doesn't believe in a supreme deity at all. "Majority rules" is very unamerican; minorities deserve protection too. Well, and the whole pledge is just the U.S. version of the 5 minutes' hate, as far as I'm concerned (I kinda covered this in an earlier post).

Anyway, learn to spell "atheist," people. "i before e except after c lol" is not a failsafe rule. caffiene, wierd, sceince, and foriegn are all wrong.


You forgot "seize." Seize also is wrong....LOL

i have to agree with basically everything you said there. (in reply to the 1st)
also, christians need to LOOSEN UP! make an anti-christian joke or start talking about how god doenst exist, one of thems bound to be pissed at you and argue within a few minutes. theres a huge christian wacko at a forum i visit, and hes a double-dealing dick, and basially defends america, capitilism, and christianbity with insane determination. personally i dont use political parties, i prefer to think for myself, btw. but me, i could give 2 shits if anyone made an atheist joke, or a joke to any of my other beliefs.

has it ever occured to anyone that seperation of church and state appears nowhere in the constitution? True it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" But how does Under God show a respect towards a specific establishment of religion? "God" in that sense can be used as a generic god to refer to any deity that one wishes. the pledge isnt forcing you to be christian, nor is it forcing you to be any other religion. In fact, you can choose not to say it if you want, if that be your choice as being an athiest. If you want to say athiesm is a religion, then wouldnt the pledge then be supporting athiesm with a lack of God? or if you just think athiesm is a lack of religion, then why do you think you have the right to even have an opinion that has nothing to do with you in the first place?

First of all, "God" still promotes a MONOtheism...there are citizens of this country who have relgious beliefs in a POLYtheism...as well as Atheism. By using the phrase, you are denying all those who believe in a polytheism or atheism.

Second, schoolchildren in any states damn well are TOO forced to recite this Pledge, every morning...and are forced to say the "under God" part. I knew a guy who was sent to in-school suspension for three days for refusing to recite the "under God" part.

Lastly...if it was truly a generic "god" they are referring to in the Pledge, then why is that "god" CAPITALIZED? they obviously MEAN to refer to the Christian God.

So, based on my three points, I call bullshit on your entire posting.

That's not the same as saying "freedom from religion" which usually means a ban on people practicing their religion in public places.

no. Freedom From Religion means you don't have a right to ram YOUR God, and your religious views...down MY throat...and you don't have a right to have YOUR religious views codified into CIVIL LAW.

THAT is what Freedom From Religion means.

I've no interest whatsoever in stopping you from practicing your beliefs, as long as you don't try to force ME into practing YOUR beliefs.

I knew a guy who was sent to in-school suspension for three days for refusing to recite the "under God" part.



well thats illegal, and he can get the school in big trouble. at least you have a choice to say it or not, and anyone violating that is both a huge asshole and breaking the law.

I take you read the Supreme Court ruling that said you can't forced to recite the pledge? It overturned a decision made 3 years earlier that said you could be forced to say it.

then WHY are schoolchildren acroos the country STILL...TO THIS DAY...being forced to recite it? Texas, Colorado, and Virginia are three states I know for sure that DO require their schoolchildren to recite it, daily.

Right. What always comes to my mind is if God created Life who created God?? Plus why change the original part of the pledge its sounds good as it is.

For once, I agree with you, Homieville. Why change the original part of the Pledge? Let's go back to the ORIGINAL Pledge, as it was in 1953. It sounded good as it was before the Knights of Columbus, and Dwight Eisenhower, and the McCarthyists screwed it up to score a point on the "godless Communists."

It's always been part of the pledge for as long as I can remember. Why should we have to change just because some people don't know how not to get offended?
If you don't like that part don't say it, simple as that. I know if they ever take it out I'm going to keep saying it.

It's always been part of the pledge for as long as I can remember. Why should we have to change just because some people don't know how not to get offended?
If you don't like that part don't say it, simple as that. I know if they ever take it out I'm going to keep saying it.
It hasn't always been part of the pledge. "Under God" was added in 1954. The pledge dates back to the late 19th century.

When I attended high school we indeed had to say the pledge every morning. I tried to refuse to say it, the under god part, but I did have to write a letter to my teacher on why I would not. It was very annoying. And a lot of people seem to think everyone was christian who first came to this country, they were not. Lots of pagans came over, but ended up receiving the same treatment here as they did from whever they came. For instance in the Calico Captive. They take 3 pagan girls from England and force them to live in a convent.

lol i just sit down and refuse to say the pleadge, i refuse to pledge my alliegence to a country i dont like or agree with. and noone can tell me to say it. although theres this girl in my class who seems to think its insane that i do it...but shes kinda weird so whatever lol

I don't think the Pledge is something to really about. Because it is not an official document. It is not a law. It's your choice if you want to recite it or not.

So basically, if the KKK petitioned the Court to add the words "white people" at the end of the phrase, "with liberty and justice for all," you would be okay with it? I mean, it would be your choice to recite that part or not, as you see fit, right? Is there anything that would bother you, or do you always just go with the flow?

It's always been part of the pledge for as long as I can remember. Why should we have to change just because some people don't know how not to get offended?
If you don't like that part don't say it, simple as that. I know if they ever take it out I'm going to keep saying it.

Look what happened to my friend, when HE refused to say it. He got in-school suspension for three days!
You wanna say it after it gets taken out, I'd die to defend your right to do that. I'd also die to defend the right of others to NOT HAVE TO SAY IT.
And, as far as "not getting offended" well, I guess only the Christian Right in this country is allowed to get "offended," and have something done about it!

They get "offended" at the idea of two guys who love each other being allowed to marry one another...so we pass laws preventing the two guys from getting married. They get "offended" at having to work in the same office as me, because I am a transsexual...so we'll just fire the freak, and who gives a shit if she (or it, as they would have it) starves to death??

and when I ask for equal treatment...for something not az bona-fide occupational qualification, to not be used against me in the hiring process, I'm asking for "special rights."

I personally have had just about all the fucking hypocrisy I can stand from the self-righteous, holier-than-thou Christian Right in this country! 'Bout goddam time SOMEONE stood up to them and said, "Guess what...you don't ALWAYS get your way, all the time!!"

lol i just sit down and refuse to say the pleadge, i refuse to pledge my alliegence to a country i dont like or agree with. and noone can tell me to say it. although theres this girl in my class who seems to think its insane that i do it...but shes kinda weird so whatever lol

Well, lately, with the Bush Administration, I've been doing something a bit different with the National Anthem, I'll have to admit. I no longer hold my hand over my heart. I hold my pants up by the belt loops. With my middle fingers.

while I very much love what my country was founded upon, and what it was supposed to be....I hate what my country has since become.

Is it possible to love your country, and hate your fucking government? Because, if so...that's me.

It seems one thing the christians have faith in is the slippery slope effect. If we let gays marry people will marry their pets next. Just like if we change the pledge then they say we're gonna burn every church in the country or something. Get over it we just want the phrase removed and thats all the world won't end I promise

So basically, if the KKK petitioned the Court to add the words "white people" at the end of the phrase, "with liberty and justice for all," you would be okay with it? I mean, it would be your choice to recite that part or not, as you see fit, right? Is there anything that would bother you, or do you always just go with the flow?
I would not be offended but others probably would. But they would still have the right to not say it.

First things first... As close as I can determine, I am a Deist, largely because my beliefs are centered around practicality and reason.

I am not going to get fired up about two words in a short speech one is encouraged, but not required, to say. While I was still in high school (graduated earlier this year) I did not stand or say the pledge of allegiance, for the simple reason that I refuse to blindly follow anyone anytime, let alone a constantly changing government ALL the time, and reciting the pledge of allegiance at the current time would have been a lie.

As far as I am concerned, the words "under God" make no difference whatsoever, because that's all they are: words. I could stand here and recite the pledge of allegiance in my own language and, if I meant it, it would still be the pledge of allegiance. So, whoop-dee-doo.

As far as I am concerned, the words "under God" make no difference whatsoever, because that's all they are: words. I could stand here and recite the pledge of allegiance in my own language and, if I meant it, it would still be the pledge of allegiance. So, whoop-dee-doo.

This is not a slam against you but to prove a point from another thread or 20 pages back. ;)

How well do you rate your knowledge of American History?

I'd call it passable. People tell me I'm annoyingly humble about everything, though.

And by all means, if I deserve it, slam away. It serves to make me slightly less retarded. ;)

Edit: If the question is leading toward the "under God wasn't added till the fifties" thing a lot of people have pointed out, I paid attention to that part. I know. <.<

just to point out somethin, i thought somebody closed this thread.....anyways,

since it's back open........i just want to continue to reinterate, that this whole thread is about "under God" being in the pledge and some people in this forum say it should be taken out, and some people like me believe it should stay in......now yall are trying to say that "Under God" is unconstitutional, which is not true at all, i'd like to point out that actually it goes by the First Amendment, the freedom of religion. You make it sound like this is just a Christian thing, but Christians aren't the only religion that believes in God, it would be different if it said "Under Jesus", but it doesn't.......

I'd call it passable. People tell me I'm annoyingly humble about everything, though.

And by all means, if I deserve it, slam away. It serves to make me slightly less retarded. ;)

Edit: If the question is leading toward the "under God wasn't added till the fifties" thing a lot of people have pointed out, I paid attention to that part. I know. <.<

Well you haven't said anything worthy of getting smacked. ;)

It was a question I posed somewhere as to why people get upset over the pledge especially when many (I think) don't know what they are pledging to. The knowledge of history is rather poor in this country. I am one of those wierdos that think it's hot stuff. But that is because my ancestor is mentioned in the books and was a neighbor of Washington.

No worries. ;)

Don't know if anyone asked this, so apologies if anyone did.
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.

{snipped}
Now, I am assuming here that the Australian Government has something akin to "Seperation of Church and State," I will also assume that the Australia also has some form of Pledge of Alliegance.

so here is my question. Why are you, An Australian, so concerned about the AMERICAN PLEDGE OF ALLIEGENCE and the state of the AMERICAN Government?

You, as an Australian, are not affected by the Pledge of Alliegence nor are you affected directly by most of the laws passed by our Congress.

America is baised on a Democratic Process where the duly elected representatives follow what they see as the will of the people. If they see that the will of the people is to leave "Under God" in, then it stays in, no matter how loudly the Screaming Minority shouts.

If the time comes to spend taxpayers money to remove two words from the pledge comes, then it will be spent and they will be removed.

If the time comes when the will of the people says to remove Jefferson's "Wall of seperation" then for Ill or for Good, it will be removed.

But those concerns are American Concerns because they will affect only Americans directly.

I am touched by your concern for our spiritual and governmental well being however, and thank you for sharing your opinions.

Don't know if anyone asked this, so apologies if anyone did.

Now, I am assuming here that the Australian Government has something akin to "Seperation of Church and State," I will also assume that the Australia also has some form of Pledge of Alliegance.

so here is my question. Why are you, An Australian, so concerned about the AMERICAN PLEDGE OF ALLIEGENCE and the state of the AMERICAN Government?

You, as an Australian, are not affected by the Pledge of Alliegence nor are you affected directly by most of the laws passed by our Congress.

America is baised on a Democratic Process where the duly elected representatives follow what they see as the will of the people. If they see that the will of the people is to leave "Under God" in, then it stays in, no matter how loudly the Screaming Minority shouts.

If the time comes to spend taxpayers money to remove two words from the pledge comes, then it will be spent and they will be removed.

If the time comes when the will of the people says to remove Jefferson's "Wall of seperation" then for Ill or for Good, it will be removed.

But those concerns are American Concerns because they will affect only Americans directly.

I am touched by your concern for our spiritual and governmental well being however, and thank you for sharing your opinions.


I guess that means the world should keep its collective noses out of places like Darfur and Iraq? Just because someone isnt from America doesnt mean they dont have the right to view their concerns about an issue. Your part about the will of the people also concerns me. At one time it was the will of the people to keep blacks seperate from whites. That doesnt make it right. We have things like the seperation clause in order to protect the minority from the tryanny of the majority.

just to point out somethin, i thought somebody closed this thread.....anyways,

since it's back open........i just want to continue to reinterate, that this whole thread is about "under God" being in the pledge and some people in this forum say it should be taken out, and some people like me believe it should stay in......now yall are trying to say that "Under God" is unconstitutional, which is not true at all, i'd like to point out that actually it goes by the First Amendment, the freedom of religion. You make it sound like this is just a Christian thing, but Christians aren't the only religion that believes in God, it would be different if it said "Under Jesus", but it doesn't.......

Would you be ok if it said "under Allah" It's God after all.....

The problem with this issue is the way things are argued. You hear people say "Hey it's on the money, what are you complaining about"

We might hear of something else involving religion and the arguement will be "Hey it's on the money and on the pledge; what are you complaining about"

It's an endorsement of Western Religion. How many Eastern Religions have only one god; if any at all?

When you hear somebody talking about God, usually people think it's a Christian. You can't say Muslim because even when they speak English(that is the ESL types), they still say Allah.

This fight is not done.

Especially in the General. ;)

Well, Allah is the same thing as God, they believe in God, they just don't believe that Jesus is the prophet, which is the same difference with Jews(which is an Eastern Religion by the way)....and must i point out again that 82% of the population of America believe in God. And there is a smaller and smaller percentage that remember when "under God" wasn't in the pledge, and even a part of that percentage that is still alive is unfortuantly spending the rest of their lives in a nursing home. I said that to say, that if "Under God" is taken out, a extremely large percentage would be very mad, what sense does it make to upset the majority to please the minority......

I guess that means the world should keep its collective noses out of places like Darfur and Iraq? Just because someone isnt from America doesnt mean they dont have the right to view their concerns about an issue. Your part about the will of the people also concerns me. At one time it was the will of the people to keep blacks seperate from whites. That doesnt make it right. We have things like the seperation clause in order to protect the minority from the tryanny of the majority.Ah, you see that's different. Are we forcing Darfur and Iraq to say the American Pledge of Alliegence? In fact you can say it is America's Desire to keep Church and State separate that also Caused us to go into Iraq, a Theoracy, to give these people a secular Democracy.

However, Please do not try to hijack the thread. it is not about America's Foreign Policy but America's Pledge of Alliegence.

And yes At one time (tho I am ashamed to say it) it was the will of the people for segrigation (and it still is being done in some parts of the US,) but remember, it was also the will of the people that gave those blacks their rights. same as the women, and probably for the homosexuals. and guess what. When the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge, were the rights of the blacks repealed? Were women forced back under their yolk? not at all. What it did do was boost the morale of this Nation at a time when all seemed dark, and it gave hope to her citizens of ALL Faith and Creed.

Well, Allah is the same thing as God, they believe in God, they just don't believe that Jesus is the prophet,


Actually they belive he was a prophet. They don't belive he was the son of God.


which is the same difference with Jews(which is an Eastern Religion by the way)....and must i point out again that 82% of the population of America believe in God. And there is a smaller and smaller percentage that remember when "under God" wasn't in the pledge, and even a part of that percentage that is still alive is unfortuantly spending the rest of their lives in a nursing home. I said that to say, that if "Under God" is taken out, a extremely large percentage would be very mad, what sense does it make to upset the majority to please the minority......

Ahh but the majority is not absolute in this country.

Oh an Jews are Middle Eastern. By Eastern I am talking about Asia......

Well, Allah is the same thing as God, they believe in God, they just don't believe that Jesus is the prophet, which is the same difference with Jews(which is an Eastern Religion by the way)....and must i point out again that 82% of the population of America believe in God. And there is a smaller and smaller percentage that remember when "under God" wasn't in the pledge, and even a part of that percentage that is still alive is unfortuantly spending the rest of their lives in a nursing home. I said that to say, that if "Under God" is taken out, a extremely large percentage would be very mad, what sense does it make to upset the majority to please the minority......


Let me rephrase that:

What sense does it make to follow the Constitution when it doesn't allow the tyrannical majority to ram it's religion down the throat of the minority?

What sense does it make to follow the Constitution at all, when it goes against what the majority wants, and who gives a shit about the minority, right?

why not just do away with the Constitution (we are already doing it) and just let the majority steamroller over the minority, everywhere.

Someday, you in the majority may find yourselves in the minority, and pissed off when the majority steamrollers over YOU...then maybe you'll know what it feels like to have your rights, and your beliefs ignored, steamrollered over...and you'll know what it is like to be forced to pay homage to a diety you don't believe in.

If they'd meant for it to be a generic "god" then why did they capitalize it "God?" Clearly, they intended for it to represent the Judeo-Christian God...as is very clear from the floor debates about the bill in Congress in 1954, when the law adding the words was passed. You can read it for yourself in The Congressional Record, for the year 1954.

It is quite clear they intended the phrase "under God" to refer to the Judeo-Christian God...and thus, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Thus it ought to be removed.

But, it won't be because whiny Christians ALWAYS get THEIR way in this country....goddam it pisses me the fuck off!!

And yes At one time (tho I am ashamed to say it) it was the will of the people for segrigation (and it still is being done in some parts of the US,) but remember, it was also the will of the people that gave those blacks their rights. same as the women, and probably for the homosexuals. and guess what. When the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge, were the rights of the blacks repealed? Were women forced back under their yolk? not at all. What it did do was boost the morale of this Nation at a time when all seemed dark, and it gave hope to her citizens of ALL Faith and Creed.

Ahmmmm

Slavery ended before the current pledge. The Civil Rights movement was after the addition.

Ah, you see that's different. Are we forcing Darfur and Iraq to say the American Pledge of Alliegence? In fact you can say it is America's Desire to keep Church and State separate that also Caused us to go into Iraq, a Theoracy, to give these people a secular Democracy.

However, Please do not try to hijack the thread. it is not about America's Foreign Policy but America's Pledge of Alliegence.

And yes At one time (tho I am ashamed to say it) it was the will of the people for segrigation (and it still is being done in some parts of the US,) but remember, it was also the will of the people that gave those blacks their rights. same as the women, and probably for the homosexuals. and guess what. When the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge, were the rights of the blacks repealed? Were women forced back under their yolk? not at all. What it did do was boost the morale of this Nation at a time when all seemed dark, and it gave hope to her citizens of ALL Faith and Creed.


all seemed dark in this country back then because Communism had been so demonized...and that stupid, asswipe, dickhead, fuckface of a Congressman, Joe McCarthy, was seeing Reds hiding under every fucking rock!

You wanna go back to the days of McCarthyism? You wanna see the re-creation of the House Un-American Activities Committee?? We are seeing something very akin to McCarthyism happening right now in this country, and I, for one, don't fucking like the look of it!

Ahmmmm

Slavery ended before the current pledge. The Civil Rights movement was after the addition.
oh, so as you say "Under God" had no difference in the Civil Rights Movement. so again, what's the difference.

all seemed dark in this country back then because Communism had been so demonized...and that stupid, asswipe, dickhead, fuckface of a Congressman, Joe McCarthy, was seeing Reds hiding under every fucking rock!

You wanna go back to the days of McCarthyism? You wanna see the re-creation of the House Un-American Activities Committee?? We are seeing something very akin to McCarthyism happening right now in this country, and I, for one, don't fucking like the look of it!and the Pledge of Alligence with the Words "Under God" are the cause of you seeing those days being brought back??? Funny, I thought it was the nutjobs behind 9/11 that injected those levels of fear back into the American Citizen and the passing and extension of the Patriot Act.

oh, so as you say "Under God" had no difference in the Civil Rights Movement. so again, what's the difference.


Wow you got that out of a correction of your comment?

And yes At one time (tho I am ashamed to say it) it was the will of the people for segrigation (and it still is being done in some parts of the US,) but remember, it was also the will of the people that gave those blacks their rights. same as the women, and probably for the homosexuals. and guess what. When the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge, were the rights of the blacks repealed? Were women forced back under their yolk? not at all. What it did do was boost the morale of this Nation at a time when all seemed dark, and it gave hope to her citizens of ALL Faith and Creed.
Adding God to the pledge boosted morale? Everything seemed dark in 1954? It gave hope to all faiths?

Where the hell do you get this stuff?

Back to historical reality for a minute, were you aware that although "under god" was not part of Francis Bellamy's original concept "equality" was?

If he had his way we'd be saying "...with liberty, justice and equality for all."

But it was made clear to him that including the word equality would sink any chance of his pledge being adopted. It was only thirty years after the civil war and blacks and other minorities were still considered far from equal by many citizens and women still had 30 years to go before they would earn the right to vote. So he caved and removed the word.

When I recite the pledge I leave out "under god" and include "equality".

Wow you got that out of a correction of your comment?
I accept your correction but if the civil rights movement started and succeeded after the "Under God" phrase was put in, how can anyone say that it helped contribute to oppression?

that's all.

after all, Economic Associates brought up the fact that it was the will of the people to keep blacks as slaves (even tho the northern half of the US didn't agree) and while they were not granted rights then, the majority eventually turned around and said ok. again the Will of the People.

Adding God to the pledge boosted morale? Everything seemed dark in 1954? It gave hope to all faiths?at that time? yes it did. because McCarthy spewed out that the "Godless" Reds were everywhere.

Where the hell do you get this stuff? from people who remember that time and fear the loss of those two words. btw, most are still not christians.

Back to historical reality for a minute, were you aware that although "under god" was not part of Francis Bellamy's original concept "equality" was? I believe I said when the "Words were added" so yes, I know it wasn't part of the original. did you know that "IN GOD WE TRUST" was also not part of the original Currency?

If he had his way we'd be saying "...with liberty, justice and equality for all."

But it was made clear to him that including the word equality would sink any chance of his pledge being adopted. It was only thirty years after the civil war and blacks and other minorities were still considered far from equal by many citizens and women still had 30 years to go before they would earn the right to vote. So he caved and removed the word.which means he knew the mentality of his conteporaries. are you saying he was weak for caving in? I'm not.

When I recite the pledge I leave out "under god" and include "equality".Good for you. there is no law stating that the Pledge has to be recited as is. infact, most places in America don't even say the Pledge.

The last part makes me think that this was either parody or sheer idiocy, but I will respond as though you were serious.

Let's make something entirely clear. It isn't just atheists, or even the non-religious who want the establishment clause to be upheld properly.

This brings up an interesting point, the meaning of the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So it follows that a theocratic government (one ruled by religious principle, not by religious people; there's a big, highly important, difference there.) violates the free exercise part of the law.

The first part states that government cannot establish religion either. That means that "Under God", which clearly establishes government support of religion, is a violation of the constitution.

Moreso, it is an immoral attempt by evangelical "christians" to force their beleifs to be accepted by those who do not. Now, I freely admit to my agnosticism (albeit with a mild bias towards atheist beleif), and I realize this will cause my opinion to diminish in your eyes.

I can assure you that the God of my parents, the God of my many religious friends, and the God of the many good christians worldwide is not the God of the evangelicals, who is so crudely mentioned in the pledge, although they share a name. And they too have every reason to resent his naming.

I'm resisiting the urge to end this with "Yay for fundamentalist bashing! I love reality!" So I won't... But consider the disgusted sentiment expressed.

Lol. Wow. Yes, that was definitely satire ... I am an atheist, for the record (I agree with you completely). I'm unsure what to make of the fact that it wasn't completely obvious to everyone ... either people are taking this thread WAY too seriously, or the Christian position is even more messed up than I thought.

Ah, you see that's different. Are we forcing Darfur and Iraq to say the American Pledge of Alliegence? In fact you can say it is America's Desire to keep Church and State separate that also Caused us to go into Iraq, a Theoracy, to give these people a secular Democracy.

However, Please do not try to hijack the thread. it is not about America's Foreign Policy but America's Pledge of Alliegence.

My point was never about america's foreign policy. My point was that you were trying to say someone who wasnt from america didnt have the ability to comment on a situation occuring here. And that is bullshit of the highest calibur.

And yes At one time (tho I am ashamed to say it) it was the will of the people for segrigation (and it still is being done in some parts of the US,) but remember, it was also the will of the people that gave those blacks their rights. same as the women, and probably for the homosexuals. and guess what. When the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge, were the rights of the blacks repealed? Were women forced back under their yolk? not at all. What it did do was boost the morale of this Nation at a time when all seemed dark, and it gave hope to her citizens of ALL Faith and Creed.

Once again your missing my point. I am not here argueing against the pledge rather I am disagreeing with your statements about the will of the people. They arent always right and we have things like the seperation of church and state to protect the minority.

I would not be offended but others probably would. But they would still have the right to not say it.

Really??? You would not be offended if the Pledge was changed to say, "...with liberty and justice for all white people"? What do you think that saya about you? Should people who have so clearly demonstrated that they don't care one whit about the rights of others have any input in this matter?

and the Pledge of Alligence with the Words "Under God" are the cause of you seeing those days being brought back??? Funny, I thought it was the nutjobs behind 9/11 that injected those levels of fear back into the American Citizen and the passing and extension of the Patriot Act.

No. It's just a symptom. There are plenty of other signs, but I'll not hijack this thread to point them all out.

Really??? You would not be offended if the Pledge was changed to say, "...with liberty and justice for all white people"? What do you think that saya about you? Should people who have so clearly demonstrated that they don't care one whit about the rights of others have any input in this matter?

Obviously, Pterodonia, you are not an American...or surely you'd have noticed by now that most americans DON'T give a shit about the rights of anyone other than their own damned selves!

We are a society that is ever-more eager to take rights away from others (especially when we don't agree with those rights) or a society very eager to not grant rights in the first place, to groups we find "objectionable" or "undesireable."

Case in point: Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans, like myself, have been fighting what seems like forever for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA.) It would bar discrimination in employment-related decisions (hiring, firing, raises, promotions) based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Would you think it at all unreasonable that a person would ask that a non-bona-fide occupational qualification not be used against them as a basis for making these decisions? Would you think it unreasonable that a transgender person, such as myself, would ask that my gender status, which has no bearing on my ability to do a job, not be used as a basis to make negative employment related decisions about me?

Would you think me unreasonable if I merely asked to be judged based upon my own experience, skills, abilities, and merits...and be given a chance, thus, to make or break my own self...without my gender identity being used against me?

Well, if you think I'm not unreasonable, then you are in the minority. Most Americans seem to think it is perfectly okay to discriminate against me, based upon something that has no bearing on my ability to do a job! Oh, but you'd better not take away their GUNS!! Oh, and while we're at it, better stop them scary gayo-Americans from being allowed to get married!

See, we are a society that DOESN'T give a shit about anyone else's rights...we are all to eager to take away, or not grant in the first place....rights that we happen to find objectionable.

Our entire society has degenerated into a "me first, fuck everyone else" and a "I got mine, fuck you!" attitude for the past generation. for this, I blame the Republican Party, and I have long said their national motto should be, "I got mine, fuck you!"

The point is...the majority in this country doesn't care for shit about the rights of anybody except their own damned selves. Screw everyone else. If it does not directly negatively impact someone, that person tends not to give a shit.

My point was never about america's foreign policy. My point was that you were trying to say someone who wasnt from america didnt have the ability to comment on a situation occuring here. And that is bullshit of the highest calibur.

ah, commenting is one thing, demanding action is something else.

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."*bolding mine.

Now questioning why we support that phrase or why we didn't remove it is one thing, but demanding that it be removed and that anyone who opposes it to "Shut up" That's different.

Once again your missing my point. I am not here argueing against the pledge rather I am disagreeing with your statements about the will of the people. They arent always right and we have things like the seperation of church and state to protect the minority. I never stated that the Will of the People is always right, I said it's what makes this country run.

And Seperation of Church and State is not there to protect the Minority, Affirmative Action is. Seperation of Church and State is there to protect Religious Freedoms. the Right to Choose to follow any Religion that you wish to follow.

Now, to make my stance clear, I really don't care if "Under God" is left in or taken out. but I do believe that our lawmakers have other things to worry about than these two words that appears most people don't say anyway. I would rather they concentrate and spend taxpayers monies on things that really matter, like Education, Civil Rights, Security and even balancing the Budget.

*Blahblahblahfuckblahyellblahfuckagainblah*

Bitter much?
Just because you're having crap thrown at you for one aspect of your life--and if there's more, it still doesn't mean everybody in America is a shit-eating little bastard who enjoys nothing more than stealing from his neighbors when they're not looking.

--

I don't care about what the pledge says for the same reason that I don't care if someone curses all the time; it's just words. What's important is whether the person reciting the Pledge means what they say. If a person doesn't actually MEAN what they say and says it anyway, does it really matter?

Personal opinion, that's it.

Obviously, Pterodonia, you are not an American...or surely you'd have noticed by now that most americans DON'T give a shit about the rights of anyone other than their own damned selves!

Yes, I am an American - thanks for asking.

We are a society that is ever-more eager to take rights away from others (especially when we don't agree with those rights) or a society very eager to not grant rights in the first place, to groups we find "objectionable" or "undesireable."

Actually, if you were around in the 50's, you would have noticed that the trend has definitely gone the other way.

Case in point: Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans, like myself, have been fighting what seems like forever for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA.) It would bar discrimination in employment-related decisions (hiring, firing, raises, promotions) based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Every non-majority group (i.e., any group that is not made up exclusively of white, heterosexual males) has had to fight for their rights. Why would you expect it to be any different for your group?

Would you think it at all unreasonable that a person would ask that a non-bona-fide occupational qualification not be used against them as a basis for making these decisions? Would you think it unreasonable that a transgender person, such as myself, would ask that my gender status, which has no bearing on my ability to do a job, not be used as a basis to make negative employment related decisions about me?

No, I wouldn't. So why are you attacking me?

Would you think me unreasonable if I merely asked to be judged based upon my own experience, skills, abilities, and merits...and be given a chance, thus, to make or break my own self...without my gender identity being used against me?

Again, no.

Well, if you think I'm not unreasonable, then you are in the minority. Most Americans seem to think it is perfectly okay to discriminate against me, based upon something that has no bearing on my ability to do a job! Oh, but you'd better not take away their GUNS!! Oh, and while we're at it, better stop them scary gayo-Americans from being allowed to get married!

What do guns have to do with any of this?

See, we are a society that DOESN'T give a shit about anyone else's rights...we are all to eager to take away, or not grant in the first place....rights that we happen to find objectionable.

Sometimes these things take awhile to sink into the collective consciousness. You expected a change overnight?

Our entire society has degenerated into a "me first, fuck everyone else" and a "I got mine, fuck you!" attitude for the past generation. for this, I blame the Republican Party, and I have long said their national motto should be, "I got mine, fuck you!"

I'm Libertarian - what does any of this have to do with me?

The point is...the majority in this country doesn't care for shit about the rights of anybody except their own damned selves. Screw everyone else. If it does not directly negatively impact someone, that person tends not to give a shit.

But at least you're not bitter. :rolleyes:

*Blahblahblahfuckblahyellblahfuckagainblah* that's it.

Two can play that game. Thanks for proving my point as to exactly how callous and insensitive my countrymen are to the pain of others.

You just think I'm blathering because YOU don't have to deal with, and put up with the shit I do...and so it's perfectly fine to you that I deal with the shit, because it doesn't affect YOU.

Thanks again for proving my point.

I am sick and damn tired of being denied the ability to earn a livelihood just because some people don't like what I have done with my own damn body. Get the hell over it. I'm no threat to anyone. i'm not contagious, and I am not interested in relations, sexual or otherwise, with anyone. So get over yourself.

Realize that you are dealing with a human being here, and that, when you cut me, I, too, bleed red.

And remember the words of FDR, who said that when any of us are oppressed, then none of us are free.

Two can play that game. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't make it anymore right.
Both you guys should maybe take a break from this thread if it gets you riled so badly.

1. Yes, I am an American - thanks for asking.



2. Actually, if you were around in the 50's, you would have noticed that the trend has definitely gone the other way.



3. Every non-majority group (i.e., any group that is not made up exclusively of white, heterosexual males) has had to fight for their rights. Why would you expect it to be any different for your group?



4. No, I wouldn't. So why are you attacking me?



5. Again, no.



6. What do guns have to do with any of this?



7. Sometimes these things take awhile to sink into the collective consciousness. You expected a change overnight?



8. I'm Libertarian - what does any of this have to do with me?



9. But at least you're not bitter. :rolleyes:

1. Then you aren't paying attention to what is going on around you! PATRIOT Act mean anything to you? Shredding of the First and Fourth Amendments mean anything to you? Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (DOMA) mean anything to you?

2. It HAD been going the other way until the Republican managed to get back into power. Ever since then, it has been going staedily backwards...which is why I hate the FUCK out of Republicans and conservatives.

3. Is that what this country was SUPPOSED to be like? Is this what you believe the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote that all men were created with certain inalienable rights?? That if you were non-white male Christian, you would have to FIGHT for those rights?

4. I'm not attacking you. Sorry if you percieved it that way. I'm attacking my countrymen collectively on this point, and I'm attacking our legislators who refuse to ACT...and defend the least among us...from unfair discrimination.

5. Congratulations, you are a part of the minority in this country, because, apparently, the majority still believes it is perfectly okay to discriminate against me in this way, or laws would have been passed to put a stop to it. since they have not, I have to assume most of my countrymen think it's perfectly okay to shit all over me, and people like me.

6. I was using guns only as an example. People in this country, especially the gun nuts...seem perfectly okay with all other rights being wiped out, but you'd better not touch that Second Amendment thing! I used guns only to illustrate my point aboput how americans don't give a fuck about anyone else's rights...only their own.

7. I expected a change long before this. But, then again, I view GWB's "re-election" as proof positive most of my countrymen have their collective head in the sand. Illegal wars, torture, ridiculously high gas prices, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, enemy combatants held indefinitely in violation of Habeus Corpus (ever heard of Jose Padilla?) all this...and the country STILL (apparently) re-elects the orchestrator of all this shit...which is stuff we Americans never believed in before!

I wonder would the collective political right of this country, including all the fucking blowhards on radio and TV (Flush Rimbaugh, Bowtie Boy, Madame Malkin, etc.) I wonder...would they be SCREAMING for impeachment if it was a DEMOCRAT in office pulling all this shit? But, because it's a fucking Republican, he gets a free pass, and doesn't get held accountable for jack fucking shit!! This is a yellowbelly chickenhawk bastard (GWB) who doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to meet with a grieving mother whose son was KILLED in his illegal war (Cindy Sheehan.) This is a country where they say they "support the troops" and these same people yell at Cindy Sheehan "We don't care about your loss!!"

8. I don't care what your political affiliation is. As far as I am concerned, if you are not out there, addressing and demanding changes to what is imperfect about our society...then you are part of perpetuating the problem. You, by your silence, are giving tacit approval for the actions committed against your fellow countrymen...and your fellow human beings.

9. Bet your goddamn ass I'm bitter. And you fucking would be too, if you were in MY shoes!!

And I'm pretty sure that doesn't make it anymore right.
Both you guys should maybe take a break from this thread if it gets you riled so badly.

The THREAD is not what is getting me riled. It is my countrymen's obvious apathy, and lack of empathy...and lack of compassion for anyone's pain other than their own...that is getting ME riled up. I can't speak for the other guy, whatever his face is...I didn't even bother to look.

The THREAD is not what is getting me riled. It is my countrymen's obvious apathy, and lack of empathy...and lack of compassion for anyone's pain other than their own...that is getting ME riled up. I can't speak for the other guy, whatever his face is...I didn't even bother to look.The mods look down on uncivil language no matter how noble the motivation. I can understand your anger, but I assure you I've had worse done to me without me resorting to obscenites. It's very offensive for someone who's half German, grown up in Germany, and takes their history very seriously to be called a Nazi.
If all you can think of is tearing their posts apart in the same manner they display it, its best to take a break from the thread. Trust me, it helps. ;)

But, it won't be because whiny Christians ALWAYS get THEIR way in this country....goddam it pisses me the fuck off!!

OKAY!, by what you said right there......you just invalidated your whole arguement, i'm not going to listen to another thing you say..........thank you for all the respect :( , i don't agree with you, but i didn't disrespect you like you just did me and my religion......

Really??? You would not be offended if the Pledge was changed to say, "...with liberty and justice for all white people"? What do you think that saya about you? Should people who have so clearly demonstrated that they don't care one whit about the rights of others have any input in this matter?

that is completely different from "Under God", "....with liberty and justice for all white people" is completely unconstitutional, it's unethical, and it goes against everything my fathers and grandfathers, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s followers, fought for. And it goes against my civil rights. Now, saying "under God" doesn't do anything but hurt you ego and ur pride. Also, "for all white people" is singling one group out....."Under God" is not.....the only groups of ppl that are offended by it are atheists and Satan Worshippers. And also, me being Black was not a choice i had, i was born that way.....but you choose to become atheists in a theist society, that was your fault, and we shouldn't compromise because you choose one day to be "different".

Obviously, Pterodonia, you are not an American...or surely you'd have noticed by now that most americans DON'T give a shit about the rights of anyone other than their own damned selves!

oh and your just now noticing that Americans only care about themselves.....i don't agree with alot of things, homosexuality is one of them, but i don't care what you do, it's your life you do the way you want to do, all i say is don't do it in front of me.......I don't want a personal tour of your bedrooms, i want my privacy too, and i'm a heterosexual female.....and that's how i feel about it.....(gay parades and stuff kinda get on my nerves, no offense)

ah, commenting is one thing, demanding action is something else.

So we shouldnt be demanding Iran to stop processing nuclear materials? The original poster can demand all he wants. It doesnt mean anything will get done mind you but he has the right to. The your not from here so you cant tell us what to do excuse is really a bad one man.

So we shouldnt be demanding Iran to stop processing nuclear materials? The original poster can demand all he wants. It doesnt mean anything will get done mind you but he has the right to. The your not from here so you cant tell us what to do excuse is really a bad one man.again, you are mixing Foreign Policies with Domestic Ones.

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.

I went to 4 different public elementary schools in 3 different school districts in the U.S. (in Minnesota, Iowa, and Arizona) and in every single one we got up, put our hands over our hearts and pretty much HAD to say the pledge of allegiance with the "Under God" part almost every morning. Someone could have stayed sitting for it, but keep in mind these are 5-12 year old kids, but I never did (because I didn't know any better) but if I hadn't I'm sure my class mates would have looked at me funny and the teacher would have said something to me. It's brainwashing. After elementary (primary) we didn't do it anymore. Also, lot of schools have brainwashing assemblies with veterans speaking for hours at a time about the meaning of the pledge, etc. several times a year. In Iowa (the most conservative of the states I mentioned) at one of the brainwashing assemblies they let a 7th grade student say "People are trying to take God out of the schools, but they can't because God is everywhere" or something like that.

again, you are mixing Foreign Policies with Domestic Ones.

You said a person from a different country should not be able to demand that people in another country do things in a different way. So now when I bring up the example of America wanting Iran to stop processing nuclear materials you make a distinction between foreing policies and domestic ones. Fine you want a domestic one okay what about people saying that female circumcision is a horrible practice in the middle east or africa? Because these people dont live in that area or culture do you believe that we as outsiders should not be able to comment on this situation or demand that anything be done?

at that time? yes it did. because McCarthy spewed out that the "Godless" Reds were everywhere.
However, we do not live in 1954 anymore. Don't we all agree by now that everybody has the right to not believe in God/god? If this is so, then not believing should not be considered wrong or something that needs to be opposed anymore, therefore eliminating this reason for leaving in the "under God/god" statement.
Good for you. there is no law stating that the Pledge has to be recited as is. infact, most places in America don't even say the Pledge.
You know, I've been reading that a lot on this thread, but come one, that argument sucks. Somebody important has written a text recited by important people in important moments in history, and from what I know in (some or all?) class rooms around the country. Eventhough you might not be obligated to recite it, when the president and other important people do recite it (correct me if I'm wrong here; I actually don't know much about how, when and by whom the pledge of allegiance is recited), then it is part of your national identity. When you then choose to add the words "under god" or "under God" to it, then you are making God/god a part of the national indentity. This excludes anybody who does not recognise a God/god and can thus make them feel astranged, foreign, not part of the people who feel they live in "that nation under God", which shouldn't be the case. Either take it out or make the whole thing history.

You said a person from a different country should not be able to demand that people in another country do things in a different way. So now when I bring up the example of America wanting Iran to stop processing nuclear materials you make a distinction between foreing policies and domestic ones. Fine you want a domestic one okay whats your thoughts on female circumcision?If you cannot see the difference between the American Pledge of Alliegence and Processing of Nuclear Fissionalble Material (which is also being watched by the UN) then there is no debating with you.

As for Female Circumcision? Never thought about it.

In Iowa (the most conservative of the states I mentioned) at one of the brainwashing assemblies they let a 7th grade student say "People are trying to take God out of the schools, but they can't because God is everywhere" or something like that.
That is seriously scary. Are we talking public schools here?

If you cannot see the difference between the American Pledge of Alliegence and Processing of Nuclear Fissionalble Material (which is also being watched by the UN) then there is no debating with you.
Whats the difference? Iran just responds with the fact that it wants power plants and yet the world says they will make nukes. All I am trying to say is that even if someone isnt from a country they still have the right to voice their opinions. You cant just come out and say well your not from here so your voice doesnt count.

I went to 4 different public elementary schools in 2 different school districts in the U.S. (in Minnesota, Iowa, and Arizona) and in every single one we got up, put our hands over our hearts and pretty much HAD to say the pledge of allegiance with the "Under God" part almost every morning. Someone could have stayed sitting for it, but keep in mind these are 5-12 year old kids, but I never did (because I didn't know any better) but if I hadn't I'm sure my class mates would have looked at me funny and the teacher would have said something to me. It's brainwashing. After elementary (primary) we didn't do it anymore. Also, lot of schools have brainwashing assemblies with veterans speaking for hours at a time about the meaning of the pledge, etc. several times a year. In Iowa (the most conservative of the states I mentioned) at one of the brainwashing assemblies they let a 7th grade student say "People are trying to take God out of the schools, but they can't because God is everywhere" or something like that.

I think "brainwashing" might be a little bit harsh. You would have lived through being "looked at funny" for a few days until the kids got used to it, and maybe somebody would have even come up to you and asked you why you didn't stand up, giving you an open opportunity to express your beliefs on the matter. As for the "brainwashing" assemblies, it's not against the law for people to speak in a school. Should anybody who expresses their beliefs in public be reprimanded and punished for it? The veterans and 7th grade student had just as much right to speak as did any other person from any other assembly. Besides, how many elementary school kids actually pay attention past the first 20 minutes of these "hours-long" assemblies? The only assemblies I remember distinctly were the ones where they did magic and had neat music. Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge, and nobody is forcing you to say "under God" when it gets to that point in the pledge. I know people who've replaced it with the deity of their choice, and others who just stay silent. The point is...you were never "forced" to say it. If you chose to join the crowd, that's your own problem, not a problem with the pledge.

You know, I've been reading that a lot on this thread, but come one, that argument sucks. Somebody important has written a text recited by important people in important moments in history, and from what I know in (some or all?) class rooms around the country. Eventhough you might not be obligated to recite it, when the president and other important people do recite it (correct me if I'm wrong here; I actually don't know much about how, when and by whom the pledge of allegiance is recited), then it is part of your national identity. When you then choose to add the words "under god" or "under God" to it, then you are making God/god a part of the national indentity. This excludes anybody who does not recognise a God/god and can thus make them feel astranged, foreign, not part of the people who feel they live in "that nation under God", which shouldn't be the case. Either take it out or make the whole thing history.

Why not bring up that all of our money has printed "In God We Trust" on it.....at least we all come into contact and are obligated to use money to survive. If you want references to God removed from things, start with the most important ones, that we're all obligated to come into contact with. I really couldn't care less whether or not it's in the pledge or not, I don't say it anyway, but it seems like a silly argument when you compare it with the fact that the money we all touch every day is imprinted with the same deity's name.

However, we do not live in 1954 anymore. Don't we all agree by now that everybody has the right to not believe in God/god? If this is so, then not believing should not be considered wrong or something that needs to be opposed anymore, therefore eliminating this reason for leaving in the "under God/god" statement.are you saying that Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddism, Shito, Islam, Witchcraft, and other religions never appeared in America till after the 1950's?

You know, I've been reading that a lot on this thread, but come one, that argument sucks. Somebody important has written a text recited by important people in important moments in history, and from what I know in (some or all?) class rooms around the country. Eventhough you might not be obligated to recite it, when the president and other important people do recite it (correct me if I'm wrong here; I actually don't know much about how, when and by whom the pledge of allegiance is recited), then it is part of your national identity. When you then choose to add the words "under god" or "under God" to it, then you are making God/god a part of the national indentity. This excludes anybody who does not recognise a God/god and can thus make them feel astranged, foreign, not part of the people who feel they live in "that nation under God", which shouldn't be the case. Either take it out or make the whole thing history.Then write to your Congressman and put it to vote again.

I have stated that for me, personally, I don't care if it stays or goes. but I would rather the money needed to remove two words be redirected to more important things.

and if you truly feel that Removing "Under God" is more important than Education, Security, Ridding our streets of Crime, and even lowering the Deficit, then go ahead and write to your Congressman and let them know that their constituants want this removed.

That is seriously scary. Are we talking public schools here?

Yes, I've always gone to public schools.


I think "brainwashing" might be a little bit harsh. You would have lived through being "looked at funny" for a few days until the kids got used to it, and maybe somebody would have even come up to you and asked you why you didn't stand up, giving you an open opportunity to express your beliefs on the matter. As for the "brainwashing" assemblies, it's not against the law for people to speak in a school. Should anybody who expresses their beliefs in public be reprimanded and punished for it? The veterans and 7th grade student had just as much right to speak as did any other person from any other assembly. Besides, how many elementary school kids actually pay attention past the first 20 minutes of these "hours-long" assemblies? The only assemblies I remember distinctly were the ones where they did magic and had neat music. Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge, and nobody is forcing you to say "under God" when it gets to that point in the pledge. I know people who've replaced it with the deity of their choice, and others who just stay silent. The point is...you were never "forced" to say it. If you chose to join the crowd, that's your own problem, not a problem with the pledge.

Okay, but again, we're talking about 5-12 year old people that can easily be influenced. Most 7 year olds will stand up for the pledge when their teacher tells everyone to, and everyone else does it, and they go to assemblies where old people talk about how great it is to pledge your allegiance.

Why not bring up that all of our money has printed "In God We Trust" on it.....at least we all come into contact and are obligated to use money to survive. If you want references to God removed from things, start with the most important ones, that we're all obligated to come into contact with. I really couldn't care less whether or not it's in the pledge or not, I don't say it anyway, but it seems like a silly argument when you compare it with the fact that the money we all touch every day is imprinted with the same deity's name.
I don't agree with you completely.

In my country "God zij met ons (God be with us)" is imprinted on the side of the coins, which I personally find less offensive then "In God we trust". "God be with us" sounds more like a wish pronounced by somebody and could be wished for both theists and atheists, while "In God we trust" sounds like everybody trusts in God, or at least should. Both are, however, wrong, insulting and excluding people.

But I think the words "one nation under God/god" being recited every time you have a ceremony like a national celebration or memorial is much worse. When they say it, every time again, you can't ignore it, especially when you have to recite it in class every morning. When was the last time you sat down and read each and every bank note you had in your wallet?

and if you truly feel that Removing "Under God" is more important than Education, Security, Ridding our streets of Crime, and even lowering the Deficit, then go ahead and write to your Congressman and let them know that their constituants want this removed.

Hmmmm the same could be said for the other side. Let's reword.

and if you truly feel that keeping "Under God" is more important than Education, Security, Ridding our streets of Crime, and even lowering the Deficit, then go ahead and write to your Congressman and let them know that their constituants want this defended.

Why not bring up that all of our money has printed "In God We Trust" on it.....at least we all come into contact and are obligated to use money to survive. If you want references to God removed from things, start with the most important ones, that we're all obligated to come into contact with. I really couldn't care less whether or not it's in the pledge or not, I don't say it anyway, but it seems like a silly argument when you compare it with the fact that the money we all touch every day is imprinted with the same deity's name.

Doesn't it seem wrong to be honoring God by connecting him with money?

are you saying that Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddism, Shito, Islam, Witchcraft, and other religions never appeared in America till after the 1950's? No, this was replying to your statement that the words "under God/god" were added to the pledge to comfort people from their fear of the "red godless commies".

Then write to your Congressman and put it to vote again.

I have stated that for me, personally, I don't care if it stays or goes. but I would rather the money needed to remove two words be redirected to more important things.

and if you truly feel that Removing "Under God" is more important than Education, Security, Ridding our streets of Crime, and even lowering the Deficit, then go ahead and write to your Congressman and let them know that their constituants want this removed.Come one, that is stupid. I have an argument based on principles and you start to talk about money? Of course I think Education and Social Wellfare are more important ( ;) ), but I don't think NASA is important. How much money do you give those guys to fiddle around with poorly manufactured space crafts just outside the athmosphere? Why not spend that money on creating a little equality here, eh? Come on, what do you say?

Hmmmm the same could be said for the other side. Let's reword.

and if you truly feel that keeping "Under God" is more important than Education, Security, Ridding our streets of Crime, and even lowering the Deficit, then go ahead and write to your Congressman and let them know that their constituants want this defended.
actually the correct counter point would've been...

"and if you truly feel that putting in "Under God" is more important than Education, Security, Ridding our streets of Crime, and even lowering the Deficit, then go ahead and write to your Congressman and let them know that their constituants want this defended."

after all, it's already in there. no money spent to reword, retract, and reprint, anything.

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."*
"Under god" could refer to any monotheistic religion. We norse worshippers want it changed to "One nation under god(s). ALL HAIL ODIN!!

Doesn't it seem wrong to be honoring God by connecting him with money?

Did I ever say I was happy that our money is has that printed on it? I really think we have more important things to worry about....but if the "Under God" in the pledge is such a problem I don't see why this goes with almost no opposition. It's just funny to me that we'd make such a big deal about what people are saying, and pay little-to-no attention to what's on our currency. Does it really matter if your kid's in a school, and they hear mention of our nation being associated with God? It seems like all of you lived through the horror of it just fine, and I'm sure anyone else subjected to it will too. I just think that we have more important problems to worry about....

No, this was replying to your statement that the words "under God/god" were added to the pledge to comfort people from their fear of the "red godless commies". and it was, and it did. even tho the need (or phantom menace) is no longer there, there was one attempt to remove it, and it failed. maybe it will pass now? who knows.

Come one, that is stupid. I have an argument based on principles and you start to talk about money? Of course I think Education and Social Wellfare are more important ( ;) ), but I don't think NASA is important. How much money do you give those guys to fiddle around with poorly manufactured space crafts just outside the athmosphere? Why not spend that money on creating a little equality here, eh? Come on, what do you say?To some Money is their principals. :p
But seriously, most religions do believe in a from of God/Goddess. thus when spoken, who to say that 'God' means Jesus Christ? For Islamic Faiths, they can say Allah and no one would raise an eyebrow. for Athiest, they skip the word and again, no one flinches, or at least it can open dialouge to allow people of faith (any) to preach to those who want to learn.

perhaps instead of God, you write the PC version. "... All Nations Under [insert diety if you believe in one or skip if you don't] Indivisable, with liberty...

also, I did state that after all, I really didn't care if it was in or out.

But it will take money to remove it. the debates (and our congresspeople are paid for it.) voting and if it wins, reprinting; all costs money.

but what I am worried about, is if the proposal for removing it fails, what then...

I predict the flood of THEOCRATIC AMERICA WINS and other such hate threads to appear. after all, the originator's post wasn't exactly a friendly opening to a debate.

or if it succeeds, you get the Christian bashing threads....

so why not leave it and let the citizens say the pledge the way they want to say it. without the Government dictating what their citizens should say.

There's nothing wrong with a little mixture of church and state. Over here in England (and in the inferior surrounding lands) we have a national anthem with god in it plus the head of state is the head of the church. we have no theocratically related problems.

and it was, and it did. even tho the need (or phantom menace) is no longer there, there was one attempt to remove it, and it failed. maybe it will pass now? who knows.

To some Money is their principals. :p
But seriously, most religions do believe in a from of God/Goddess. thus when spoken, who to say that 'God' means Jesus Christ? For Islamic Faiths, they can say Allah and no one would raise an eyebrow. for Athiest, they skip the word and again, no one flinches, or at least it can open dialouge to allow people of faith (any) to preach to those who want to learn.

perhaps instead of God, you write the PC version. "... All Nations Under [insert diety if you believe in one or skip if you don't] Indivisable, with liberty...

also, I did state that after all, I really didn't care if it was in or out.

But it will take money to remove it. the debates (and our congresspeople are paid for it.) voting and if it wins, reprinting; all costs money.

but what I am worried about, is if the proposal for removing it fails, what then...

I predict the flood of THEOCRATIC AMERICA WINS and other such hate threads to appear. after all, the originator's post wasn't exactly a friendly opening to a debate.

or if it succeeds, you get the Christian bashing threads....

so why not leave it and let the citizens say the pledge the way they want to say it. without the Government dictating what their citizens should say.
Us polytheists would be around for hours if we had to fill the insert deities here space. u'll have to try harder.

Did I ever say I was happy that our money is has that printed on it? I really think we have more important things to worry about....but if the "Under God" in the pledge is such a problem I don't see why this goes with almost no opposition. It's just funny to me that we'd make such a big deal about what people are saying, and pay little-to-no attention to what's on our currency. Does it really matter if your kid's in a school, and they hear mention of our nation being associated with God? It seems like all of you lived through the horror of it just fine, and I'm sure anyone else subjected to it will too. I just think that we have more important problems to worry about....
Of course there are more important problems to worry about, but that doesn't mean you can't oppose the "under God/god" statement. If you feel this doesn't deserve any attention, then I suggest you direct yours eslsewhere.

As for me, I never lived through the whole reciting the pledge thing, thank something (not God). However, I am amased at how this thing can exist in such a supposedly free and open country.

And it's not like it goes unopposed. I live across the ocean from you, but even I have heard of an atheist father who suied (spelling?) the school for having his kids say "under God/god" every morning. I think he won.

If you have to say that every morning in school when you're a kid, although you wil survive, you do have a notion of living in a country under some sort of god, whether your parents think that's right or not. And that is just plain wrong. If you don't care about that, fine, but don't tell me I can't.

Us polytheists would be around for hours if we had to fill the insert deities here space. u'll have to try harder.but you wouldn't feel left out like someone said you would be if we just left it as "Under God" right? :p

Of course there are more important problems to worry about, but that doesn't mean you can't oppose the "under God/god" statement. If you feel this doesn't deserve any attention, then I suggest you direct yours eslsewhere.

As for me, I never lived through the whole reciting the pledge thing, thank something (not God). However, I am amased at how this thing can exist in such a supposedly free and open country.

And it's not like it goes unopposed. I live across the ocean from you, but even I have heard of an atheist father who suied (spelling?) the school for having his kids say "under God/god" every morning. I think he won.

If you have to say that every morning in school when you're a kid, although you wil survive, you do have a notion of living in a country under some sort of god, whether your parents think that's right or not. And that is just plain wrong. If you don't care about that, fine, but don't tell me I can't.
I wish we had a pledge of allegiance over here in Britain. It sounds like a good thing as long as its worded properly (no anti-monarchy crap).

I Would Like You To Telegram Me:
Q: Have You Noticed That Our Country America Was Founded By Christian People¿
Q: Did You Know That Atieism Is In Fact A Religeon¿ (you Cant Know Theres No God. If You Think You Do Then Give Me The Evidence)
Q: Did You Know That The Bible Has Never Been Proven Wrong¿
Q: What Do You Believe In¿

Evolution Is In Fact A State Funded Religeon. There Is No Evidence That Hasnt Been Proven Wrong!!
Sincerely,

The President Of Bobsvile, J. Anderson

Q: Did You Know Theres No Such Thing In The Constatution Of Seperation Of Church And State¿

It Was Simply Stated In A Letter.

I Would Like You To Telegram Me:
Q: Have You Noticed That Our Country America Was Founded By Christian People¿
Q: Did You Know That Atieism Is In Fact A Religeon¿ (you Cant Know Theres No God. If You Think You Do Then Give Me The Evidence)
Q: Did You Know That The Bible Has Never Been Proven Wrong¿
Q: What Do You Believe In¿

Evolution Is In Fact A State Funded Religeon. There Is No Evidence That Hasnt Been Proven Wrong!!
Sincerely,

The President Of Bobsvile, J. Anderson
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!

I Would Like You To Telegram Me:
Q: Have You Noticed That Our Country America Was Founded By Christian People¿
Q: Did You Know That Atieism Is In Fact A Religeon¿ (you Cant Know Theres No God. If You Think You Do Then Give Me The Evidence)
Q: Did You Know That The Bible Has Never Been Proven Wrong¿
Q: What Do You Believe In¿

Evolution Is In Fact A State Funded Religeon. There Is No Evidence That Hasnt Been Proven Wrong!!
Sincerely,

The President Of Bobsvile, J. Anderson
Harry Potter has also not been proved wrong but I don't think u should base a country on it!

and it was, and it did. even tho the need (or phantom menace) is no longer there, there was one attempt to remove it, and it failed. maybe it will pass now? who knows.

To some Money is their principals. :p Yeah, I was kind of worried you were one of those people.
But seriously, most religions do believe in a from of God/Goddess. thus when spoken, who to say that 'God' means Jesus Christ? For Islamic Faiths, they can say Allah and no one would raise an eyebrow. for Athiest, they skip the word and again, no one flinches, or at least it can open dialouge to allow people of faith (any) to preach to those who want to learn.
By having people say "under God/god (which I recognise could mean any monotheistic god), you are making some god part of your national identity. If the president states "one nation under God" as I believe it goes, then you are excluding people who deny god from the national identity. That should not be the case, don't you think?
perhaps instead of God, you write the PC version. "... All Nations Under [insert diety if you believe in one or skip if you don't] Indivisable, with liberty... Imagine what that will cost! :D

also, I did state that after all, I really didn't care if it was in or out.

But it will take money to remove it. the debates (and our congresspeople are paid for it.) voting and if it wins, reprinting; all costs money.
So you're saying unless something is important enough to cost money, it shouldn't even be brought up in congress? Wow, that's tricky. Cause I say this is worth spending all your NASA funding on. Maybe I'm wrong, but who will decide then if it's worth the money or not?
but what I am worried about, is if the proposal for removing it fails, what then...

I predict the flood of THEOCRATIC AMERICA WINS and other such hate threads to appear. after all, the originator's post wasn't exactly a friendly opening to a debate.

or if it succeeds, you get the Christian bashing threads....
Bring them on, either one of them. I will do my best to convince people equality is most important.
so why not leave it and let the citizens say the pledge the way they want to say it. without the Government dictating what their citizens should say.
My version of the Pledge of Allegiance: "I hereby pledge my allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands, who gets payed way too much money for interfering with politics behind closed doors in a democratic society. She is the one and only possible saviour of our sorry asses in this ignorant society.

I am proud of the living standard we have achieved thanks to the money we made in the past by being responsible for approximately 60% of all the slave trading in the world. Furthermore I am proud of the fact that we are still keeping those Africans under the tight leash of poverty by allowing our farmers to export their heavily subsidised products to Africa for prices so low they destroy all local bussinesses.

I am also proud of our military, who in the recent past failed to defend 2000 Muslim people in Srebrenica and let them all be killed, simply because they were outnumbered.

I couldn't even begin to tell you how proud I am of our current government, who feel they need to cut back our entire wellfare system just because we need to "not burden our future generation with a high defisit". Instead, they destroy the education system as well, so said generation will become dependant on the social welfare they are currently destroying.

I am proud to live in one nation, under one big fat lie."

Now, should I recite that on Queens day, Liberation day or both? And who should pay for the printing?

OKAY!, by what you said right there......you just invalidated your whole arguement, i'm not going to listen to another thing you say..........thank you for all the respect :( , i don't agree with you, but i didn't disrespect you like you just did me and my religion......

Maybe not. But your religion has disrespect for ME...in spades, too!

I have been treated like garbage by people who profess to your religion more times than anyone else. Horrible things have been done to me...and justified in the name of your religion, and your God.

Yeah, I was kind of worried you were one of those people.not disappointed I hope.
If money are my principals...
*looks in wallet*
then I freely admit to not having enough principals... will you lend me some? :D

By having people say "under God/god (which I recognise could mean any monotheistic god), you are making some god part of your national identity. If the president states "one nation under God" as I believe it goes, then you are excluding people who deny god from the national identity. That should not be the case, don't you think?and if the President cheats on his wife, does that endore all cheating spouses everywhere? if the President is a sneak thief who thinks he's above the laws of the country he represents, does that make him immune to those laws?

Imagine what that will cost! :D :p I know. while I was typing it, one of those PC forms popped in. "I [insert name here]"
but then again, even tho it costs more, I will include everyone's faith, thus up holding the constitution while promoting Spiritual Welfare for those concerned with that, as well as Freedom from Religion for those who do not.

So you're saying unless something is important enough to cost money, it shouldn't even be brought up in congress? Wow, that's tricky. Cause I say this is worth spending all your NASA funding on. Maybe I'm wrong, but who will decide then if it's worth the money or not?Congress, and who elects their congressmen? the people.

Bring them on, either one of them. I will do my best to convince people equality is most important.there are alot of those threads out there, and most of them are attacking christians under the guise of seperation of church and state.

My version of the Pledge of Allegiance: "I hereby pledge my allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands, who gets payed way too much money for interfering with politics behind closed doors in a democratic society. She is the one and only possible saviour of our sorry asses in this ignorant society.

I am proud of the living standard we have achieved thanks to the money we made in the past by being responsible for approximately 60% of all the slave trading in the world. Furthermore I am proud of the fact that we are still keeping those Africans under the tight leash of poverty by allowing our farmers to export their heavily subsidised products to Africa for prices so low they destroy all local bussinesses.

I am also proud of our military, who in the recent past failed to defend 2000 Muslim people in Srebrenica and let them all be killed, simply because they were outnumbered.

I couldn't even begin to tell you how proud I am of our current government, who feel they need to cut back our entire wellfare system just because we need to "not burden our future generation with a high defisit". Instead, they destroy the education system as well, so said generation will become dependant on the social welfare they are currently destroying.

I am proud to live in one nation, under one big fat lie."

Now, should I recite that on Queens day, Liberation day or both? And who should pay for the printing?recite it when ever you feel like it. and if the government adopts it, then the government can pay for the printing.

that is completely different from "Under God", "....with liberty and justice for all white people" is completely unconstitutional, it's unethical, and it goes against everything my fathers and grandfathers, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s followers, fought for. And it goes against my civil rights. Now, saying "under God" doesn't do anything but hurt you ego and ur pride. Also, "for all white people" is singling one group out....."Under God" is not.....the only groups of ppl that are offended by it are atheists and Satan Worshippers. And also, me being Black was not a choice i had, i was born that way.....but you choose to become atheists in a theist society, that was your fault, and we shouldn't compromise because you choose one day to be "different".



oh and your just now noticing that Americans only care about themselves.....i don't agree with alot of things, homosexuality is one of them, but i don't care what you do, it's your life you do the way you want to do, all i say is don't do it in front of me.......I don't want a personal tour of your bedrooms, i want my privacy too, and i'm a heterosexual female.....and that's how i feel about it.....(gay parades and stuff kinda get on my nerves, no offense)


Well, if we HAD our rights and our equality, we wouldn't fucking NEED parades to call attention to the fact that we DON'T!!!

The quickest way to "get rid of us" and "get us out of your sight" is to finally give us our goddam rights. Most of us would much rather just live and be left the fuck alone to do it. Myself included.

Maybe not. But your religion has disrespect for ME...in spades, too!

I have been treated like garbage by people who profess to your religion more times than anyone else. Horrible things have been done to me...and justified in the name of your religion, and your God.Lyric, we disagree on many things, but I never treated you like garbage. I read your posts with an open mind and I never thought of you as "Gay" or "Homosexual" and I never thought of you as "GARBAGE.'

I know there are alot of Christians out there that will treat you the same way you treat them. infact most would treat you better than you treat them.

however, some of your posts have bordered on flaming and I would suggest backing off and taking a break from the thread. Religion is not logical, it never is. Any religious argument tends to flair to flamewars because emotions run high, like yours has.

In other words, you are starting to sound like Neo-R's opposite twin.

Lyric, we disagree on many things, but I never treated you like garbage. I read your posts with an open mind and I never thought of you as "Gay" or "Homosexual" and I never thought of you as "GARBAGE.'

I know there are alot of Christians out there that will treat you the same way you treat them. infact most would treat you better than you treat them.

however, some of your posts have bordered on flaming and I would suggest backing off and taking a break from the thread. Religion is not logical, it never is. Any religious argument tends to flair to flamewars because emotions run high, like yours has.

In other words, you are starting to sound like Neo-R's opposite twin.

Am I really being unreasonable here? i'm stating facts! Christian organizations have been the biggest roadblock to our (GLBT) people obtaining our equality, rights, and happiness.

Falwell, Robertson, Wildmon, Phelps, etc. Every one of them has heaped abuse on us...and excused it by invoking God and Jesus. every single group that has ever opposed us has always justified their opposition with relation to God and Jesus.

so don't tell me I am out of line, here.

More harm has been done to us GLBT people, in the name of Christianity...than in the name of any other organization (religious or otherwise) in the entire world.

And you bet your ass I'm mad as hell about it. I'm sick and tired of being treated like garbaghe by these people.

If you all Christians TRULY do not support the actions of these groups and these people towards MY people...THEN FUCKING STAND UP TO THEM AND TELL THEM SO!!

Your silence is your tacit approval.

P.S. Maybe I would not object so much to "under God" if GOD wasn't the very thing used to justify our oppression!!! Think about it!!

not disappointed I hope.
If money are my principals...
*looks in wallet*
then I freely admit to not having enough principals... will you lend me some? :D Sorry, quite broke here too :)

and if the President cheats on his wife, does that endore all cheating spouses everywhere? if the President is a sneak thief who thinks he's above the laws of the country he represents, does that make him immune to those laws?
The difference is, that the pledge of allegiance is a written text. Now, from what I understand the actual words are being influenced by politicians, see previous posts. This text is then recited in class rooms across the country, thereby "indoctrinating (a bit too strong a word, I think)" small children that god exists. It's not just about the president, it's about the entire people. This ceremonial text is being recited by all sorts of people everywhere and makes atheists and/or polytheists feel excluded.
:p I know. while I was typing it, one of those PC forms popped in. "I [insert name here]"
but then again, even tho it costs more, I will include everyone's faith, thus up holding the constitution while promoting Spiritual Welfare for those concerned with that, as well as Freedom from Religion for those who do not.Which is really sweet of you, don't get me wrong, but still not very good. Even in the current situation, where there is the option to say it or not say it, you are defined by choosing either way. Differences are shown instantly. Some people might accuse you of not being patriotic because you don't recite the entire pledge, but not saying "under god" has nothing to do with being patriotic or not.

Congress, and who elects their congressmen? the people.Couldn't agree more.

there are alot of those threads out there, and most of them are attacking christians under the guise of seperation of church and state.If you mean that people feel some things ought to change because they currently favour Christians, then I will not defend these things. If Christians are being flamed then I support them, as long as they do not join the flaming. This is pretty much how I deal with all people.

recite it when ever you feel like it. and if the government adopts it, then the government can pay for the printing.
:D

But seriously, you think that the majority rules in a civil rights issue, right? Well, that brings up a whole different debate I am not about to have right now, sorry if that disappoints you.

You may have noticed that my version of he pledge was quite political. Do you think that if the majority of the people where I live would vote in favour of my text it should be used on national holidays? Because it is pretty insulting to a lot of people here, I don't know if you realise that. I might even be commiting a crime by insulting the Queen here... :eek:

Sorry, quite broke here too :) damn! :D

The difference is, that the pledge of allegiance is a written text. Now, from what I understand the actual words are being influenced by politicians, see previous posts. This text is then recited in class rooms across the country, thereby "indoctrinating (a bit too strong a word, I think)" small children that god exists. It's not just about the president, it's about the entire people. This ceremonial text is being recited by all sorts of people everywhere and makes atheists and/or polytheists feel excluded. Which is really sweet of you, don't get me wrong, but still not very good. Even in the current situation, where there is the option to say it or not say it, you are defined by choosing either way. Differences are shown instantly. Some people might accuse you of not being patriotic because you don't recite the entire pledge, but not saying "under god" has nothing to do with being patriotic or not. Now, it was voted to insert those two words, then it was also voted to keep those two words. Now Athiest don't believe in God of any nature or religion. so why are they afraid of a three letter word? if their child asks about God then the athiest can explain to them What they think god is or isn't and thus "Educate" their kids. at the same time, those who are curious can persue the entity known as God on their own. "Freedom of Religion." Some say "Saying Under God" is indoctrination. but isn't removing God, removing the option for people to pursue God outside of school a way of removing Religious Freedoms? I can say Magic, play D&D and read Harry Potter Books, but that doesn't mean I believe in magic. I can play A Cleric in EVERQUEST and that doesn't mean I believe that Tunare exsists.

By removing God from every day life, you are also "Indoctrinating" kids to be Athiests or Agnostics.


If you mean that people feel some things ought to change because they currently favour Christians, then I will not defend these things. If Christians are being flamed then I support them, as long as they do not join the flaming. This is pretty much how I deal with all people. And I try to stay out of religous debates, because it's like trying to sell a car on E-bay. you can describe how the car performs, but the best way is to let them experience it themselves and let them make an Informed choice.

But seriously, you think that the majority rules in a civil rights issue, right? Well, that brings up a whole different debate I am not about to have right now, sorry if that disappoints you.not disappointed. I hate Hijacking theads. this is about "Under God." and the pledge, not civil rights.

You may have noticed that my version of he pledge was quite political. Do you think that if the majority of the people where I live would vote in favour of my text it should be used on national holidays? Because it is pretty insulting to a lot of people here, I don't know if you realise that. I might even be commiting a crime by insulting the Queen here... :eek:except alot of people won't pledge to a person. that is why the pledge states the Republic. and they also pledge to a nation to be "Indivisable" with "Liberty" and "Justice for all" Imagine if the pledge was still being said every day. perhaps the Gays would get their rights sooner, maybe hate crimes would be punnished faster. and the Patriot Act might've been different.

who knows. but I digress into fantasy [sigh]

Am I really being unreasonable here? i'm stating facts! Christian organizations have been the biggest roadblock to our (GLBT) people obtaining our equality, rights, and happiness.
{snip}
Your silence is your tacit approval.

P.S. Maybe I would not object so much to "under God" if GOD wasn't the very thing used to justify our oppression!!! Think about it!!Lyric two things.
First my post is about how you are posting. You can get your point across without the profanity and the flammage. you are breaking Forum rules.

and two. My silence is your support. I am of two minds when it comes to Homosexual Rights. So I am silent because I am split down the middle.

Q: Did You Know Theres No Such Thing In The Constatution Of Seperation Of Church And State¿

It Was Simply Stated In A Letter.

Did you know the father of the Constitution was all for the Seperation of Church and State?

Guess what his intent was?

Did you know the father of the Constitution was all for the Seperation of Church and State?

Guess what his intent was?We can all Guess his intent. but what really matters is the interpretations that the Lawyers support.

We can all Guess his intent. but what really matters is the interpretations that the Lawyers support.

There is nothing to guess:

"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"
-- James Madison

Lyric two things.
First my post is about how you are posting. You can get your point across without the profanity and the flammage. you are breaking Forum rules.

and two. My silence is your support. I am of two minds when it comes to Homosexual Rights. So I am silent because I am split down the middle.

what is there to be "split down the middle" about?? Either you support equal rights for ALL PEOPLE or you don't. It is as simple as that. no fence-sitting on this issue. These are REAL PEOPLE...whose VERY REAL LIVES are being jacked around with by intolerant fools. and I am NOT about to pay homage to the very thing (GOD) that is named as an excuse to oppress us!!

That's like asking the slaves way back when to pay homage to the Cat 'o nine tails!!

i'm not going to pay homage to the one who beats us down and oppresses us! Damned if I will.

My God and their GOD are NOT the same God. And the Pledge means THEIR God....not mine. Damned if I'm gonna even be mistaken as paying homage to THEIR God. No way, no how, no time.

what is there to be "split down the middle" about?? Either you support equal rights for ALL PEOPLE or you don't. It is as simple as that. no fence-sitting on this issue. These are REAL PEOPLE...whose VERY REAL LIVES are being jacked around with by intolerant fools. and I am NOT about to pay homage to the very thing (GOD) that is named as an excuse to oppress us!!us or them... that's your view of the world, huh lyric. is that it? thank god I know gay people that accept my fence-sitting as a choice, and not like you spouting your hatred because of how you percieve things to be.

That's like asking the slaves way back when to pay homage to the Cat 'o nine tails!!right... you equate the restriction of marriage (or at least the non validation of Same Sex marriage) to being physically beaten... :rolleyes:

sounds like the same ad that Peta uses... you know, slaves being beaten and killed equates the stockyards... :rolleyes:

i'm not going to pay homage to the one who beats us down and oppresses us! Damned if I will.Then it's a great thing that no one is forcing you to.

My God and their GOD are NOT the same God. And the Pledge means THEIR God....not mine. Damned if I'm gonna even be mistaken as paying homage to THEIR God. No way, no how, no time.Then replace their God with Your God in the pledge. or are you also not paying Homage to your God.

Lyric, you need to calm down immediately. If you continue to post with your emotions running high, you'll be in danger of receiving a warning. Take a breather, calm down, and come back thinking rationally.

Lyric, you need to calm down immediately. If you continue to post with your emotions running high, you'll be in danger of receiving a warning. Take a breather, calm down, and come back thinking rationally.

All I am trying to do is impress upon everyone exactly WHY I feel as I do about this! You can't very well ask me to praise and give homage to the very thing that is used as an excuse to dump on me!

That is not reasonable. Do you glorify YOUR oppressor, if you have one? I didn't think so. So why is everyone asking me to glorify MINE?

Incidentally, lest anyone get confused with cross-postings from other threads...

I have self-identified in the past as a Unitarian Christian. And I still self-identify as such. I merely wish to make it VERY clear that MY God is not THEIR God.

MY God is the one written of in the Gospels...you know, full of love, understand, peace, mercy, joy, tolerance, acceptance...that sort of thing.

THEIR God is the one that I object to. Fred Phelps says "GodHatesFags" on his godhatesfags.com web site. And he self-identifies as a Christian. It is Christians like him that I stand up and rail against.

I apologize if my tone is rather strident, but, I think you, too, would be awful put-off if you got treated the way I get treated by certain groups who use the cover of Christianity in order to dump garbage on me.

P.S. And the main reason I object to "Under God" in the Pledge is because I know only too well, that it refers to THEIR God and not mine. I refuse to pay homage to theirs.